alexqr1

War: Poland and Germany are only countries because of the initiation of force of their states upon it's "citizens", without the states there is no Germany or Poland. It would be just a group of people initiating force against another group of people.Arrest: There could be laws, dictated by the owner of the place. I for one would not go to a restaurant where shooting at people was allowed. I don't think any anarchist would disagree with you here, but how is that an argument against anarchism?

Negative rights are derived from self-ownership, thus as objective and true as self-ownership. "Property rights are not rights. They are logical extensions of the biological fact of self-ownership." So if you own yourself and as extension you own your property, both objective claims, then wouldn't the right to defend your property be equally as objective? This also applies to your body, and that is self-defense.

I've also bought and used and iPad but I have no idea how to make one. Whatever argument you can assemble using pure logic is valid regardless of you being a parent or not. 2+2=4 even if you are not a mathematician. BUT, a mathematician will likely have more knowledge in order to reasonably resolve more complex mathematical problems. A parent will likely have more knowledge to combine with reason in order to find solution to more complex parenthood problems. "you don't have kids so you don't know" is an incorrect statement but not because we have all been children but because it is an ad hominem proposition. I mean, If a statement is logically correct, then it doesn't matter who says it. As far as anecdotal evidence, I am a parent and at least in my personal experience, there are so many things I thought I knew that I did not know before being a parent. My personal experience as a parent has given me a lot more knowledge, as raw material of logical conclusions, to deal with parenthood problems. Again, that is not to say that someone who is not a parent can be right where I am wrong, it is all about logic. EDIT: after reading my post I thought it sounded ambiguous but I hope you get my point.

I disagree, you do have negative rights. Both property rights and right to self-defense are negative rights.In this case though, You have partially waived your rights to self defense in order to work where you work. If it is not permissible by the owner of the establishment and you agreed to the rules you have to either abide by them or quit or have a conversation to try and have the boss change the rule.So no right supersedes any other right ever, in this case you are trying to defend yourself in a way that you have agreed not to defend yourself.I would also suggest having another conversation with your employer and maybe build up some pressure by having other employers weigh in the conversation.

1. Similar or equal? (I hope you understand the importance of the difference)2. Importance to whom? what is your argument for that? 3. This point is obviously not true 4. The problem with #2 invalidates this 5. Where do you get the "should"? Is this your personal preference? 6. Irrelevant to the argument. 7. Again, how do you go from is to ought? What is your logical argument for this. Sorry, It is not my intention to be mean, but your lack of argumentation and logical inconsistencies are too grand to even start a debate. If you are truly interested in these topics then it would be great if you researched about ethics and meta-ethics to present a valid argument or at least one worth debating.

Sorry I do apologize, I meant that self-ownership is NOT descriptive, it is a fact for the reasons I already proposed. It is not subjective but an objective fact provable by a priori logic. The fact of self-ownership is neither normative nor descriptive ethics, there is no ethics involved in it. The ethical implications that we can derive from such a fact are however deontological, thus normative.

Self-ownership is descriptive. It is factual for the reasons I already proposed. Individuals originally own themselves, it is part of their nature and that is descriptive, it can not be any other way.Partial transfer of the ownership of the self can be achieved either voluntarily or by coercion, this is where morality and ethics come in. Self-ownership is descriptive. It is factual for the reasons I already proposed. Individuals originally own themselves, it is part of their nature and that is descriptive, it can not be any other way.Partial transfer of the ownership of the self can be achieved either voluntarily or by coercion, this is where morality and ethics come in.

Which is why slavery is immoral. Sorry I thought I was clear with that. I could had included them it is just that not being universal then they are irrelevant, so instead of 4 possibilities we would had had 4+x where x amount of possibilities are not universal and inconsistent so they would not be applicable. It is impossible for 2 or more possibilities to be true at the same time. I cannot own myself and at the same time be owned by someone else. Or I cannot be owned by everyone and at the same time not owned by anyone. Slaves: It is precisely because their capacity to control themselves has been coercively removed that the interaction is immoral. Pointing out at slaves as a counter-argument against self-ownership is like pointing out at theft as a counter-argument for property rights. Or like saying murder is not immoral because some people murder.

