P. Mason

Rights are negative. If you can do X and X does not commit force against another then you have a RIGHT to do X. Rights are the conversation we have when ywo moral agents come into conflict. for example rights do not exist when you are alone say on a deserted island. You do not have a right to fish you merely fish. Rights only come into play when tow moral agents come into conflict then they discuss when force is legitimate or when force is wrong.

They sound like the Borg.

There's a difference between saying someone is bossy vs being bossy and banning the word bossy.

By all means Mr. Joseph use any voluntary means at your disposal to make those robots.

One of the best ways to debate climate science is to ignore if its happening and ask the real question - what is to be done.You could spend hours tossing data back and forth and both sides have a lot of pre-rehersed arguments. There are sites with every statement and a prerehearsed reply. The debate is a waste of time.Here is the reply to any climate change debator "If you think climate change is occuring then by all means use any voluntary, non-forceful, cooperative, agoristic means at your disposal to fight it. Good luck with that." Don't ever let someone mug you in their alley, mug them in yours.

Why do you want to piss off christians? If they interact in a voluntary manner who cares what they believe.

Females or friends who you may become sexually interested in be they male, female whatever. The answer is no.

"Government is a gun that shoots money at your enemy and blows up in your face" "They aren't stupid. They just don't want to know they are in hell." "When it comes to fake apologies, every asshole has a "but""

The definition of determinism refutes a fully deterministic universe. You can only discuss a subset. Even relativity understands this.If determinism is defined as no event can occur without a previous event or event and that all event occur in a logical manner that would mean there can be no spontaneous or random events. 1. This means the universe cannot have a beginning. There can be no first event since all events must be caused by events. If events are Dominoes falling or billard balls interacting then there can be no forst domino or first billard ball. 2. If the universe is an infinite chain of events then it cannot derive from determinism since an infinite object has no beginning. It merely exists. Again something cannot merely exist without causality under determinism. Infinite objects defy determinism. No series of events brought about an infinite object. If you'd like to argue that future events cause past events then you're just arguing an infinite circle which cannot exist in determinism. An infinite ring of falling dominoes simply cannot keep falling.Now this does not prove free will is not determinism but it does disprove the claim free will must be determinism cause all is determinism when clearly the universe itself cannot arise under determinism.

A 100% deterministic universe is self refuting by the definition of determinism. You can only declare a subset to be deterministic.

If humans did go to mars they would never be able to return even IF there was a return ship. Once they live there for a time the lighter gravity will make their bones brittle. Unless they can figure out a way to make some artificial gravity, humans would not be able to survive in earth's gravity.

So why is it so hard to understand that Stefan gets a big fish like Chomsky on his show the last thing he wants to do is scare the guy off by mugging him. Pick your battles.

"How do Christians live with Science without being hypocrites"How do atheists live with irrational beliefs about government without being hypocrites?

Ah the whole guru thing. So is that what your comments are about. You see Stefan as some cult leader? Yeah so you're the guy going to expose the guru and that's what your comments are really all about. Well you fail as much as a 10 year old chanting "nyah nyah" on a play ground.

Counter Economics played a huge part in the collapse. Basically the black market made teh government obsolete and useless. Same will happen in the US. In fact we should encourage bypassing as many gov programs as possible.

Do you take prescription meds? Health ins has a big effect on that namely the ins suppliments the cost. My meds would be hundreds a month. When my ins runs out in feb I'm pretty much boned,

Hobbes's Paradox - If humans are inherently evil and the fear of death keeps them in line then any government created to manage them would be composed of the same evil people. Government would in fact be the worst thing to create since it would have a monopoly on force and no fear of death. A prison guarded by prisoners. Corelary - Evil people do not vote for good people to manage them and a minority of good people could not manage a majority of evil people.

What else are you going to put in your pirate chest?

I think the bigger question is why all the anti-libertarian articles all of a sudden. Salon seems to be crapping these out once a month or so. Is it libertarian gives a reasoned denial to the left's use of force that the left cannot argue away? It puts the left into a bind since if one argues for the use of force then why get upset when the right does it. If one argues the government should regulate marriage then WHY get upset when the government does exactly that and decides gays cannot marry. But by all means engage us. Libertarians are ninjas training for years and looking for fools to fight.

Reality is what I have to face after my hot chics dream comes to an end.

One of the issues I have debating left libertarians is they complain about issues that are not force. That's fine but it gets confusing when the issue of "what will be done about it" comes up since either I get no clear answer or I get more complaining. When I see Chomsky in you tube videos complain that capitalism and property rights are the worst thing to happen to humanity I have to question if the man ever read a histroy book, specifically about Stalin, Lenin, Mao etc. I too was disappointed you did not nail him on property rights issues but then I see you had time constraints. Plus you don't want to scare big names off your show. I would have loved a challenge of his distinction of US vs EU libertarians. US libertarians are most certainly concerned with liberty restriction when its non-force. Its just in the big red book of bad things happening a gun to the face is on page one and some moron not baking a cake for a gay wedding is on page 100. When I debate left libertarians they'll make some snotty comment about how they are the libertarians who want fairness and equality while "right" libertarians want gov out of the way so we can loot everything.

I disagree with the self ownership claim. Something cannot be simultaneously the owned and the owner of itself. And anything owned must be property. One has self soveriegnty but ownership is meaningless. I cannot sell or exchange myself I can only relinquish my body or body parts. I cannot vacate my own will so I cannot relinquish my own will. The best I can do is agree to abide by another's commands.

Where is this setting in firefox? Thanks

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/the-nsa-reportedly-has-total-access-to-your-iphone/ So its only worse that the people who buy these phones call themselves "liberal". Android is probably also similarly infected.