Pepin

To clarify, not unethical in the sense of the NAP, but unethical in the professional sense. For instance, in the business world, accepting a business deal where there is a conflict of interest is considered unethical. Was there a violation of the NAP? No, but it is not seen as valid practice. In the same way, scientists torturing people might create an uproar, regardless of if they agreed to it or not. As far as my thinking on professional ethics goes, I see it mostly as very serious aesthetic ethics.

This is a good point. There would also be the issue of sick employees who choose to go to work anyway producing far less than usual. I wonder what the numbers on this stuff would look like.

If it is a right, it does not entail automatic protection. Being able to keep one's possessions does not entail the lack of theft. It does not mean that you ought to feel comfortable counting money in shady streets. It is important to look at the risk of any action, not because there ought to be a risk, but because there will always be a risk. Rights are maintained through self-defense. To say one has a right to their property means that one has a right to use violence against those who attempt to steal their property. To say one has a right to wear what they want is to say that one has a right to use violence against those who attempt to force them to wear otherwise. To suggest that one change a behavior to lower their risk is to appeal to those who do not wish to use violence to maintain their rights. It is completely fine if you want to fend off a rapist with pepper spray or a gun, but many people prefer to avoid violence by lowering the risk of a rapist approaching them in the first place. It wouldn't be right to say "men, stop raping" because the category men contains very few people who would ever commit such an action. Aims at educating predators is best focused as it is a waste of time to educate the 90% of people who are not even at risk of becoming a predator. Worse, educating predators might not be possible, making aims to change their behavior quite mute. This is why focusing on changing the risk is far more plausible as a strategy. It is valid to say "women, be weary of drunk men" as the victim group is statically general with the predator group specific enough to be significant Really, I think we ought to tell all people not to drink until blackout drunk. If men are statistically more likely to become violent or annoying, I think it is valid to focus more on men than women. But as stated above, context is important. The message is likely to hit most of the people who are at risk if broadcasted at a college frat, not so much at a IEEE club.

It is important to define what you mean by anarchist society. What we tend to mean is a society which fully acknowledges the NAP. Statelessness is an effect on the societies implementation of the NAP. What others mean is simply a society without a government. The obvious issue is that a society without a government doesn't entail the NAP at all. Granted there weren't any voluntarist societies like this in the past, the question becomes a bit mute. But to play with it anyway, one answer is if a society were to play by the NAP, then capitalism would have flung the society hundreds of years ahead of all other societies. Another answer is to accept that it may not have been possible in the past due to a numerous amount of reasons, but that it is now possible because of light speed communication and WMDs.

Wiki is a pretty good source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_rejection I don't think Stefan has said it is like torture, yet it is like physical pain. They've done some studies where they find physical pain receptors light up when someone is ostracized. Extended periods of ostracism might be like torture, but I'm not sure if it would be scientifically valid to say so. Really, experiments to confirm such a hypothesis would likely be unethical.

Harm is subjective, but preference is the essential measurement in regard to ethics. How one determines if an interaction is rape is by looking at the individual preferences. One person's wanting or not wanting to have sex with the other is the only way of telling if it was rape or love making. What matters in 99% of circumstances are the preferences involved at the moment of interaction, not future unforeseeable benefits. The 1% of exceptions are cases where you have to push people out of the way of a car to save their life. It may violate their immediate preference, but this is only due to the lack of knowledge of the situation.

There are a few ways of defining ethics. In a more general sense, it would be more accurate to define it in terms of human interaction as opposed to human action. I think it would be most accurate to define it in a UPB sort of way, such as "ethics is comprised of claims of behavior which can or cannot be universalized according to individual preference". It may sound a little complex, but essentially any ethical claim can be put through the test of universalization and other simple tests in order to be classified as ethical, unethical, or unrelated. If you are writing this for a paper, I would reword it to make it a little more clear. There is the objective concept of beneficial which considers what is best regardless of individual preference, and then there is the concept of what individual benefit. As an example, in Game Theory there is a scenario called the prisoner's dilemma, which considers the overall benefit to both parties against the individual benefits. What I think you want to say is that if we consider the ethical theory that what is beneficial to a person is what is ethical, then we can then test this by applying it universally. You might want to rephrase the paragraph as responses might be "what does Bob the murderer care about the other's preference?" or "there is nothing stopping Bob from murdering Jane" and so on. I might advise setting up the scenario in a way which both parties will behave according to the rules 1. Both people consider follow the rule of "individual benefit" 2. Both parties will follow any ethical conclusion 3. The rule applies to all people and not just them This positions you to go through each person's preference and to derive their actions according to their preferences. Yeah, the contradiction there is that the theory which is supposed to rely on self-interest would depend totally on another's interest. The solution is just to realize that a conflict of self-interests defaults to no action. If Bob wants to kill Jane and Jane does not want to be murdered, then the answer is for no interaction to occur; Bob is not to murder Jane because each individual's interests are not aligned. In the case of trade, if Jane wants a cheaper price than Bob is willing to sell, then the answer is for no interaction to occur; they are not to trade as each individual's interests are not aligned. Personally I might put it more it more in the context of UPB, but what you are arguing is in many ways the same.

