Chaoticoli

" If the accused in the fundamentalist town agreed to leave, he would be aquitted of his "crime" with no restitution owed or he could choose to pay restitution to his accuser and he would be allowed to stay." So, one can break the rules of a society and then just leave with no consequences? Let's say an Atheist consumes alcohol in this society then decides to leave, but unfortunately, while the atheist was drunk driving, he killed a person. How do you pay restitution for a life? Is the "restitution" determined by the people in the town? Is the primary difference between anarchy and democracy is that you have the ability to opt. out (despite the initiation of force)? Abortion's was not of particular value. I was just trying to find an example which would not fall under the NAP/universal principles and not be able to be sorted out through contract. I'm sure there are some examples you could think of.

I use Facebook to discuss philosophy and try to openly challenge my own beliefs in a public forum. I hope to change other people's minds and to question others into a logical corner where they logically can't disagree anymore. Facebook opens you up to a variety of new ideas. I hope that I evaluate a large amount of ideas in order to gain the best perspective. I have always believed that you can learn anything even from some of the most idiotic people out there. A goal of mine is to utilize every person in my community to my benefit. It's a win-win situation.

I will check out those readings soon. In the meantime, how is "natural law" determined and by whom is it determined? Is it determined democratically? I just feel like there's some grey area there. Are there any situations where contracts are not good for the situation and a universal principle on the issue can't realistically be determined? One example I can think of off the top of my head is the issue of abortion. You can't have a contract with a fetus (no pun intended). U.S. law allows abortion in any state. But, determining whether abortion is right or wrong has seemed inconclusive. If abortion were really murder, doesn't the fetus have protection through the non-aggression principle? I'm not trying to open an abortion debate, but rather just obtain a better understanding of what a society does in a given situation. Hopefully science resolves these kinds of situations .

Hello. My name is Oliver. I am 18 years old and have been studying politics for 2-3 years now. At first, my favorite philosopher was Ron Paul. I used to believe that anarchy was simply impossible, thus, was not worth bothering with. I was a Minarchist for a long time. Now, I wish to explore anarchy and spark some interesting conversations about it. My Facebook page is:http://www.facebook.com/chaoticoliI use Facebook to discuss philosophy and try to openly challenge my own beliefs in a public forum. I find that if I am unable to comfortably express my opinions in front of my friends, how dare I safely present my opinions with people who have little concern for my well-being? I think that vulnerability and honesty go hand-in-hand. If you are unwilling to really show your true side and display your real intent, then you are most likely not worried about positive change, but rather, making sure you win your battles. I am always willing to admit that I am wrong. My views have changed drastically over the years and I hope that they continue to change (in accordance with reason). One thing I really want to work on is my arguing abilities. I find an issue I come across on Facebook when I argue is that I tend to not argue efficaciously. I will waste time trying to answer every what if question instead of sticking to the crucks of the matter. I hope that in this forum I will engage with others to help improve my logical abilities . Anyway, I am open to talking about anything which is remotely stimulating. Please, show me the ropes of the forum and make a man out of me!

Well, I was under the impression that just because a society is anarchistic does not mean that it doesn't have laws. So, if a society determines some laws, but still has no rulers, does that mean it's still anarchy? If so, what exactly is the difference?

I don't understand what ya mean.

I am new to the anarchy scene. I used to be a minarchist. What really changed my mind was the Non-Aggression Principle. I do have one concern, though. What is truly the difference in determining law between a direct democracy and anarchism (despite the initiation of force)?

I have never seen Stefan claim that he is a social determinist. I have never even seen him claim that genetics are less of a factor in determining violence of a person. Other than what you think his implications are, do you have any proof which shows either of the previous statements' truth? Here's what I've unraveled in my head: Stefan emphasizes the importance of fixing problems which you know you can fix and putting more of your efforts into those areas. Additionally, the development of a child's mind is most influenced in his/her's earlier years (between birth and around 5 years old). Given these assumptions, nonviolent parenting between these years is essential in creating a nonviolent child. Social science causality is merely impossible because of how many variables there are. That's why statisticians come in and eliminate as much bias as they can.

I realize I am a little late to the conversation, but, from a practical point of view, I don't think the "hereditarianism" part of the equation is necessary because it is practically inevitable. That is just an assumption, but would you agree with it?

Just curious about your view on this topic. Sorry if this is too broad of a question, but do you hold the parent accountable for any act the child does (before this vague definition of "adulthood")?

I definitely second that it should be put on Facebook!