The following possibilities The following possibilities are the whole universe of possibilities regarding ownership of humans, they are mutually exclusive and one most be true:1. Everyone is owned by everyone2. Everyone is owned by a limited group of individuals3. Everyone is un-owned4. Every individual is owned by him or herselfThere may be other possibility which are both not universal and inconsistent, for that reason I did not include them (e.g Some are owned by others some are owned by themselves and some are not owned)Now, given that these 4 are the whole universe of consistent and universal possibilities, and that one must be true and only one can be true, then if we could dismiss 3 of them then we will have our answer.1. Everyone being owned by everyone is a universal and consistent possibility, however it requires that everyone would have to agree about everyone else all the time, which is impossible.2. Everyone being owned by a limited group of individuals (which may be as small as one when it is not the same individual in question) is a universal proposition but it is not consistent. Who decides who owns who?3. A state of non ownership would immediately turn into self-ownership because if our self is not owned, then as soon as we control it and posses is we acquire it and own it, so non-ownership is an unstable proposition which cannot exist.That leaves us with 4. We own ourselves. This is a universal and consistent proposition which can exist in reality.Self-Ownership is not a desire, an opinion or a craving, it is a fact.

I think the clue is "myself".

I do not claim to know what your parents were thinking, it is easy to see they were wrong and you have all the right to question them about it and hold them responsible for their actions. It is good to know if you want to be a good parent you would read and inform yourself. Some people are so absorbed by their issues that they don't even see the necessity to do it. Does it mean they are right? No. If you think your parents did not have good intentions then who am I to question that and say you are wrong. I would tend to believe you because you are in a way better position than me to judge. I am not talking specifically of your case, but rather, you cannot jump to quick conclusions and just assume that because a parent acted in detriment to the child, then the parent did not have good intentions. I know having good intentions do not justify actions, if a parent acts in detriment to the child then the parent is 100% responsible, I am not arguing otherwise. Good intentions can lead to wrong actions, that is true for parenthood as it is for everything else.

I never claimed that lying was right, in fact, is specifically said it was wrong in more than one level. My issue is with automatically assuming the intentions of the parents were to disregard the well-being of the son, which may or may not have been the case.I'm 100% with you on the fact that the action taken was wrong. Sorry, are you saying that any action parents take or mistakes they make towards the child imply ill intentions towards their kid?Is it not possible that a parent can make a mistake that harms the child and then because of the incapacity of the parent to deal with his or her own issues then he or she is not capable of dealing with the mistake that was made?I know there are ways to communicate a death to a child, that is not my point. As I stated before, lying was wrong.

Well that is quite a statement. We do not know that and I think it is irresponsible to jump to those conclusions.I have a problem with the FDR community constantly confusing wrongdoing by parents with bad intentions by the parents.In this case, maybe the parents were really worried about LP's feelings as a 4 year old and so they lied. The action is clearly incorrect in more than one level, but how do we go from that to saying they acted in self interest disregarding that of the child?

Good and bad are only applicable to ethics or subjective valuation (opinion). There is no ethics involved here so saying a song is good or better than is a matter of opinion.Sure some music is more complex and sophisticated that other but you should not say it is better. It is only better for you or for me or a group of people, but not intrinsically better.

NAP is not the base of the ethical argument but a result of an objective ethical theory (I don't mean UPB). One should not argue whether or not a situation is ethical because the NAP is present in the interaction but instead whether self-ownership is respected or not.

You have no obligation to yourself, there is no self-ethics because of the fact that individuals own themselves. Ethics deals with negative rights in the absence of an agreement and negative rights are impossible to be applied to onerself. Ethics also deals with positive rights acquired through an agreement or contract and it is impossible for you to have a contract with yourself.