I'm glad my parents never called my cell much growing up. Really I am glad my friends don't either. Eh, talking on the phone is annoying.

I don't think it would be immoral to lie about your sexuality to your parents, as your parents have no right to know about your sexuality, though I think there would be an aesthetic issue if your parents made a contract with you with a sexuality clause. If I was a judge, I'd have a difficult time accepting any contract which had a clause pertaining to the sexual orientation of the child, as it is something which the child has no control of. I don't really have a definite answer. I don't think the parents would be able to use force to get back any money from the child. But I don't know if the child ought to be viewed as slimey, or as caught in a bad situation with irrational people.

First I'd like to praise you for thinking about a subject which is so very difficult to think about when you are "raised" religious. I don't think people understand the strain and mental effort you have to overcome in order to start thinking clearly about the subject. Even if you always had doubts, it must of put a large strain on your relationships. Can you provide more details on your situation? How many years till you graduate? How does this relate to your family? What would their reaction be? How do you feel being around religious people? Pretty much a general rundown of your thoughts and desires.

Not at all, as the sentence quoted is based on a claim I evaluate to be true, which is that people ought not commit rape. I don't believe any person should commit rape I am a person I should not commit rape My reason for following it is because I think everyone, including myself ought to follow it. As to why I believe people ought not to commit rape, well that is a question separate from why I personally choose not to commit rape as I would provide whatever arguments which back up the claim that "people ought not rape". If I was to make an argument in favor of the claim that rape is wrong, I would provide an explanation of property rights and make a case for their protection.

It isn't exactly normal, but since you likely aren't experiencing any negative health effects from it, it isn't something to worry about. I don't believe there is anything to indicate that not dreaming is a result of any of your life choices or anything that happened to you in your past, you may just be an outlier. I am going to guess that a few people here may say it is good or bad for x or y reasons, but I don't think there are any scientific ground which these claims can be made as the studies done on these people find nothing. So long as you are not experiencing any negative health issues from it, it is likely more neutral than anything, omitting the inability to analyze dreams for self knowledge. I do know there are a few conditions which cause a lack of dreaming, something to do with the hippocampus, but you'd be aware if you had that as those sorts of conditions are quite serious. Personally I am envious as I don't like dreaming. Sometimes they can be alright, but for the most part I wish I didn't dream... Or sleep for that matter.

Depends on your value system. If you rape is a good thing despite any ethical argument against it, then what reason do you have to be ethical? It is one of the biggest problem with ethics, that bad people are not concerned with ethics, while good people really care about ethics and being good. This is to say that you should want to follow correct ethical theories because you value justice, goodness, and living an ethical life. Personally, I don't want to cause harm to others, nor do I want to live in a society where might makes right. I follow ethical claims such as "do not rape" because I don't believe any person should ever rape. Now of course, there is nothing stopping you from raping besides your victim or someone who intervenes. Ethical claims are not like laws of physics, they do not force you to do anything. If you don't want to be ethical, you don't have to follow ethical theories, just as if you don't want to be healthy, you don't have to follow theories of health. What may seem confusing about all this is that the concept of justice, virtue, and ethicacy might seem a bit vague. Really, when you say you value justice, all this means is that you have arguments in response to whether an interaction was just or not. If I ask you "should people ought to rape", you might respond with "well no, because it is unjust", but you are more likely to respond with "no because it causes long term damage to the victim, there are morally opposing rules for the victim and the rapist, violence is wrong, there is no reason for rape to be needed in a modern society, I find the act appalling, ect, ect", though you are more likely not to throw every possible argument out there, but rather the best one. Through doing this, you are providing a case for one instance of justice, which it to say that it only answers one question about what is just. Someone who did not care about justice would not take the time to make any argument about why particular actions were just.

