cobra2411

A will is a contract. A contract is a set of instructions that one or more people have agreed to carry out to their completion or until some unforeseen event prevents that. If I contract to walk to the end of a pier next year and before I do a storm knocks the pier down then I can not complete the contract through no fault of my own. Otherwise, because I have agreed I am morally obligated to complete that contract by walking to the end of the pier. If the other party is dead the contract can not be altered to list another pier; although an alternate pier could have been listed when the contract was created stating that if for any reason I can not walk to the end of pier A, then I am to walk to the end of pier B. A good contract IMO would also list "in the event you can not walk to the end of piers A or B then the contract is ended without further obligation". However, the end of the contract without obligation is implied when you reach a stalemate and can not alter or complete it. Witnesses attest that the person creating the contract is in fact who he says he is. Usually there is an independent, unrelated person who is involved. To use you're example, you're not watching the replay of the experiment, you are there independently observing the experiment so later you can attest that the experiment actually happened. By "our representatives" are you referring to congress? That is a failed argument as they do not speak for us and they do not follow our written instructions. I fail to see how the unethical actions of the state makes contracts selectively enforceable. The signatures are a form of authentication. It says "these are my words, not the words of another". Since you have a right to property and you and only you can dispose of your property, it's important to know they are your words. Since you are not around to verify that is what you wrote, you have people witness your signature verifying those are in fact your words and intentions. Wills are contested all the time to verify them. Hey, if you can come to me with a signature from god, witnessed by two independent, unbiased persons I would argue that there is a strong possibility there is someone called god. Seriously though, signatures are verified by a notary currently using at least one form of generally recognized ID - usually a state ID. In a stateless society there would exist documentation that would be hard to forge that would verify who you are and that you are associated with a DRO for example. There would also exist independent people who's sole purpose is to verify that the identifying information contained on the card matches what they see in person. Currently it's simply a picture but there's no reason with computers that pass-phrases and such couldn't be verified against a QR code or chip on the card to provide another level of security. Notaries found providing false information would be punished - fines and imprisonment today, lower DRO rating or outright ban from the DRO system in the future. Answer this simple question for me. If two people knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter into a contract and one of them dies, does that automatically absolve the other persons responsibilities under that contract? Yes or No. If you answer yes, then we don't have property rights which is false because we own ourselves and therefore do have property rights. If you answer no, then inheritance is valid as death does not end contracts which have already been created and put in place.

I'm not saying that humans are special, but that they are different for the reasons listed above. You even acknowledge they are different when you said animals have no ethical standards and humans do. Since they are different arguing for or against principals for one does not automatically make the same argument for the other. Therefore arguing for neutering animals is not an argument for neutering humans. Yes animals have communication, but human's level of communication is at least 10 fold that of animals. Animals can use tools and perform complex problem solving but again, humans abilities are far superior. So lets look at neutering animals to see if it's abuse. It's a surgical procedure done under anesthetic by a doctor. The animal is monitored both during the surgery as well as after and antibiotics and pain medication are given as needed. Localized pain dissipates within 1-2 weeks at most and future complications are rare. Yes there are hormonal changes, but that has positives as well as negatives. Neutered animals tend to live longer and are free from certain forms of cancer. They are also much less likely to roam where they can be harmed or killed. From your arguments I'm going to assume that it's abuse because we force our will upon the animal. Animals are not capable of the level of complex thought needed to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter into agreements or contracts. Therefore we are their custodians and as such when we decide to bring them into our life as our pets we have to make those decisions for them. I don't see how making a decision about a medical procedure in hopes of producing a healthier and longer life rises to the level of abuse. Further the pet relationship can be beneficial to both the human and animal so the simple act of having a pet by itself does not seem to be abuse. Now this does mean that abuse doesn't occur or that animals can not be abused. I believe that animals have a right to be free from abuse, but there should be some foundation for the accusation of abuse. Lets go back to neutering. Female cats go into heat for 4-5 days every 3 weeks during mating season. It is very uncomfortable for them and I feel it's more abusive given the repetitive nature of it to prevent them from mating than it is for them to have a surgery. Sure, we could not have a cat as a pet, but as I've said, most pet relationships are beneficial to both the animal and human. In fact, my outdoor cats frequently return and seek me out for affection and care. Similarly my dogs have gotten free of my fenced yard and yet have returned. When I travel my one dog stands watch for me and will not come into the house for 3-4 days. She is then overjoyed when I return. Hell, even my free range chickens show up in their coop every night and follow me around when I'm in the yard. So I don't believe a case can be made that keeping pets is always abusive. Now, as a long time volunteer at a local animal shelter I see all to often cases of clear abuse, so there is a problem out there that should be addressed. I have, however, seen improvements made in how people care for animals in general; like boycotting puppy mills and adopting from shelters. Shelters are getting better at matching animal to human resulting adding value to adopting a pet vs buying from a breeder. In the case of wild animals many people build bird houses and other animal shelters. Wolves have been reintroduced to Yellow Stone park to restore the balance destroyed by man years ago which has made huge positive impacts reaching much farther than just the lives of the wolves. I read of a bridge that was constructed or is being constructed with grass and trees on top instead of a road bed to allow animals to cross highways safely. So we are learning that we can coexist peacefully with nature.