Objective morality is derived from the objective fact of self-ownership.Check out this video and let me know if it makes sense:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31PfA_bATr4&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw&feature=c4-overview

Hello. I'm sure the situation makes it very difficult for your daughter. I am not experienced dealing with that situation myself, but I do have a 2 and a half year old so maybe something I say may be useful to you. If I understood correctly, she freaks out because you are trying to teach her to feed herself. If that is the case, them I would suggest not trying to teach her. Let her decide when she is ready to learn, she will let you know. If you continue to feed her, she will eventually try to get the spoon from you and freak out if you don't. Something I have learned with my son that has been great for our relationship and his development is that I can "suggest" what he can learn, but it is ultimately up to him and he makes the decision. When he was ready to learn something he became curious and he found a way to let me know even if he could not talk yet. I think parents tend to believe we are there to teach, when in reality, we are there to facilitate learning. I hope that helps.

How?

1) There is more than one logic 2) That sounds good in theory, but it would not work in reality. 3)Hmmmm you are right... let's change the subject then

Well you would have to prove that you first attempted to collect the dollar without the use of violence and then that the use and extent of violence was necessary (or at least that you thought it was at the moment) for you to recover your dollar.For example, you would have a tough time proving that abducting and keeping someone in your basement for 3 weeks was necessary to recover $1. Normally, reaching into someone’s pocket and taking $1 without that person consent would be a violation of his right not to be bothered, but if that person has waived that right in your favor, and non-violent ways have proved unsuccessful, then reaching into his pocket to get your dollar back would not be immoral. Killing him and then taking your dollar would obviously be excessive and unnecessary, thus immoral.This is where the DROs would likely come in, but that is more pragmatic, if you want to stay on the ethical side of the conversation, then I’d say that any force more than the necessary would be immoral. If there is no action (praxeological), then there is no ownership. Let’s take a dog for example (I’m more familiar with dogs than horses). You can’t predict human behavior with certainty, but you can predict a dog’s behavior. Say there is a starving dog with no previous negative reinforcement against it taking food from a plate. If you leave a plate full of food next to the dog, the dog will take the food. You can bet all your money that will happen because there is no action. The dog does not make the decision to take the food or leave it, it just reacts according to its instinct. The only reasons the dog won’t take the food are because it physically can’t or because of negative reinforcement (like someone hitting the dog every time it takes food from the plate) or because there is a physical or medical situation.The same is not true for humans. Humans act. There is a decision involved in the situation. Say there is a starving man with no negative reinforcement against taking food from a plate. If you leave a plate full of food next to him, you cannot be know for sure what is going to happen. Maybe the guy is on a diet, maybe he is on a hunger strike or maybe he wants to break a record or whatever. There is a rational decision involved.That is why the man owns himself and the dog does not. No problem, I really don’t feel the knowledge is just going one way in this conversation. Your questions are thought provoking.

I fail to understand where the similarities are. One is coercive the other is voluntary. I may want to sell you a popsicle that will make you live 200 years and it is up to you to buy it or not. It is completely different from forcing you to buy it whether you want it or not.

Of course person A does not cease to own him or herself. What I propose is that person A immediately waives some of his negative rights which in turn become positive rights for the affected individuals. Kind of like a person who steals a car has waived his right not to have the car plus damages taken from him. Thad does not mean the person who stole the care ever ceased to own himself nor does it meant that he waived ALL of his negative rights. You can’t kill a person because he stole your car.As I propose in my theory, you can only waive negative rights voluntarily, that is, either by contract or agreement or by directly and voluntarily violating someone else’s negative rights. The theory I propose in the video is consistent and based on objective principles. You can apply those principles to all human interactions. If person A steals $100 from person B then person A waived his right not to have $100 plus damages taken from him in favor of person B. Person B now has a positive right in relation to person A where person A has to give B $100 plus damages or risk having it taken from him by person B.

Agreed, you can not take those things back, but my point is you are justified to use force if necessary to obtain restitution from the one who assaulted, raped or murdered. Force, of course, would be the last resort. However it would be ethically justified in the case of resistance from the original attacker. I'm not dealing with the assessment of the debt here, but whatever that debt is, force is justified to take it back if other non-violent means fail.

Suppose you are walking on the street and I pick your pocket, now I have your stuff, your money, credit cards, etc. If you had the chance, do you think it would be immoral to use force to stop me and take your wallet back?