Libertus

Take the money. You will be paying it back a hundred fold once you become a tax payer. Only caveat, you'll be paying it "back" to the state, not back to the people it was taken from. But the state has taken lots of money from your parents. This is by no means a philosophical consistent position, just so we're clear. It's just that by not taking this money, you make nobody's life easier. No tax slave will be beaten less if you don't take the money. Nothing good will come from not taking the money. However, if you choose to spend a single dime of it, you're stupid. Don't spend a single dime!. Finance your life by working part time like your colleagues do. Spend it on gold coins (bullion, not the rare collector type, I can't stress this enough). Don't be a lazy surfer dude. You'd be getting used to it and at a disadvantage later. Learn to be self-sufficient, don't get used to government hand outs.

It's really a sign of a sick society when people pay attention to what actors say on TV instead of reading up on philosophy.

The state can't pay anybody unless it takes this money from someone else, first. The state can't "create a job", it can only "redistribute" funds. And it doesn't matter if it's "hands on" stealing, murdering and kidnapping, or there's a middleman doing the dirty work for you. I'd even say, if you choose to work for the state, then at least be honest with yourself and do the dirty work: become a goon. Don't hide behing a desk.

Nobody "hates commies". That's a misconception similar to how theists say atheists just "hate god". Communists do admit that they will indeed use force against anyone who owns property privately, meaning, exclusively. And that's because they believe that you are aggressing against them, simply by putting borders around or otherwise protecting anything they consider "means of production", a vague, somewhat arbitrary term, that ranges from a toolbox to a piece of land to any natural resource. It makes no sense having a discussion with someone who threatens you with a gun (or a molotov cocktail) for owning certain types of stuff. I feel no hate, I feel sorry for them.

I was a fan of Helfeld until he "debated" various ancaps. I still like his videos where he exposes politicians and journalists, but when it comes to his own statism, he is not so Socratic anymore, he's basically a toddler. Helfeld is stuck in this loop where he can't see his own errors. He "debated" Walter Block, David Friedman, Stephan Kinsella (hilarious!), Stef and, I think, Larken Rose. Each time Helfeld commits several fallacies, his "argument" rests on unproven assumptions, is stuck on some "predictions" like "war lords will take over" and made up life boat scenarios. He has really tested his limits there and failed miserably doing so. He alienated all his debate opponents and not one of his debates was properly moderated. It was entertaining but in a painful way. In some way, Jan proves that minarchists can be the worst kind of statist. I don't believe inviting Jan to an anarchist show would be of any value for anyone. It's tragic in some ways, that his own arguments of free markets and peace suddenly don't work when somebody turns them around on him. Every minarchist draws a somewhat arbitrary line where 2+2 equals 5, white is black and up is down. At some point, their logic reverses itself, and then we need evil politicians to protect us from evil. But check out these videos, you will find them on youtube, easily.

Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

I think sagiquarius hit the nail right on the head. Let's stop pretending. What are you hoping to accomplish by telling a group of atheists that you're a Christian? Validation? Conflict? Is your inner atheist trying to trick you? Please, be honest, if not to yourself, at least with us.

You seem to be very confident and secure in not trusting yourself. You seem to be aware of your shortcomings, critical and skeptical of yourself, which is something you can be very proud of. Being you is 100 times better than being the person who makes all these bad decisions and has no clue about it. Who thinks everybody else is at fault. Who never admits a mistake. We all know somebody like that. It's not you. Start from there.

Imagine, six people being held as slaves in a work camp, one of them gets away, which is considered a crime by the slave master. Consider, case 1, the other 5 complain about the runaway, that they have to work harder now. Consider, case 2, the other 5 are happy for the one that ran away, and complain about the slave master. Does the mental state of the other 5 slaves have any bearing on the issue of the runaway violating the NAP? Is evading the slave master immoral? Case 1, isn't what the other 5 are doing called "victim blaming"?

What evidence do you have that anything in the bible is the truth? You're going to teach your kids to not believe anything without evidence, right? See the contradiction?

If the state outlaws philosophy, and I start selling books on the black market, making a profit, I'm the statist?

Nicholas: The argument was not about trespassing but about competing in the cigarette business. Garner was not detained for trespassing. And even if trespassing played a role, Garner could have just moved a few metres so he would be on neutral ground and would have sold just as many cigarettes. I feel like people who bring the trespassing argument are grasping at straws. In any case, even if Garner was trespassing (which he wasn't) and even if Garner had been arrested for trespassing (which he wasn't), that wouldn't in any way impact the argument on whether selling cigarettes was a crime to begin with or whether "harm" by competition counts as a rights violation. Shirgall: your argument is that it's "not fair" that one business pays taxes while the other one doesn't, is that correct? That may very well be the case, but how does that relate to the question whether selling loosies is a crime against the competition? I think it doesn't have an bearing. Life is not fair.

