cab21

so you don't have the skills to live in the stone age or experience doing so, but you want others to live in the stone age and say it's the only way? there is a difference between paying taxes and charging taxes. by not living in the stone age,but advocating that people do live in the stone age, that is like advocating that people charge taxes. by paying taxes, that does not mean i am advocating for taxes. by living in a industrial age, but advocating a stone age, that's like not paying taxes if you don't and someone nukes the world, how did your lack of living what you advocated have helped anyone? i'm not telling people not to pay taxes, just that i think it's violent to demand taxes be paid.

One has to identify what is meant to be private, for there to even be anything private that could be abused. say a nondisclosure agreement, indicating that a trade secret is meant to be kept private. this shows that some information is supposed to be kept private, while other information does not have such restriction. the parties agreed to the privacy voluntarily. contracts can create a legitimate expectation of privacy. some things are a legitimate expectation without a contract, such as property violations other things can be a legitimate expectation with a contract, such as a contract that states what a property violation would be, between those otherwise engaged in a contract. what are some examples of "beyond that"? you owning you covers any example of privacy i am thinking of at the moment. that would include that someone elses thoughts are not yours to share and withhold as you see fit, if that someone else did not consent.

a will is written by a living person, not a dead person.

so why is the worker undervaluing his own wage? the employer makes a offer, and the employee can take or reject it. how is a person automatically entitled to a job, or a certain wage, without negotiation? who decides the proper value of the wage if not the wage earner and the wage payer?

you are the one recommending going to stone age living, so why aren't you?

the elementary school looks like the common factor here why are the parents putting their children in elementary schools, and what is the philosophy of such elementary schools? if so many in elementary schools are hating learning how to read, then take a look at what elementary schools are doing, or why is the child even in the school.

companies would not function the way they do today, if people followed anarchy capitalism. problems you are bringing up are because of certain government policies (which neither minarchists or anarchists subscribe to) , rather than anarchy capitalism or minarchy with free market capitalism.

so using your terms government is a libertarian contradiction by definition, so why even ask the question? anything that could be consistent, is by this definition not government by these terms.this does not seem to be looking for any kind of answer, as any answer it said to not be government by definition.

these will happen with or without a government. so the matter is how to deal with them. a government would not legitimately do any of those things. non government would not legitimatly do any of those things either. the rule is do not violate property rights of others. so the government would follow that moral reason. government does not have the right to initiate force, it has the right to respond to the initiation of force. government is the institution people rational pick to defend property rights the people already have. this was what minarchists philosophy was calling for, we don't have anarcho capitalism either are the dro's competing for different justice procedures? dro one captures and sets a trial in front of 1 judge dro two gets a warrent, then captures, then has a trial by jury among other constitutional procedures. dro two costs more, takes longer, has more requirements but which one is more just? or there is dro 3 do nothing dro three is cheapest and least violent on part of no self defence at all.

the reward the child gets to learning how to read, is to be able to read, i don't see how a bribe would help that? a parent reading to the child, maybe the child will want to be able to read by himself too?

so if the negotiation does not work, and the kid still does not want to learn to read, do you wait for the kid to intrinsicly want to learn to read, or what? negotiation implies that the person can say no. noone said force, but you did say "Who's to say they will ever have the desire to do it intrinsically?" so what if the child never wants to?

who is to force them if they don't have a desire? i dont have a intrinsic desire to be a pro wrestler, and im not seeking to become one i did have a intrinsic desire to read, and i learned. is it the parent or the child that matters?

why is she not getting out and doing the 4 miles with you? waiting till they have the desire to do it themselves. why do you want the person to read before the person has the desire to do it intrinsicly?

then say it's objective that for certain moral goals, humans need government. objective law, requires everyone be a part of it, because otherwise subjective whim rules over objective law. a certain piece of land cannot have competing claims for ownership, where each claim is correct. that is a contradiction self ownership is a principle i dont think government claims ownership over other people people working together to protect their own self ownership. if someone does not subscribe, the person will only be dealt with if the person violates the self ownership of someone who is part of the government. government talks about a geographic area, the geographic area of land owned by the voluntary participant of that government. i might need to say funtion instead of government if people are defining government in a way where it's a contradiction by definition.

