cab21

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp it would be interesting to hear thoughts on this article and it's logic. "Whereas the principle of egoism is the recognition of the fact that each person should act to promote his life and is the proper beneficiary of his own life-serving actions, the principle of rights is the recognition of the fact that in order for a person to uphold the principle of egoism, he must be free to act on his judgment. The former principle gives rise to the latter." this is part of the article near it's conclusion

whats the point of the story if it's just about 5000 people eating food for 5000+ people? one would have to look at the motivations of those telling the story. commentaries i have read suggest the intent is to indicate it was a miracle of feeding 5000, without the food for 5000, showing power of god. showing "god" not working through the free market principles.

its a system of competition and cooperation depending on the context people try and get people to voluntarily trade with. it's certainly not a system of cooperation to force others to trade with you or to steal from others there can only be cooperation in a system of free trade and competition.

luke 9:13 says that the total amount of meat was not enough to feed 5000 on its own. the apostles say they don't have enough food, and would need to go to the market to buy more food in order to have enough food to feed all 5000. this is assuming the story is real and correctly recorded, which is a question on it's own

one thing i would be wondering is what kind of differences this makes for those that are ancap christian, and those that are ancap athiest, or other religion? i would see a danger in statist christianity, but not in ancap christianity in the same way. is this saying in the future ancap christians will have be part of what ancap athiests will not be a part of? would the ancap athiests have a choice in the future to have what the ancap christians have, instead of what the ancap athiests would not have?

which acts will be possible for humans?

the parents are a start, the community the parents are in is a start, someone who wants to adopt the newborn is a option. people that accept the baby is a start. a community or individual that does help a new born, is then able to trade with that newborn once that newborn grows. people that think it is worth taking care of the newborn can do so. this is not to say community's or helping each other is to be forced, but community's and individuals can choose to create and distribute the wealth the individuals and communities create. some people take great pleasure in taking care of babies, those people adopting from those that had babies but don't care for the baby the same way, is a way of taking care of the babies. a baby might be separated from one person, and connected to another. perhaps someday they all connect, but this connection is not to be forced.

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger. so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread. is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?

a newborn is simply going to die without help from anyone. a newborn does get help from people, and that helps the newborn grow into a person that can own things. that is different from a newborn, automaticly owning a part of everything without helping anyone else.

aren't there stories in the bible of god making 2+2= 5? luke 9: 10-17 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish serve 5000 men till the men are full, and there are leftovers. how do we go about recreating this?

using force to defend, maintain your own property is not breaking NAP. it's the initiation of force that breaks NAP, not all force. it's the initiation of force that is wrong, not force to defend against others that initiated with force.

people don't own land by planting a flag around land, but by using the land you don't need permission to use what nobody owns. people don't own land they never used, people have the right to own unused land, after they use it. the land ownership of a house has measured dimensions, not arbitrary. to say everyone owns everything, and any one person needs to get permission to use anything, from everyone so if one person wants to eat a apple, that person needs a vote from 6 billion people in the world to get permission to eat a apple or be called a theif?

NAP theft is wrong going into someones house and grabing things one does not own or have permission to grab is theft theft is not NAP it is ok to respond to theft. If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you CAN use force to prevent that if the people are commiting a act of theft. if the question is what belongs to who. then you look at NAP as part of libertarian property theory

why is 80-90% of what you buy crap? why don't you decide to not buy crap? you decide to not buy crap, a market can't decide for you to not buy crap. what is crap to you, you don't buy, do i want something i have not thought of yet? yes, if it solves a problem that i do have. problems that people have drive markets, not products that people invent to solve those problems people can work for wants, or they can work for needs, people can decide what they need, and what they will do in order to fullfill the need to get what the person wants to purchase. how did you come up with this?

Private education is open to many forms of decision making. owners can be all sorts of situations.

