ProfessionalTeabagger

You don't know that's why Johnson and Farage stepped back. You're just asserting that without any proof. The plan is simple. You invoke the articles that for leaving and then leave.

You can choose those things. You don't have total control but you have a little. Changing your beliefs or desires does not mean having total control over them.

Determinism does mean things don't change in a sense. Everything would be pre-determined so what happens tomorrow is set as a matter of natural law. It cannot be changed and you'd have no control it whatsoever. You only experience the illusion of change and control. Things happen but that's not the same as change. Change involves a change in the future which determinism precludes. Thinking does preclude determinism. In thinking you can know and project the future and so can change it. For determinism to be true there can only be one possible future. But when you can think there can be many possible futures. You can choose your thoughts even though they individually arrive involuntarily. You can set the criteria by which the mind throws up thoughts. You can control the mind. It requires focus but you can clear your mind of thoughts right now, stay alert and wait for a thought to come to your mind. You will notice there was a you separate from your thinking. Looking at as one thought to the next is missing the woods for the trees. It's like looking at between two brain atoms to find the consciousness. You need to zoom out a little. Your thoughts are not just random (like crazy people's), right? You can have some control over what comes up, what is focused on and the context of the thought. And those actions lead to certain other thoughts popping up that would not otherwise have come up. So you are to some degree choosing your thoughts.

We've seen how mainstream science treats people who argue that race is a valid biological classification. The subject is virtually taboo. Unless the scientist is arguing that there are no biological races then they face ruin. http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/30/human-races-exist-refuting-eleven-common-arguments-against-the-existence-of-race/

Man can will what he does and so can will what he wills. You can choose to follow your desires or not follow them or you can choose to generate new desires. You can't exclude the doer from the process of willing because the doer is part of it. We're not subject to the determined factors that began with the big bang anymore. Unlike all other matter and energy we can project futures and act according to them.

They would also then own the moral obligations towards the child/you. What is the argument you're making?

Sharks might be subject to the NAP. How it applies to certain animals hasn't been fully explored yet. Maybe you can't murder a sahrk but torturing one might be just as much of a violation as torturing a human.

I don't know what "a future result in reality" means or how that's necessarily deterministic.

No. Maybe you mean something different by deterministic. There are many types of determinism. Right, so the NAP has truth in it. If moral theories, justifications, rules that violate it all fall into insurmountable contradiction then that tells you it's a correct moral principle. A principle is a foundational rule or proposition. The NAP is a foundational rule, so it is a principle. I see you later say it's a principle but how does that gel with your claim that the NAP is a notion.?

No it's not deterministic. It's a rational principle. If you violate you will be unable to rationally justify your behavior.

No, hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction are only emotional preferences. No, preference is an emotional value judgement.

There is no truth in the scientific method. Only a way to achieve to particular preference. Valid statement?

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux.mp3

The wilderness outside the given state area. The state claims the right to initiate force (which is not dependent on my belief but a demonstrable and admitted fact). So it doesn't matter where you go on the planet. You can't leave the state. Even if your already rebutted claims about landlords (you voluntarily contracted to pay the landlord, you were not forced to like you're forced to with the state) were true then it would still not change my argument. You can't leave the state. What "many people" would have is irrelevant. "Many people" are belligerently stupid retards too. So what?

Not that it matters morally in this context whether you can leave the nation or not but you can't leave the nation. Leaving the state would mean you can go somewhere that the state claims no right to initiate force on you. But the state has no such barrier. Even if you go live in the stateless wilderness you'll probably be left alone. But the state still claims the right to follow you and rule you if they consider it necessary. Once an institution claims the right to initiate force then no one is free from that.

People already own land by virtue of existing. You occupy space and necessarily require certain resources like air and water, etc. A society doesn't acknowledge things. There's no such thing s a society that can acknowledge something. There's only individuals. You can homestead some actual land and no one can rationally argue with you. What would they say? What makes anyone say you're not entitled to a certain amount of land?

I'm very sorry for the extreme abuse you suffered. Your parents are criminals. Your anger at those who profess the virtue of their faith is justified. My attitude towards Christianity has softened considerably but from time to time I feel nauseated when I hear some pompous Christian supporting child beating or talking about the great virtues of believing something that contradicts the evidence. When I listened to the video I felt pretty uncomfortable with the idea of using faith to give purpose and strength back to Europe. It's quite possible the Christianity contributed to their evil and justified it. The Bible does advocate child abuse.

Please, please stop.

I don't know what you're talking about? What is the argument here? Okay so who owns it in that case? No the fact you can distinguish between the two is that one is voluntary and the other is coercion. Why do I care what Marxists think? I do understand that people disagree with the foundations of my arguments. That's why I'm on a philosophy board debating those foundations. You equivocated on "stolen" here. You used the concept in two different senses. In the first sentence you said "something isn't stolen" and then in the the second sentence (in the same context) said "be considered stolen". But whether something is stolen because people consider it stolen whether stolen is objective regardless of what other people think is at least partly what's being debated. If I steal the use of your vagina then that's rape. It's rape whether or not everyone is convinced of something. Property is objective. I don't know what failed to assert by being overpowered means. You keep browbeating everyone with your notion of property/ownership. I get it. You think property/ownership is a social construct. Got it. Make an argument or go away.

What it seems like is irrelevant. I've never said someone doesn't own something when they've successfully defended their property right. I'm not even sure what that means. If a woman fails to defend the property of her vagina does she then not own it? Slaves where effectively stolen property. The fact that we can distinguish slaves from employees is itself proof of the objective nature of self-ownership and as such the objective nature of property. You don't acquire self-ownership through defending your self-ownership. That's clearly retarded. Smarten up.

Unless the landlords stole the property, no. Property is created. People often conflate property with something like homesteaded land.

Good for you buddy.

So you DON'T want to multiply your wealth? Wouldn't you use this simple method for others then? If you can turn a million dollars into hundreds or even just tens of millions then there are vast numbers of people who will invest in you.

If it's relatively simple to multiply wealth without intellect then I assume you are very wealthy, right?

No, he earned 10 billion dollars and is demonstrably self-made. He got a loan from his father of a million. You bald assertion that he could have just invested that in index funds is horseshit that dishonest anti-Trump propogandists like to spew. First, looking back at the market and saying if he'd done X he could have made the same money is an obvious fallacy. Second tens of thousands of people ahd that much money and more but made nothing from it. Very, very few made as much as Donald. He also continued to make money on TV in the hundreds of millions. His academic performance points to a a high IQ. You;re saying you see nothing that points to a high IQ but you admit he's got a higher IQ than average. That means he's got a high IQ.