Interesting, but I'm going to tread lightly here... I got my butt handed to me as I'm really not versed enough in spirituality to coherently make arguments... I believe there is a collective unconsciousness that interconnects us to some degree. It's out there thinking but science is coming around to explaining it, quantum entanglement, holographic universe and all that. Speaking to your #1, there is a phenomenon were multiple people who have no connection with each other have developed the same ideas at the same time - it's the concept of multiples. Calculus, the telegraph, the telephone, fertilization of the egg with sperm, and many more. It could be coincidence but I believe a collective unconsciousness would be a simpler explanation given that it is theoretically possible. Once I have enough time to really devote I need to go through my spiritual believes and see what is valid and what's not. I don't believe in religion or a Charlton Heston image of god, but I do believe we are connected and that there are as of yet undiscovered concepts that are currently described in religious texts, etc.

I disagree that we are all simply animals and have evolved to be the smartest animals in the room. Biologically there is little difference between animals and humans, however, there is a profound jump in intelligence between animals and humans. It's not just simple intelligence though, we have the ability for abstract thought - the ability to grasp concepts that we can not sense. We have the ability to take a known rule and generate new expressions as well as mix and match different elements to make new concepts. We can also mix and match ideas from different domains of knowledge like philosophy and biology. We also have the ability to preserve our experiences and knowledge so it may be passed onto others. This makes humans fundamentally different than animals. Assuming however that humans and animals were simply animals and equal other than simple intelligence level; If we applied our morality then no animal could ever be killed to support the growth and survival of another. We would all have to become vegetarians. Additionally since we're all equal except our level of intelligence carnivorous animals would have to stop killing. You introduced the idea that an animal and mentally retarded person were on par or close to par then since we would not allow a mentally retarded person to kill a human to eat, then no animal should kill to eat - all animals being equal. Otherwise all animals should be allowed to kill to eat - including humans killing humans. Since that argument isn't valid then I believe the whole animals and humans being equal except for levels of intelligence must also be invalid. There is a fundamental difference between animal and human. Oh, and I wasn't criticizing you for not having a perfect solution, I was only trying to state what you had said in a different way. I do believe that humans are at fault and morally have responsibility in that regard. We just differ on what taking responsibility is. I do not believe sterilization of animals is abuse. I however, agree that sterilization of humans is wrong. I see no fault here as I believe humans and animals are different.