Free market capitalist wise, I'm not sure I would say there is a healthcare "system". People are free to create their own systems and live by their values and live by the consequences of their actions and values. One person sells "don't smoke" Another person sells "smoke" Person buys "smoke" The fate of a smoker can't be blamed on the person selling "don't smoke". Insurance is not healthcare at that; at most it's one method of payment. Again with the person selling not smoking vs. the person selling smoking, not smoking is cheaper in that people don't need to buy anything to not smoke, but people do need to buy to smoke. diet wise, some diets are sold as more healthy and cheaper than other diets, and people still take other diets, so consumer choices has little to do with what producers are actually selling on the market.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15213 "We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system." are you suggesting that dying at 80 is worse healthcare than dying at 81 and spending 1 year on life support? healthcare has little to do with how long someone lives, as people can be kept alive and be miserable. healthcare is about health, not how long someone lives without health.

how did you come up with this hypothesis?

ill check out the artists mentioned ok, lets see if i can brainstorm a something out of this pick a piece of artwork you think fits into a anarcho capitalist philosophy. complete this process for the artwork. write about what the piece of artworks invokes in you emotionally write about what associations you feel when looking at the artwork. write about how the artwork represents a anarcho capitalist philosophy create a piece of anarcho capitalist philosophy artwork , and describe how it fits with this assessment style. create a graphic design for a book cover on anarcho capitalist art history.

"it only effects me" is a poor logical argument. what matters is if there is a violation of non-aggression. the moral argument could be " it is not a act of initiating aggression against others." a libertarian argument i think looks more at means than ends. it's not whether something causes a positive or negative effect, but whether it was a act of initiation of violence or a voluntary act. sure people can have opinions about it, though legal theory is more about law and than what people have opinions about. so someone saying that there should not be government drug policy, and that private drug policy is logical and correct, could be thinking in that legal framework of contracts. put your boss on here, it would be interesting to hear the argument from him.

Who uses this argument of "it only effects me", I don't think I have seen it? I have seen, "the act is not violent and the act does not trespass against others", but i don't think i have seen that it does not effect others. i have seen people saying drug policy should be a private matter, and not a government matter, but i don't think i have seen arguments against private drug policies in libertarian thought or that "it only effects me". the libertarian thought i am more used to is if the act violates non-aggression or not, rather than who does it effect. the secret formula for a recipe effects me, that does not mean the company should be forced to give me the recipe. it would mean i am not allowed to break in and steal the recipe. someone starting a business effects me, that does not give me the right to demand that the business stops doing business because i would rather the business not start. i could give a proposal, but not force the business to stop. someone breathing has a effect on you, do you think that gives you the right to stop the person from breathing, to keep the person breathing, or overrule that persons choice to breath? there is monkey see monkey do, and there is humans see, humans choose to do or not do look at the NFL, stories of people surrounded by drug use, who chose not to use drugs, and now are professional football players. These players were effected by the drug use around them, and choose to take a different direction. the words "possible" and "encouraging" are not words of forced drug use. The presence of people not doing drugs is just as "possible" and just as "encouraging". This person has loved ones and noone notices for a week? Johnny's pot use. if the team had a drug policy, and johnny violated the policy, johnny breached the contract. one would look at what contracts johnny had and did not have. someone choosing to have hurt feelings is not a act of violence by itself on the part of the person doing the act. a person can choose to have hurt feelings because someone else is simply breathing and alive. there is a difference between using force against someone, and that someone having hurt feelings. choosing to end a relationship can hurt someones feelings, but i would hardly call it a act of violence to choose to end a relationship. if "effect in others" means its your business, everything is your business. how much effort are you using to chase after everything that effects your business, vs some things that effect your business? why say "all drug use", then list forms of drug use? you already mentioned "all drug use". the argument is pretty much at "all" effects you. are you suggesting that you get to be the supreme dictator or try and police everything? there should be no limit of "our society", since "all" effects you and not just "our society". the nature of a galaxy far far away effects you and all the universe.

free market capitalism, is a specific form of capitalism, which does have rules that capitalism does not have. libertarian free market capitalism is not a form that allows for slaves. a system itself does not do all the police work, but people following the system would not have slaves.

Genus wise, what other Homo brains do we have to study? Family wise, what other Hominidae brains have been studied/ do we have to study?

how far are people going to take this no government stuff? Far enough to find another person who is also against government to live with? Far enough to trade with people who are also against government to obtain shelter? if people can't help each other out who are against government, what use is there of not having government? the house owners could decide that living in the house is no longer a option, as the person with a fundamental difference with the houseowner. if the conversation was put here i could tell better what she said.

this can be something for you to work on. create the art school you wish you had and wish for others to have. find the people that are doing it as well, and interested in doing it. who are some artists that you prefer from different types of art, and what are some styles you prefer?