Have you not done any research on the subject? I am not being critical, I just find it a strange question for someone to ask who hasn't just been introduced to the NAP. If the NAP is something you've just started hearing about, I can recommend a number of books and videos on the subject, with Stefan's "UPB: The Book" being a great one. Perhaps this is an idea they recently heard about and are trying to figure out if there is a theory behind it, or if it is just a commandment. It can be a little confusing with the common use of the NAP term as it sounds like a commandment. There is also a strong Christian bent in libertarianism which believes in actual commandments, which also might create some confusion.

Did not read the full story, but I will agree that repressed "memories" have little value. I can back this up with research and books if needed as it is pretty well demonstrated that human memory can be very faulty and the propensity for false memory is very high. In IFS it gets confusing as some parts are often very naive and can have little sense of fiction and reality. Though it has been a while since researching IFS and I have never been to an IFS session, I am pretty certain that the majority of therapists are aware of this. It does seem though that IFS and repressed memory therapy might be a bad combination as the openness of various parts, especially neglected naive parts, is likely to be far higher. I am not arguing that these parts ought to be ignored or that they have nothing to say, but rather that it is beyond best to be skeptical about any "repressed memories" that the part "reveals" I do think that repressed memories do exist, but a limited degree. In my experience and in reading others, what is repressed from the memory is the emotion, not the memory as a whole. For instance, I recall being hit by my grandmother for listening to witchcraft. My previous perception of this was that it was I stepped out of line and the punishment was for my own good. What I repressed was the anger at being abused. The memory remains completely intact, but the experience of that memory is changed. For a young child being molested by a relative, the memory is likely to have stayed intact, but the perception of that memory is likely to change. The perception when at that age might be a bit confused but not at all horrified, in teenage years just trying to forget it happened, and later years horrified at what occurred. Though the memory remains intact, the perception does not. I'm not providing the above as some sort of proof or anything as it is outside my qualifications, but I do think that it is important to be weary of the prospect of false memories and to devise methods to determine if they are true or false.

To point out the obvious, these programs are intended to create short term economic stimulus. The objective is not the future, but rather the present. Most of it has to do with improving the current public opinion as well as improving economic numbers. Political parties are only concerned with what will affect the very next election, which creates many programs that have a short term stimulus with a long term loss.

I come up with these at times. I will use italics to make them look cooler. If you often wake up on the wrong side of the bed, get a circular bed. The best time to practice patience is when you are impatient. My life does kind of revolve around me. Evil people learn from history the most. The best way to get money out of politics is to start with taxation.

Yes, the total wage would be lower than otherwise as the employer is not going to give a raise. To do some math. If a worker earns $10,000 a year working 1000 hours with no sick days, they earn a wage of $10 an hour. 10000 dollars per year / 1000 hours per year = 10 dollars and hour Since the annual wage will stay the same, the worker will have to work more hours to counteract the sick hours If the worker gains 50 hours of sick hours, then this accounts for $500 from their pay. sick hours x wage = pay deduction 50 hours per year x 10 dollars per hour = 500 dollars a year To calculate the worker's new per hour wage, it is (annual income - sick income) / hours worked = adjusted wage (10000 dollars per year - 500 sick dollars per year) / hours worked per year = 9.5 dollars per year Now I didn't have to do all that not so fancy math as most will understand it intuitively, but I just felt like doing it. The main caveat to make is that this would not have so much of an effect on those who are currently employed and productive, but rather with those who are seeking new jobs. Some employers may lay off their employees because of this law, but granted the terms aren't too outrageous, it won't be too many. It likely would have an effect on your future income if you were already employed, but initially it would be a decent benefit to you as they aren't going to decrease your wage. It is like how if the minimum wage got moved up to $10 an hour, I would benifit from this initially as my productivity exceeds this and I would be kept at my place of employment. But for others, and for me in the long term, this would have quite negative effects.