Humans invade an animals natural habitat then remove the natural predators. They also destroy the environment the pray animals survive on. The population of pray animals without natural predators increases beyond the ability to sustain them. Do humans have any responsibility in this and if so what should they do? As far as pets, can an animal make an informed, intelligent and voluntary choice to be a pet or not? I say no. They are living creatures with limited intelligence and a capacity to feel so I feel it's moral to treat them with respect and not subject them to anything cruel and unusual. Is spay/neuter surgery abuse? Sure, there are hormonal change and some after surgery pain but the surgery is done under anesthetic and most of the animals I've seen are back to normal the next day. Unaltered animals have a greater drive to reproduce, even to the point of escaping to make it happen. There is an overpopulation of domesticated and semi-domesticated animals which regularly get rounded up and euthanized. The failure IMO is a human one; not taking proper care of their domesticated animals. I however disagree with your assertion that sterilization is abuse. My pets live pampered lives, receive regular medical checkups and are very happy and content. They are all altered.

Airplane mechanic here, bullet holes in the fuselage are basically a myth. There is always the possibility of catastrophic failure when you introduce new holes, but largely they just leak some air. Too many and you won't be able to maintain cabin pressure. I'd be much more concerned with holes in the pilots...

Pre-TSA I have around 350k+ air miles. Post-TSA I'm lucky if I have 10k miles. The TSA was simply a bailout of the airlines post 9/11. If they were sued the airlines and their insurance companies could have had to pay out billions, but now since it's the state you can't sue them. Given the opportunity I would start an airline and allow lawful citizens to carry weapons of their choosing on board. I can hear the pre-flight speech now... "In the event of a terrorist attack your judicious marksmanship is appreciated..."

Will's a work of fiction? Surely you jest. It is very easy to create a self authenticating will. You have two witnesses sign notarized affidavits validating that you are the one signing the will. The will itself is notarized. I know this is based on current law, but I have a hard time believing that a state is required to make a self authenticating document that proves to anyone who see's in in your absence that you signed it. If it works with a state, it will work without one. So the will is neither a work of fiction or is the author in question. It is simply a list of instructions and a variable for when those instructions are to be carried out. As far as the timing, 1 millisecond before or after is immaterial. A contract is executed when all parties involved sign said contract. When the terms go into effect is the question and in the case of a will it goes into effect when I die. All that is agreed upon while I'm still alive. I disagree that contracts are invalidated upon death. Lets say my wife dies and I contract with a local flower company to place flowers on her grave every year for her birthday for 20 years and pay in full for that service. If I die a year later are they morally absolved of their contractual obligations because I no longer exist? I don't believe so. In fact, many contracts specifically state that contracts survive the death of a party. Now if I contract with Steve to put flowers on my wife's grave for 20 years and both of us die then the contract dies as all parties no longer exist. As long as the contract has been executed and one party still exists then there is an obligation to that contract. DRO's would be bound to enforce all active contracts till they terminated. False. I have a program that bids on ebay listings at any time I specify. I have won many an auction while I was sound asleep. Also, when I traded stocks I used limit orders to buy and sell and they would execute whether I was awake or not. That is no different than a contract. Once executed those involved have an obligation to follow it to completion. It doesn't imply that the contract is living, it's a set of instructions that all signatories have agreed to follow out. Yes, in my opinion it would make very good incentive to murder people to take their things. My point was that if you find something that you believe is owned by someone else then taking it would be theft. If you are interested in having said item then I believe the morally ethical thing to do would be to make a reasonable search for the owner and if that failed then you could claim ownership yourself. You are also free to leave it where it sits and walk on by...

