ProfessionalTeabagger

Because you'll be correct. If that's not enough then you should stop debating and go away.

Also, I wonder what he's doing here? What motivates a fascist to engage specifically with anarcho-capitalists? Is it because we're opposites?

Why are you bothering to make justifications if you're going to do it anyway? It's like saying "Will you have sex with me because of X,Y and Z reasons?" and then adding "I'm going to rape you anyway". I don't think Stef would agree with that statement. I am pretty certain he would ask you to define "harms way" FIRST.

But others do not concede. You arbitrarily claim a right to initiate force on others while denying others that same right.

Well the nap is a principle, not a commandment. I think what you are asking is whether it's a rational principle or an arbitrary one.

I thought it was funny. A light roasting.

You are not trying to get a computer to change its mind. It's just a tool that you're are trying to get to do what you want. A computer can't change its mind because it doesn't have a mind.

In order to rationally demonstrate something philosophically and/or scientifically a thought experiment must take place in reality. This thought experiment doesn't so even though in may be instructive or fun it doesn't demonstrate anything. It is meaningless. I could just make my own thought experiment to prove disprove determinism. Say we travel back in time but we change the outcome. Determinism says there can only be one possible outcome so my thought experiment would disprove determinism as you would have a reality where two different outcomes exist at temporal point X. If anything the thought experiment helps free will because it demonstrates how the self-aware human mind can simulate possible futures and choose between them. We are radically different from all other configurations of matter and energy in that regard. Your thought experiment also assumes determinism is true because you don't even consider the possibility that the outcome will change every time.

Sexy woman with big tits wears tight tight jeans / top and walks by thousands of men to see how they react. Talk about objecification of men.

If you believe that then why are you bringing it to us?

Very good. Structural violence is a superstition but if you believe in it then anarcho-capitalists won't stop you from pursuing your own structure. Why do you bring this crap to us?

What do you mean "who is to say..."? The "central agency" proposed by minarchists is subject to the same potential problems and is founded on a property rights violation. So if they say we need such a central agency then they are not thinking.

Let's hear your music then.

This made me feel better.

Is this evil?

Those poor kids.

Being more successful and happy in an insane world may require being hit. If you are not hit then then you will be more likely to understand the true nature of how the world is run and be less happier and less willing to do the things you need to to get ahead. There may be lots of immoral things you can do to make people happier and more successful.

Check out this playlist from Shane Killian: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSPi1JFx4_-H7dEU9enhqWPWoFX9rM7AW I think it may be a good idea if we more actively engage the atheist movement. Much of that movement involves advocating increases in state power. Thousands of new atheists are created every day and most of them are going straight to the left. I was one of them and I'm glad I stumbled upon Stef otherwise I may still be one.

I'm a fan of Matt Dillahunty and this group of atheists in general. Here they try to take on anarchist arguments and seem to accept fallacies which they would never accept coming from a theist. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/54225364 This is from the 20 oct 2014 show and the conversation about government starts around 38:30 mins.

The distinction is essential because we often do not or cannot give consent for things that are wanted or not unwanted.

Not having consent is not the criterion for an action to be aggressive. It has to be unwanted. Without consent and unwanted are distinct.

Why should I care if a communist gets angry with me for using a word he thinks he owns?

I think this guys passion is fantastic. He is trying to sell the idea in a positive way which is a welcome change from the anti-human, anti-capitalist propaganda many have used. The problems I have are with the first part (mostly before he shows the animal cruelty video) were concepts like "murder" are used as if it's self-evident. I ate meat up until a few years ago (and have since occasionally eaten fish) but I was not a murderer. If someone's going to call me a murderer then they need to prove that. Also there's nothing that actually proves eating meat in and of itself is wrong. It's animal cruelty that's wrong. I'm am maybe 97, 98 percent vegan (though not A vegan) and I can testify that the health benefits he mentions are true.

This article is just depressing. It fills me with a sense of hopelessness. We face a wall of belligerent stupidity.

This question and others was answered exhaustively. I'm pretty sure there was more to Stef's argument more than "he is crazy". If someone is building a bomb in the neighborhood then they directly threatening people. It's self-evident. He is a BOMB-MAKER. building a fucking BOMB. How do you know he isn't presenting an undue risk? Stef addressed that in the discussion. It's like no matter how many answers the nitpickers get they're never satisfied. You want the exact point at which a threat is occurring measured to the last atom. It's philosophical OCD.