the morality of rape is up to principles take the non aggression princiciple rape breaks the prinicple the government system proposed does not. if people don't want to be part of the government , they don't have to, but they still don't get away with breaking the nonaggression principle just because they choose not to be part of the government. the role of government is not to break the non initiation of aggression principle, but to have objective procedures and laws in place when people do break the principle i am aware on the transcript, and i can clarify what i meant if asked.

i pointed out that the morality of government is just as objective as the morality of rape. i spoke as if anarchy in rape as subjective each court has its own rules on rape each court has it's own law. a government would have objective rules on how rape is tried in court

there is a difference between defending government as is, and defending a concept of how government ought to be. a proper government would not raid your property because you posted a photo on facebook of you smoking a blunt. a proper government could raid your property if it followed correct procedures and had a warrant for your arrest based on evidence that you committed a murder, for one example. the non-aggression principle cannot be defended by a anarchy where organizations compete against the nonaggression principle. each competing organization would have to hold that principle for the non-aggression principle's enforcement what you want does matter as far as your political philosophy goes. a murderer does not submit to a trial voluntary, so a theory of how to deal with that situation seems proper the formation of the government is voluntary interaction, the trial of the murderer is not all voluntary interaction, since the murderer does not volunteer for the trial. should the response to rape be subjective or objective, since the immorality of rape is objective? is a subjective response from competition of how people respond better than a objective response following objective procedures?

day 1, i will hire a organization that says i cannot rape day 2 i will hire a organization that says i can rape day 3 i will not hire a organization at all are you suggesting that organizations that defend rape compete with those that defend against rape? or there is the suggestion that organizations compete, but both compete on how well they defend against rape. through contracts therefor it's voluntary do you want a DRO where each partie can opt out at any time for any reason? that at any time for any reason its moral to rape if someone chooses it's moral to rape instead of the agreement that it's immoral to rape.

keeping with rands writings from above "government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." it secures the consent of people it claims to govern through those people's thinking it is rational to consent to such a organization and then choosing to do so. those that don't consent, are giving the same rules as those that do, in that neither are simply left along if they want to initiate the use of aggression. registration is a way to get consent from those that choose to be part of such organization. if someone says "i don't recognize your homestead as your property, and i am going to take it from you for my good or the public good." , such a government would defend against that sort of property violation. people that don't consent do not get a free pass to rape, murder, steal, and other methods of initiating aggression. a government is not going to say it needs consent to use a anti missile system to intercept a missile fired upon a homesteader by someone who wants to take the land. people face consequences if they don't certain things the threat of defensive force if someone murders or attempts to murder is deemed by some philosophy as good, so that people don't go around murdering each other at whim and the rule of brute force is not law. someone can always disagree with such a system of banning the initiation of aggression by going out and murdering someone or raping someone among other actions of initiation aggression against others. i have not said anything defending the currrent usa mafia or suggesting a mafia like institution

by this, ayn rands objectivist government would not be legitimate. we don't the minarchy that rand was advocating. so talking about what nonminarchist governments do, is not talking about what a randian minarchy would advocate for. people are controlled by the use of force, so one would have to look at when people are controlled. if force is only used in retaliation, then force is not used in initiation. so people voluntarily agree to be part of a organization that only uses force in retaliation.

a group of people is society. that does not mean each individual thinks he/she owns another individual or the society as a sum of individuals.

what does that have to do with minarchist libertarian/objectivist definitions, morals, and principles?

the citizens would own the land, the government would not own the citizens. ( im just going for correct identification of the theory, and then it can be argued why anarchy makes more sense after that) "The source of the government's authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose."

what definition are you using for each government- A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area. slavery - Condition in which one human being is owned by another. say the statement is "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

im not sure they think of it as slavery, but give them the argument. DRO wise, minarchy could just be thought of as it being rational that individuals in a area have 1 DRO and that DRO is good