RestoringGuy, what you describe is chaos and is logically flawed. Those who argue that upon death all rights evaporate seem to forget that contracts are survivable. If I make a contract that when I die all my possessions go to Steve then the instant I finish with my last breath, all my possessions now belong to Steve. The fact that it may take days / weeks to complete the transfer is irreverent, they are all Steve's possessions. So if I die on the street with 1 billion dollars in my back pocket it isn't abandoned, it's Steve's property. Now, the idea of walking around with 1 billion dollars in my pocket is absurd. It physically won't fit. Also, most people who have any significant amount of money have taken steps to protect it. So lets say I'm driving the rare widget-mobile valued at 1 billion dollars. It will likely be registered with my DRO as it has a serial number and my DRO will likely be informed that should anything happen to me all my possessions will be transferred to Steve. If you, not being Steve, take my keys and try and sell the widget-mobile, you are going to run into problems because the DRO is going to come back stating that it's Steve's car and you have no authority to sell Steve's car. Lets assume I have a son, Johnny, who is a minor. I can create a contract with Steve that will execute the instant I die and temporarily transfer my possessions to Steve to hold for Johnny until he reaches a certain age. My contract is survivable and would be executed the instant I died, Steve is still alive and has signed a contract which remains enforceable. This is all standard DRO contract stuff. No need for guns. Lets take it a step further. You don't know me or Steve and you're unaware of any contracts. So you take the Widget-mobile. You have a responsibility to try and find out if it's owned. It is serialized and obviously something of value. So you call your DRO, give them the serial number and ask if there are any contracts on the vehicle. You keep it safe and in your possession and after a reasonable time no one comes to claim it, report it lost or stolen and there are no contracts registered with it then I would say you are free to dispose of it as you wish. On the other hand, since I would have registered it with my DRO and it's advantageous for DRO's to share serial numbers to prevent theft, your DRO would report that the vehicle is owned and under a DRO contract. When no one can reach me the DRO will likely take possession temporarily till they can sort out what's going on. You, being the finder can make a claim in case there is no forward contract. Within a reasonable time the paperwork will filter through from my executed will and it will become Steve's car. See, no state. Now, smaller items that are not easily protected or serialized can be pilfered and it would be up to me to reasonable protect them and / or accept the loss. If I have a few hundred dollars and some cheap jewelry you may make off with it undetected. My bank cards will be password protected and any valuable jewelry will be serialized.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/25/girl-barred-from-school-for-shaving-her-head-to-support-friend-with-cancer/You must conform! So a 9yr old girl shaves her head to support a friend with cancer and the school prohibits her from attending without a wig. Dress code is for safety after all don't ya know? So many insane people who have no idea the harm they are doing simply following the rules. Every student in that school should shave their heads and stand out front till those responsible are held accountable.

I think SIP panels or similar would be the best way to go currently. Design the house and have he panels pre built and pre wired. Then build the foundation, truck out the panels, stand them up and bolt them together. Top with a roof, some on-site finishing work and done. Modular construction is nice too, but you need truck and crane access to the site.

Seems like an awful lot of work to roll out multiple sewer lines to neighborhoods. With networks it's easy to string another fiber cable along and go on your way. Now I don't see it as an insurmountable problem and I understand that asking about some of the more intricate details on how a stateless society is like asking for the complete wiring diagram for the most popular car made in 2047. I was just please that I thought of some alternatives and wanted to see what others though.

Ok, so I've been thinking more about what a stateless society will look like and how it will function and thinking of sewer / water service as well as other services that are cost intensive to roll out. It's very unlikely that such a system can be segmented to work while giving people the freedom to choose and enter voluntarily into contracts. Sure, DRO's can handle the contracts to make sure everyone is charged fairly and so forth, but it's going to be all or nothing for many people. If you have the space you can drill a well and use a septic system, but many homes are built on lots that are simply too small. Even if entire neighborhoods cut their sewer lines and make a processing plant there it still is the entire neighborhood that has to deal with it - all or nothing. The more I thought about it I remembered that boats use incinerator toilets and wondered if such a system could be installed on a smaller lot or even inside a home to handle sewer and render the solids down to ash. Liquids could be handled by first using ultra-low flow fixtures and either a holding tank or a leach field designed for liquid only. Holding tanks could be pumped at the same time the ash is removed and everything serviced by poo companies. Cisterns can be used for potable water to supply the house and be refilled similar to oil heating tanks. Not sure it would work for the smallest of the small houses, but it's all consumption based, so who knows... So I thought I'd share my ideas and thoughts and see if anyone else has given this any thought.

