QueechoFeecho

Did you guys RTR in any recognizable way?

Many strawmen hunting libertarian phantoms can be speared with praxeology. Asking for definitions is an even simpler route.

Cufflinks are always appreciated.

Some contenders for least overall government involvement in no real order... Electronics Retail Landscaping Painting buildings Author Musician Fitness trainer Chess tutor Math tutor Custom manufacturing Nutritional supplements Toys

The buyer of a government asset could make theirpayment to everyone who isnt buying it. Some clearinghouse type function would be needed. All that aside I see only a gradual transition and not an instant one.

In case it is helpful to any...podcast 1670 is on Narcissism. The very beginning goss through definitions and traits of them and different kinds of them. As I listened I played the game of checking people in life who were like or guaranteed narcissists.

I am picturing a large auction. I am having trouble coming up with who receives the proceeds of the auction.

The topic is complex enough without bringing inflation into it. It is only tangential to this thread.

<ninja risk acknowledged> So what if intellectual property isnt protected by a coercive state monopoly? What do you think happens then?

Prospective spouses should follow the usual rules of rational discussion, meaning defining what it means ahead if time. Seems wise for all [intended-to-be] long term relationships.

I think it would be very helpful if definitions were established as a starting point.

I literally laughed out loud when i read "nigga ass gook".

What is your question?

The video makes the mistake of equating cost with price.

Printing costs go way up with tshirts.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. Good point, for real.

I like your approach. I hope one lands on my car!

Those five points and the Stockholm Syndrome would go one one of a set of liberto-anarcho-voluntaryist flashcards. I wish those existed. It might be cool to make a bunch of sets of them...one for each distinguishable ideology.

I didn't claim that consent has more than two possible states. A process can involve multiple transactional steps, for example two. It is possible for one transaction to be voluntary and the other one to be involuntary. For example: Robin Hood. First step is to steal from the rich. That is involuntary. Next step is to give to the poor. That is voluntary. There is no single status with regard to consent to describe the entire process of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

RTR is interally intense to implement in real life. The reason none of what it is meant to address has already been addressed is because everybody's brains are wired to seek pleasure in avoiding all the things it is meant to address. That was an awkward sentence.

Right here i think you're contradicting yourself by saying both "No" and "the future me is more important than the present me". It might not be that obvious, but in a way, you are saving for your future self. I can relate. When I was in college I remember having a few thousand dollars in my bank account and finding great comfort in that mainly because I observed friends all around me that were having trouble either paying rent or paying tuition or buying books or whatever else. While I didn't do most of the spending many of them did, i simply felt comfortable knowing that IF there was something I wanted or needed, I could do it. Those things rarely occurred, but just knowing I could swing it was the source of utility for me.

These situations aren't all-or-nothing. There are several steps of transactions involved in the entire institution of education. If at least one can become voluntary rather than centrally-controlled, then how is that NOT a step in the right direction? Any opportunity to introduce choice or voluntarism or fair exchange seems beneficial. Perfect? NO. Better than before? I think so.

I deserve a half-slap for nitpicking, but it isn't clear to me that this is a "paradox" so much as a contradiction of intentions/goals/wants. FWIW - I will go half-slap myself in a few minutes so you don't have to!

I'm pretty sure you already know the answers to the questions you asked, specifically the ones about paying based on value vs paying due to threat of violence. Nobody is disputing that at all. Ok, I agree with you on your last line. Don't let gesture be the enemy of rational thought. That doesn't prevent me from also applying "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". In this case I view the change as good, and therefore support applying the change despite it not being perfect. Is my thought not rational?

I agree largely with the OP in that this is a step in the right direction. Is it all the steps needed to reach an ideal state with no aggression? Nope. Not even close. But it is at least an attempt to recognize the idea that compensation based on the value provided is a concept worth applying. Even if it is applied in an imperfect manner. This is a situation where I would say don't let perfect be the enemy of good.