There is always much more context to any event. With the example of ISIS, foreign intervention was the cause of their formation. Of course from our perspective they are just some random group which came out of nowhere who for some reason want to kill us, which leads to the perspective you illustrate in your post, but in actuality they are not an uncaused anomaly and intervening more will only create more groups. It isn't an easy problem to think about because we want there to be an easy solution, to just be able to ride in and set everyone free by killing the dragon, but there is so much complexity to any possible interaction that it is difficult to say if there are any cases where intervention could cause more good than harm. To be more blunt with my retort, there is little to no evidence which demonstrates that intervention in the modern age brings any positive result in the long term.

Question 1) "Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned." - Do you agree? Some small portion would be, but it is important not to conflate the immorality of the government with the immorality of its subjects. As a general rule of thumb, trades which occurred without violence can be considered to be valid as any compliance with the law was at the point of a gun, and any trades which occurred at the point of the gun would be invalid. Provided that we are right about ancap, there being a problem in transition to a voluntarist society is a good thing as it demonstrates a decrease in violence. There of course would be some issues and ambiguities, just as there are with those who profited from slavery prior to its abolition, but that does not invalidate the solution. Rather it is more of a reason to implement it, as it solves the problem of wrongful ownership. Question 2) Once a stateless society emerges, who owns what? Do we abandon all current ownerships and collect private property in a giant free-for-all? This assumes the previous assertion is correct, which it isn't. As far as government "owned" property, there would be many different methods of dealing with that problem with the best coming out on top, which is the point of capitalism. Even if it isn't handled very well or very fairly, is it that big of deal? If the biggest problem with ending slavery was who the plantations would belong to after, isn't that kind of a non-problem? Even if the plantation owner still retains ownership, isn't that a smaller matter to deal with than the ending of slavery?

They are correct depending on your location. Many small towns around here have about a voter turnout of around a hundred, so you do have some influence. From what I've heard, it is somewhat common for single votes to matter. Personally, if my town had a vote for legalizing marijuana or prostitution, I'd vote for it. I tend not be very pragmatic in most of my opinions, but I think possibly preventing hundreds of people from having their lives ruined for smoking a plant is enough to outweigh my dignity. I don't think people who advocate voting are correct in general. I'd say there are a few clearly defined issues in which you'd be voting to stop the initiation of force, but beyond that, voting and politics is a waste of time.

I feel like this is relevant.

I have been thinking for quite some time about would convince me of a god's existence. It is a difficult question to answer as it is difficult to come up with anything that would convince me. For instance, even when I was "religious" and "believed" in a god, I had a vivid experience which seem intended to convince me that god was speaking to me. This is similar to how you just kind of know things in dreams, like it was sort of self evident that it was god and that he was communicating with me. I ignored it with the presumption that I was overtired. I can imagine anyone having such an experience, even strong atheists, being convinced by it. The fact that I for whatever reason could just shrug off a religious experience likely indicates that no experience could convince me, as I could always interpret it as a hallucination, or aliens, and so on. Of course I ought to be more tentative, as there may be some sort of experience that would push me in a certain direction, such as thousands of walruses break dancing to the beat of hissing snakes, but I really doubt that there is anything that could put me out of my atheism... Yet recently I came up with an idea which proves this wrong. It is one in which would certainly convince me of the existence of god, and I would not just see it as a crazed hallucination. You see, if god is all powerful, and we accept that there is nothing conceivable that could convince me of god's existence, then god could convince me of his own existence through his power and override any sort of doubt of insanity by arranging certain parts of my brain and leaving the rest intact. Yes, this sounds really dumb, but it is true, not just because god forced me to believe in him, but because I would take the sign of change in belief as a proof for god. Now of course it isn't an actual proof for god as it could be aliens, a bump on the head, or some strange experiment gone wrong, yet it doesn't exactly matter because I am already convinced. It might be true that in objective reality, there is no proof for god, but god's indoctrination of myself would be good enough proof for me. For anyone who doesn't speak english normally, I am not exactly being serious in this thread, though I do think it is a proper answer to the question "what would convince you that god exists?". Seriously, brainwashing seems to be the only answer.

I think it is valid to say that Islam is a religion which is currently more dangerous than others. Certainly in the past other religions were far worse, but that is a completely different topic.

According to a definition, a parasite is "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return", which certainly pertains to most sociopaths. Would you agree in that application of the word?