I'm a big fan of the TNR programs, either to a managed colony or unmanaged one. As far as spay/neuter, do you have any idea how prolific cats are in breeding? I've had foster mom cats go back into heat 8 weeks after having a litter. At 6-8 months the little ones are ready to start breeding. They don't have any real predators and since we don't really want to many natural predators around we have to do something. Most TNR people will make assessments to the cats temperament and will place it up for adoption if it's suitable. Some cats are simply feral and need to go back to the wild.

Financial responsibility of animals is one thing, but dogs in particular don't understand "It's your dog, not mine". They see the family as a pack and are eager to please to be included in the pack. Being ignored by some can cause mental instability in the animal. Just wanted to point that out. Now, as far as the cat / dog situation. As a long time SPCA volunteer and as someone who has both dogs and cats, including a cat that vehemently wants to be an outside cat, I'll say this. It's the cat owners responsibility. That can be hard to determine and if you can't, you do have some responsibility to ensure the animal doesn't needlessly suffer. That could be as simple as calling animal control to pick it up as a stray and let them deal with it. The cat was in your dogs yard and some dogs can be very territorial. Some dogs also have a prey drive and will hunt the cat as if it's food. If it were me I'd do what you did. Take it to a shelter to be adopted out. I would not bear the cost to have it nutered and then release it back in the neighborhood. My cats are microchipped so they can be identified in situations like this.

I define ignorance and ignorant people as those who intentionally avoid knowledge. That is the context of my statement. Using the more common definition I agree that it was harsh and I apologize. I need to be more careful with my use of words. In my travels I have found that people who I consider ignorant don't want to challenge their thinking and will resort to circular logic, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and many other tactics to get you to their way of thinking. Such discussions are doomed.

Why respond? Frustration I guess. There's also a part of me that wants to change the world. I realize that I can't smash people's long held beliefs, but if I can cause even the tiniest of cracks to form, over time they may see their false believe for what it is.

Don't argue with ignorant people, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Blows my mind. Even in my 20's in my darkest days of employment I still usually had $1,000 in the bank. I'll bet they have not only have a TV but have something more than basic cable as well as an iPhone or two...

You don't do anything illegal that you know about... With all the new technology out there it's quite possible for information to be stored literately forever. Given the direction that most states go, this information could later be used ex-post-facto against you. I don't mention this to be paranoid, only as a reminder to speak with integrity and understand that what you post on the internet on someone else's server, even if a private message, is not very private. If you wouldn't say it in public, then don't say it on the internet because it will be forever cast in stone. With that said disconnecting your speaker or covering a web-cam is a good idea IMO. Not just because big brother could be watching but because there are plenty of rouge apps out there. Around where I live (Lower Merion High School) the school administration was using the locating software on it's computers to spy on children. They actually suspended one child because they thought he was doing drugs. He was eating Mike & Ike candy in his bedroom. There was no mention of any nude photo's being taken, but it's certainly possible it happened or at least could have. Of course that was a quasi-state agency but the point is that with a rouge program your seemingly innocent technology can be spying on you. I also like to keep up with regular spyware and virus scans. Like Pepin I lock my computer and cell phone with a password. There is software for encryption, one source is TrueCrypt. You can encrypt a whole drive with it if you like. I did that with my laptop when I traveled in case someone other than me accessed it or stole it. You'd have to reformat it to use it. I use encrypted containers to store credit card information in case of theft I have account numbers, passwords, phone numbers, etc. Bottom line, live with integrity. I don't say anything on the internet that I wouldn't say in a public forum. If that's going to be illegal some day than so be it.

The first question I have is how do you accomplish this without a state? The second question I have is are you really upset with the wealthy or that they abused and manipulated the statist system to get where they are? I know for me the inequality that exists under the current system of statism is what bothers me. Lawyers become rich abusing a legals system that keeps the common people out of it. Doctors and the medical industry employ monopolistic protections that are otherwise illegal in any other field to gain their wealth while destroying the lives of so many. Bankers and CEO's of large corporations enjoy special protections against prosecution and receive bailouts when their performance is bad. This is all courtesy of the state system. So you are upset that the state system can be abused and wealthy people can distance themselves from the non-wealthy so your solution is to enhance the state further?

