ProfessionalTeabagger

She's probably pregnant. Is that racist?

The restaurant owner is a rotten prick. I'm sure it was to much trouble for him or her to google "How to kill crabs humanely". http://www.instructables.com/id/Live-Crab-How-To-Kill-Instantly-and-Humanely-Cooki/

I'm referring to Max Hartford.

He's already said wrong or right are meaningless and he'll do what he wants.

Yes, you're right. If there's no initiation of force involved then it's moral.

It's because it's correct.

No 1 isn't even a claim small government people generally make. It's a progressive re-branding of supply-side Reaganomics. N0 2 is refuted by the fact that America has historically had the lowest taxes but by far became the richest most powerful country ever. Citing a post-war boon doesn't refute that and many if not most companies had lots of way to escape those high taxes. People who make this claim only mention the high tax rate, not the actual tax revenue. No 2 is a fallacy. It doesn't follow that because there will be less government jobs as a result of shrinking government that those jobs will then not exist. The market will come in to fill the need. What's better is that it will actually RESPOND to need and not to government estimates of what's needed. No 4 The government ran up the debt in the first place. Government spending is less efficient at increasing the economy. I think any financial adviser would agree you should get rid of your debts as soon as possible. No 5: Government is the reason healthcare is so expensive in the first place. Historically healthcare was very cheap. Most administrative costs are incurred by government. No 6: This is retarded. He just say's "it's solid...". There's nothing to rebut. I'd like to know how you think this is AN argument, never mind a "solid" one. No 7: What's "unfair" mean? The costs he lists low income paying are there because of government.

Why? If determinism is true then Stef had no control over what he said. So the only rational way anyone should get offended is if determinism is false. Anyway that caller was belligerently stupid long before that point. Suddenly declaring he doesn't believe either of them have free will is the final insult. I thought Stef's response was correct. Personally I'd have told him to "fuck off".

What's the point of exploring all these things? There's no challenge because there's no end. You might as well be non-existent. You can't comprehend forever so you can't say anything would be great within it. Anything you ever do is literally pointless. It doesn't matter if you do it or don't because no matter what you do there's still always eternity. Nothing you do can matter in any way. Eternity cancels out all meaning in life. It doesn't follow that because you will one day not remember building the castle that you should not build it. Eternity is just a series of moments like our finite existence but if nothing ends then nothing has any value. Better never to have been at all than live for eternity. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/My_Corner_of_the_Continuum

What drives you to live if you exist for eternity?

Maybe. The driver has already initiated force so it might be self-defense (acting on the baby's behalf). Once he got in that car didn't he forgo the right not to have his blood taken in the event someone might die because of his actions? The driver's already refusing to provide proper restitution so forcing him would be justified. Some situations are so on the line it's impossible to know for sure. This doesn't affect the principles though.

Are these the only details we get. Guy playing loud music in a residential neighborhood? Are we supposed to form a correct ethical answer from THAT? How the hell would we know if you don't even tell us the basic? Here's a question for you. Bob has a bunch of apples. Susan has a load of bananas. How many oranges does their friend Dave have? You can do math, right? So answer THAT one.

No, reason told me that. Immoral theories, rules and justifications are all wrong (logically inconsistent, break with universality, etc). They are incorrect. So if you want the ethics that underlie your behavior to be correct then you should adhere to correct morality. It's just a choice. You can choose to be correct or incorrect. Your snarky question "Did Jebus tell you that?" amuses me. Because you act as if Jebus telling someone something would be wrong or somehow inferior. But unless you accept that being correct is preferable to being incorrect then you have absolutely no basis for thinking this other than your delusional arrogance. Maximizing one's own gains is irrelevant to the philosophy.

It doesn't matter whether you're a slave to logic or not (leaving aside the fact you're holding people here to a universal standard of logic). If you don't adhere to correct ethics then you'll be wrong. Because it's correct.

Reform it to what?

Start with our own lives.

What system of logic are you using to make this argument?

You trolling asshole. Then the prison owns it.

Are you a retard? Why don't you go on an evolutionary biology website and keep asking "When did the first human arrive?" or "Well where are the transitional fossils?"? You're too ignorant and/or stupid to know your question is retarded. You have 705 posts here and you still don't know that the toilet would be stolen from the public because all taxation is illegitimate. BTW, why did it have to be a "shitter"? Did you just have to be especially repugnant and trollish? Just do us all a favor and get the hell off this forum. There are enough legitimate questions to answer without having to deal with cretins like you.

Maybe you should ask ONE fucking question at a time and learn what you're talking about before you ask it? We're not here to entertain your idiocy. Also, maybe you should address the answers you were given and not just proceed to ask 5 more questions like a fucking asshole?

The OP referred to it as a tax. A tax is not a payment for services. Furthermore the OP did not demonstrate the toilet WAS the person's property. Just claiming something as your property doesn't necessarily make it so. The OP is using ambiguous language and ill-defined terms and scenarios.

It doesn't resemble it. It demonstrably violates it as it involves the aggression of taxation.

It's funny how this perfectly describes the methodology of the state.

Well obviously the current central authority of governance cannot solve it peacefully as that authority is founded on violence. Stefan has already addressed these supposed problems in his free book "practical anarchy" which you can download and listen to on this channel. The main problem the lawyer has is that every problem he posits also applies to the government.

I don't know what "obeyed above all others" means. Who said anything about "obeyed" or "obeying". It is simply correct. If you violate the NAP then your moral justification will rationally fail. You will be wrong. In the moral realm (the justifications, theories, rules, etc) UPB is the correct methodology. Just as in the scientific realm the scientific method is the correct methodology. I have not fumbled with validity and soundness. I'm sure "God said it;s good" CAN be a valid statement but as I've already stated several times it's the justification that has to be correct. A justification is not just the statement. I gave you a valid reason why "God said it's moral" fails and your rebuttal is to insult me by calling me "irredeemably ignorant". A justification that leads to contradiction is not rational. Arbitrary declarations lead to contradiction. "God said it's good" is an arbitrary declaration and so not rational. Your arguments are an incoherent mess. See how arbitrary statements fail? Make sure to tell Stef what you think of his book when you have you call-in. Don't be one of those cowards who talk shit on the boards but then suddenly develop manners on the call. That's not the argument at all? I didn't argue that they are "somehow" invalid. So if we have gone over this a thousand times and you still don't know my arguments then you must be a retard. Show me where I argued that "god isn't real, therefore God's rules are logically invalid" or take it back. I said arbitrary declarations lead to contradiction. The GOD part doesn't matter. It could be "Clint Eastwood said so" or "sahoaidhsas ijoi ojoijioj joijoij". You weren't asked for a "valid account". You just like to make up parts of the debate and argue agianst them as if your opponent said them. I asked for a justification. Again, can you provide a rational justification for rape? ANYTHING that works? It just has to make sense. "God said so" doesn't make sense because anyone can legitimately say the opposite (even if you know god said so). You have to provide a justification that when we play it out in reality it doesn't collapse into contradiction. See? We don't claim to have and "account". We have a theory called UPB. You keep holding us to UPB every time you post here.