fractional slacker

This is one I can't get away from. I watched it about a year ago and recently watched again. Where to even start?

How do you know?

Anarchistic capitalism; panarchism; disneyland archism; the words don't matter. It is the principles they represent that do matter: no rulers and property rights. When weenie, in above examples, uses the word government, by definition you are accepting the initiation of the use of force by some, but not by others. If the organization you are proposing can't initiate force, it is not government and you would be wise to not use that word. As for no proof of property rights being objective, but rather subjective. Is that an objective statement, or a subjective statement?

Never heard Stef mention Watts. FDR 802 is podcast of Stef's thoughts on Buddhism.

Another BS effect of the insane environmentalists. One of the dumbest inventions of modern society: the hand dryer. Not only are they noise pollution, they waste time, and now they are shown to spread bacteria to the surrounding area. Not to mention half the time they blow out cold air. A nifty plague to those who must use public washrooms. These things should be abolished immediately. EOR http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11243110/Hand-dryers-splatter-users-with-bacteria-scientists-warn.html

If it works, keep doing it. Perhaps the gayest video ever

I would settle for women to initiate conversations with men 50% of the time.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is how I interpret this proposition: Is it okay to manipulate a person who is manipulative?

Aside from being a typical pandering white knight, the guy in the costume is reality challenged. Ann Coulter is honest and courageous. For a statist, she aint too bad. Thanks for posting.

Downsides: it's cold in winter, a free state is a contradiction, and they will kick you out if you are Chris Cantwell or express sympathy to his views on self defense ie consistent to include defending yourself against guys in costumes.

HordOfTheFlies has hit on a key element - that of interpretation. It occurred to me the question might need to be refined. If words can be violent, would they be judged by a subjective standard or an objective standard?

Can speaking or writing words be a violation of the NAP? One argument I would like to dismiss is shouting in someone's face. Whether or not you are speaking, invading someone's personal space could be considered a violation of the NAP. The specifics are debatable, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of personal space IMO. The other red herring is the scenario where you do something akin to banging pots and pans next to someone's ear - a clear violation of self ownership, and a use of aggression. That is not what I am referring to as "violent language." The folks dressed in black robes who call themselves the supreme court are hearing a case about violent language. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2014/12/01/when-does-social-media-chatter-become-criminal-previewing-the-supreme-courts-elonis-case/

The banks long ago ceased to have any connection with reality. The bankers and politicians use word salads to suit their purposes eg steal. And why not? They have no accountability and are not held responsible.

Maybe the egg should draw up one of them fancy college campus sexual consent forms and and make sperm sign it before any penetration can occur? I'm sure the SJWs can figure out the technicalities to make it happen.

Attention Anita Sarkeesian and all other SJWs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html This kid does a good job criticizing the obvious BS involved with "shirtstorm."

Did you and your brother part on good terms? I hope you will keep us updated. Sorry to state what might be the obvious, but I think I can safely say myself and others are pulling for you.

Danielle, welcome to FDR!

Suffice to say, if your "questions" are a paragraph in length, you are well beyond the realm of inquiry and safely into the rhetoric zone. Not to mention each question has the PJ word salad ace in the hole use of his favorite NAA adjective: structural included at some point. If you are a masochist, watch the whole 25 minutes. The best part to me is the last 3 minutes where we get the black is white, slavery is freedom conclusion of: socioeconomic poverty is the number one killer and the free market is the cause of socioeconomic poverty, hence the free market is the number one killer of people.

Libertarians who recognize the principle of the NAP won't morally intervene in the affairs of others in so far as initiating force. A libertarian/anarchist works through positive re-enforcement, not via coercion and force. A libertarian group or a collection of anarchists could, in the interest of expanding self defense and the NAP, supply weapons or intelligence to a group who is being attacked. But they are not morally obligated to do so.

He cares about the dupes that followed his non-sense? What a nice guy.

Separating truth from falsehood is difficult even with tons of evidence and millions of witnesses eg 9/11, Ferguson, social security, statism as a moral and just system, etc. What rational method could anyone conceive of that would separate true memories from false memories? That's a rabbit hole straight to wonderland.

Contempt might be too strong of a word. I can't think of a lesser/better word to describe pretending to be in a social situation while in reality acting for an economic incentive, if that makes any sense. Perhaps this is a tangent, but I will throw it out there. In this voluntary trade, precisely what is being sold?

How much contempt do "celebrities" have for their fans? That can be measured. How much are they charging for a meet and greet?

"Are you with us, or against us?" George W. Bush Is feminism about equality for women or is it about controlling men? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rose-mcgowan-attacks-lgbt-community-for-failing-to-campaign-for-feminism-gay-men-are-more-misogynistic-than-straight-men-9841873.html

"A fool and his money are soon parted." Socrates did lots of meet and greets. He didn't charge for them. He poked fun at sophists.