I was still a constiuntionalist when I was last called for jury duty and thus was very excited. Even then I was severely disturbed by the whole system. In a constitutional system I believe the people are the fourth branch of government and thus the concept of jury nullification is an important one. However, it was made very clear that the judge rules on the "law" and we are to just decide the "facts". Being that I'm self employed I have an instant out card if I want, however if called again I will probably go with a monkey wrench ready to toss into the gears of the state.

There was once a time that I was very much brainwashed and would blindly parrot these golden nuggets... Well, they're probably more brown in color than gold... Things like the state, god, beating your kids... Yeah, I must admit I blindly agreed without much thought on the topic at one time or another. Not having children myself the beat your kids one was the last to go. Gotta thank Stefan for that one. I was heading that way anyway, but listening to one of Stefan's podcasts made me really think and examine the topic and I was left with no plausible explanation that makes beating your kid ok. None. Well anyway today I received a post via facebook about the pledge of allegiance to the US of A and how children don't say that anymore because they're worried they might offend someone. It was followed up with the ubiquitous "lets see how many Americans will repost this and not care about who gets offended..." My response... "I grew up pledging my allegiance of an imaginary benevolent land to an imaginary all powerful being... Now we don't talk about god because someone may use the power of the state to persecute us... Yeah, and it's due to the lack of god... Try giving your kids everything they want, telling them how much they need you to survive, then slap them around and lock them in a closet randomly for arbitrary reasons and ask yourself if their resulting behavior is because you raised them without god in their lives... People now think it's perfectly ok to control others as long as they have the government do it so they don't get their hands dirty. You don't like that someone is praying to god? Go somewhere else. The problem isn't that your delicate senses are being offended by someone praying, it's that you think you have ANY authority to control someone else. I'll end with a golden chestnut... Most of the people who see this won't even stop to think about it... Bleh!"

The optimum level of government IMO is zero. I used to be a very strong supporter of the constitution but it failed. Just as every limited form of government has failed before it. There is no support that a limited form of government can remain limited. Generation after generation there is a creep that goes on till we get where we are today. Now, if you want to reform government then you first need to hold them accountable for their actions. They commit abject fraud throughout their careers and almost never get punished. The same happens with the large connected businesses. Banks make billions laundering money but pay out a few million if caught. If the fine for robbing a bank was to give back 5% of what you stole, there'd be lines around every bank in the country in 5 minutes. Hold them accountable for their actions and jail them when they do criminal things. I'm torn about how a transition to a stateless society would work. There are so many people that are dependent on the government that IMO it's hopeless to think voting will change it. Over 50% receive their sustenance from the government in the form of welfare, social security, government jobs, etc. However, math doesn't care and what mathematically can not go on forever won't. So in that end I'm voting the only way I know that will have an impact. I'm voting with my wallet. I'm winding down my business and shedding unneeded expenses, even if it's going to make life a little difficult for a while. 2011 was a great year for me and by 2015 I want to earn just 30% of what I earned in 2011. I didn't really get on this kick till 2013, but 2013 was down 35% from 2011 and this year I hope to be 55% down from 2011. I have a lot of friends that are doing the same thing.

They get a whole dollar to spend that's been stolen from all the other dollar holders but remember there are trillions of other dollars out there so it's only a small percentage of the total. With the current system we have now all banks are interconnected and essentially act as one. So if I build a house and Joe gets a mortgage and buys it from me when I deposit the money in my bank it's available as reserves for all other banks. So Jill can go and borrow money from her bank to buy something. That money will end up back in a bank to be lent out. So in the good times, the FED releasing money causes people to borrow and spend and so for every dollar they get the effect of multiple dollars being spent. Note I said effect. They are still stealing money, but it spurs on the economy. Now however, the effect is negative. For every dollar they print it drags the economy further down. Their tricks aren't working and all they're doing is looting everything that's not nailed down.