"Should I marry her", in a sense of a moral obligation, no, you don't have a moral obligation to marry her. You do have an obligation to be a responsible parent, though. "Should I marry her", in a sense of "do I really want this?" Only you can know. But ask yourself this: "What's in it for me?" Why would you want to get married? If you're only getting married because you want to avoid trouble with your gf and her family: I'd say, forget it, you're setting yourself up for much greater trouble down the line. You don't get married to trouble in order to avoid trouble. It doesn't make sense. I hope that helps. Edit: why are you thinking about this now, after you have tried to get her pregnant? It seems like, and this is just my intuition, that you have thought about this before and went "no way".

Is the title of your post supposed to be a parody on click bait titles? It's all caps, has more than one exclamation mark and tells the reader absolutely northing about the contents of your post.

They have made up their minds, it seems: Atheists are on the left, Capitalists of any coleur are supposedly on the right, along with religious homeschoolers, tea-partiers, racists and these people who block Obama from doing so much good.

Again, there's no moral choice left, so it's not a moral question anymore. He can't choose to not kill. It becomes a numbers game really quick, it's damage control and has nothing to do with morals.

Stef could maybe moderate a series of debates between Tom Woods (Anarchist, Theist) and Matt Dillahunty (Statist, Atheist). The first debate would be about methodology and epistomology - how do we know what is evidence, how do we determine whether an argument is valid or not. In the second and third debate about anarchism and atheism we will see which one of the two still follows what they themselves were saying in debate number one (of which Stefan will keep track). Let's see who argues himself into a pretzel first. I really like both guys, Tom and Matt, and I would very much prefer it if both were half wrong, half right, instead of one being completely wrong Only problem with this approach may be that Tom might not be ready to defend his theism in a debate and will instead take it down a few notches and claim it's just a personal belief of his and not a public stance. Something like that. If Matt and Stef would debate, I would prefer it to be a moderated one. We don't want one to be able to interrupt the other, and the other one to claim they didn't get fair share. Both, Matt and Stef tend to dominate a discussion, and they should both have a shot at doing it, but within the frame of a moderate back and forth. Anyone who hasn't checked out Dillahunty's videos on atheism should do it. He seems to have answers to all the arguments. He's on point, and much more rigid and logically sound than, say, Richard Dawkins. I'm a fan of atheism, and I wish someone would point out his statist fallacies - it would be best to use his own logic against him. He knows quite a bit about logical fallacies and the structure of arguments, Prep work: watch some of his videos on anarchism. I'm willing to bet, he has never been exposed to a sound argument against the state.

or for "turning a steering wheel" (on to a busy sidewalk) or for giving someone a slight push (on to train tracks) There are millions of people rotting in rape cages right now for victimless crimes like tax evasion. Pointing lasers at people's eyes, especially when they're in a vulnerable situation, putting hundreds of lifes at risk, IS an actual crime. I don't understand how you could be a gold donator here while showing a complete lack of empathy towards the victim and potential victims of a helicopter accident. What if it crashes on a playground? What if it crashes on your house? You'd be screaming bloody murder.

What you're asking is this: Imagine a scenario, where all moral choice is removed from a situation. No matter what you do, any possible course of action is goind to be immoral. I'll provide no further details, and if you add any nuance or detail yourself, I'll change or amend the scenario so you can't possibly find an escape and I don't care how unlikely or even impossible such a situation is. Now tell me what your perfect moral choice would be in this given scenario. Do you see a problem with this approach?

Sadly, I don't see Tom debate any Atheist on the topic. He hasn't responded to reasoned, sourced, well thought out comments on his Facebook page or his Youtube channel. Only to polemic and name calling. He has ignored all the good points. Deep down he knows he can't defend those long debunked sophist "arguments" against a skilled Atheist debater. Like most Theists. I mean, he's smart, he's not debating his belief system when there is the danger of being crushed.

If there was a god, and he wanted you to believe in him, and he was almighty... he could just upload that belief into your brain. He wouldn't even have to snip his fingers. Just like that, bam, you're a believer.

Debian user here. I think it has been 11 years already

I tell them, OK, fair enough, words are not important. Let's talk about ideas.

"Archos" means "ruler". Why do you think you can't live without being ruled? Is there anything we can help you overcome this?

Commentary by Austin Petersen: