bugzysegal

Yeah. If it is a permissible response under NAP and property rights...why would you call such actions wrong? Like I said, I might be missing something big here as I'm a bit new to this

But how if there is no propotionality? I might misunderstand the NAP.

Please tell Texas that, that would be excessive. Person was acquitted for killing a man who stole $20 from a tip jar. Another was acquitted for shooting an unarmed 13 year old boy for breaking in to steal snacks. Are you not in anyway incensed by incidents like these? How could one not call them wrong? If anything has intrinsic value, it's human life.

Wasn't the original question about mutual rape? That was the conclusion, no? The actual question the thread creator asked was based on a false premise, that two people can rape each other simultaneously because of alcohol. That confusion comes from people trying to redefine consent such that it is impossible to be given if someone is at all intoxicated. Thats where the continuum slipped in, and I got sidetracked no?

He's replicated his results with others.

I have literally no problem with your views of two people getting drunk and having sex. Of course that's not rape granted there was sufficient context to imply consent for both. That scenario however, straightforwardly follows from your beliefs about motor control and responsibility (if that's all you wanted to read, stop here). I know that I've departed from the original topic of the thread and that is because in the process of evaluation related arguments, new questions arose. The questions that are easy to answer aren't always the most important and the questions that live at the fuzzy edges of morality aren't always irrelevant. Would you say that sex with someone who is completely unconscious is not rape, if they chose to knock themselves out for whatever reason? If you say no, on the basis that they have no motor control at this point and thus could not give consent, I wonder if that's not quite right. That would be equivalent to saying that sex with someone who is about to pass out is moral, but the second they do...then what? Driving a car is high risk behavior, but I'd stop a friend from getting into an accident if I could, especially if she was only driving because her brain chemistry was screwy due to a poor childhood(referencing Stefan's views on why people do drugs).

Is there specific language in my statement you disagree with?

To which video? Or which videos specifically contradict my version of UPB?

I'm curious, do you think you would have turned out a Libertarian with no sympathy for indigenous people, had you been born among them? Bad philosophy is dangerous, precisely because it threatens the thinking and actions of future generations. Don't think that highly intelligent people can't adopt terrible philosophy. Hell, the entire world was beating their children until recently(where now slightly more people parent peacefully). The whole idea as that they don't have any bargaining power as it stands, because of immanent domain. At least they could hold developers up for millions, or even yet say "no." As it stands they don't have that ability so long as some developer can convince a panel of judges or one judge in some cases that it is in the "public interest." Also, they have little resources to take action if they are agressed against by predatory businesses. What would stop someone for drafting a contract, stating that the signee releases all right to title, in exchange for 20 iPhones, then that person poses as a representative of the state and communicates through translator that if the indigenous people want to remain on their land, they must sign. You could easily defraud a whole group of people who don't have an ability to fight back.

Also, it's nice to see this. I didn't think this was going to be the divisive part of the issue honestly. You're holding current genreations responsible for the mistakes of past generations, merely becuse they share genetics. Collective responsibility is antithetical to Libertarianism is it not? Also, just to be clear, I'm under no delusion that my actions as a lawyer will somehow solve the problem of the state. Such a thing can only be accomplished through spreading philosophy into the zeitgeist. However, helping individuals in accordance with Libertarian principles, might be something I am good at and is something that I desire very much.

I agree. Would they qualify as homesteaders in some cases? IF that's the case and they own the land, they could sell it, if they wanted to, for as large a sum as they liked. I think the state, in many cases, steps in and declares "eminent domain", gives them no choice because it's for the "greater good", and throws what they think is market value at the victims.

Do you, or have you, drink(drank) in excess? Yes by drinking to excess she exposes herself to the possibility that she will have high risk sex, but to say she ordinarily would do such a thing is quite different. To say she drank with the intent of that eventuality....I snowboard, but I don't intend to fall. However, gravity is a cruel mistress. The difference is, gravity doesn't have the choice to not make me fall.

Strictly on philosophical terms, the argument for deterrence is social utility, one which I assure you runs against the Libertarian grain. That is why this is somewhat concerning. Why should we admonish something we have no moral compulsion to? Is it like admonishing someone for liking chocolate ice cream? A libertarian must say yes, and yet this feels wrong. This is at least my understanding of how the arguments would play out and labmath2 seems to be under a similar impression.

So there is what's called a good faith argument. If a deal is brokered in bad faith, a contract may be voidable. An example would be insider trading. Could you lump intoxication/contracts in with this? So if I'm at a party and for whatever reason, I notice a female friend of mine is far past her limit, and an unscrupulous gentleman offers her a ride home, do I say "she did this to herself voluntarily, who am I to step in?" I'm not saying I'd restrain her, but I might have some choice words for the guy and probably try and get others to shame him. Predatory behavior should be met with hostility, no?

I think a line can be drawn between giving consent to a contract, and responsibility for harmful actions....or at least thats how I think the law approaches it.

IQ is ubiquitous, as is the accident of birth. Be happy you weren't born among them.

I actually thought, (up until I googled it two seconds ago) that they had total sovereignty. I didn't realize they were still bound by US Federal law. Again, I don't want to expand the state at all. I'd rather use legal mechanisms to roll back state authority, which might grant some of the disenfranchised the freedom we all deserve. The only good law is a repeal.

Well positive law get passed by progressives issuing affirmative action and all sorts of things. Also, Native Americans were granted sovereignty some time in the last century. That's a full relinquishing of authority. Granted it took massive pressure from the public...but perhaps similar political movements would be effective. I'm spitballing. Also, I'm not sure the state screwing over a small segment of the population is less egregious, but it has more potential for remedy if the reservation status of Native Americans is anything to judge by.Everybody is at the mercy of the state, but something about coercion of the people least able to do anything about it (in terms of resources) strums my heart strings. Also, it's the type of problem globalist bring up to argue for international regulations to fight back "evil business." If a solution is on the table that rolls back government instead, awesome. That is quite reasonable. I suppose a solution that could be implemented now, would be to raise awareness. I want to go into international non-profit law to address problems just like these. (obviously I don't want to solve these problems through the initiation of force or positive law).

You're exactly right, the way a framed that statement was backwards. I only think that we may be better able to pressure states to abandon the laws that are using immanent domain against them in the first place. Still, even if the indigenous made a concerted effort to use some type of insurance to shield themselves from businesses encroaching on their homes, would the indigenous be at a great disadvantage when it comes to bargaining? Or I suppose more succinctly, would insurance companies offset the cost of doing business with people with less capital, by passing it on to the rest of the customer base? IF not do we chalk it up to social darwinism as a commenter above said?I think the trees are getting in the way of the forest I'm looking for lol. I don't identify at all with this sentiment. I find it callous, un-empathetic, and frankly a bit scary.

Fair enough. How do we empower these people now? After all, this currently is a problem. Sure, states are a great hindrance to indigenous peoples(as well as everyone else), but so are people who run businesses. If I had to do something about this in the U.S., I would seek first to add an exception to immanent domain for indigenous (after-all, they were aggressed against so that the current states might exist). Then you have the problem of how some very poor, and perhaps alternate language speaking, people would get representation. Perhaps self representation? This at least would allow indigenous to decide the price which they wan't to sell for, in stead of the state handing them "market value." To the first part, I already accept anarchy, despite the problems that will be leftover. This wasn't framed like "if you solve this, then" that. The very reason I'm asking is because of the fact that this is a problem now, and the market solution doesn't seem straightforward to me. I'm also not saying a free-market solution doesn't exist. If there is a solution I can almost guarentee it is a market solution. Again, it's just not obvious to me. To the last bit, you're right of course. Homesteading requires you pour labor into the land, correct? Is there a bright line between subsisting and laboring? Also, is my conception of homesteading way off base? Also, it's because the answer doesn't seem obvious that I came to the place where people focus on political Libertarianism. Not trying to throw a wrench in the cogs. That would definitely be an option. Would DRO's have sliding scales for their services(I really don't know the answer to this question)? I only ask because some indigenous or tribal peoples have little more than basic goods with which to trade. I find the possibility fascinating, because I can see it as a marketable feature. For instance, do you want the type of DRO protecting you that will pass-over the disenfranchised and poor? You could instead choose to invest your money in a DRO that looks out for any potential customer looking for protection for a fair bargain.

In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person?

Fair. I still think the anesthesia analogy holds. Some people elect for anesthesia for certain medical treatments.There is a sharp difference between saying someone is capable of consent, and holding them responsible for their actions. I think if a party knows your drunk, and this can be proved, then you won't be held responsible for a contract. This might be why drunken sexual battery cases are so difficult to bring to trial. It would sort of be like defrauding someone I suppose. As far as being responsible for your actions however, such that we know drugs and alcohol impair our decision making, the responsibility of those actions falls upon us since we know that we are risking the safety of others. I suppose you can risk your own safety without being defrauded, but you can't endanger others.

Ok. So voluntary is your only requirement. I was just trying to parse out what remaining problems you had with this quasi-country. I agree that a peice of paper is meaningless...that in order for there to be voluntarism people must address the arguments, and of corse only engage in consensual and voluntry behaviors. Sure, the constitution counts for nothing. Yes the whole point is meaningless unless people in the territory adopt the NAP. My question really was about seeing how you think a stateless society might function while the rest of the world endorses the state. Also, not one post Ive made has been disengenuous or in bad faith. I merely come from an etirely different backgroud. Sometimes I do misunderstand the point of contention or underlying issue. I am not a troll however. Also, not one post Ive made has been disengenuous or in bad faith. I merely come from an etirely different backgroud. Sometimes I do misunderstand the point of contention or underlying issue. I am not a troll however.

The choice machine thought experiments are not mine. I wasn't sure about their authorship today until my professor responded to me. The credit goes to James Taylor of T.C.N.J. Also, fun fact: denying you value choice or life is a performative contradiction.

I would say I'm unsure. I'm going to look into the psyiology of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve systems, and their relationship with alcohol. Is your argument that if you have any degree of motor control, you are responsible? My question to scientist would be, could alcohol reliably strip away the higher reasoning parts of our brain(the forebrain I believe?), or at least prevent these from communicating with the motor functions while still able to move about? If we were stripped down to our reptilian brains, I'm not sure what I'd have to say. Enforcability might be off the table and I'll grant you that...but I think the facts matter. Also, I realize that to you, action=responsibility in some sense.