dsayers

Goodbytes, I used to feel the exact same way. When I saw this thread/video by alexqr1, it helped me to understand why that isn't the case. In fact, I believe we had a discussion about it there as well.

Self-ownership is the root of both property rights (NAP) and anarchism. Anarchy is a description of a world where it is understood that aggressing against others is immoral.

I think that in order for self-ownership to be false, humans would have to exist in a fundamental state that allowed for others to have a greater claim over one's body than one's self. I think that even after a couple seconds of consideration, this could never be universalized. I have no control over when the struts in my car give out, but this doesn't mean I don't own the car. The autonomy of much of our biological processes are for survival's sake. I think I would find it exhausting if I had to voluntarily pull every muscle required for me to breathe every second of my entire life. Our inability to control this on a larger scale I do not view as a challenge to the idea that we individually own the body that this accurately describes.

ANY video about the importance of peaceful parenting or the potential backlash of choosing the wrong mate (particularly a female mate in a culture that favors them tremendously) should suffice. I would ask your friend what he means by stability. We live in a turbulent world, so external stability isn't really possible depending on how sensitive you are. Joining into matrimony with the wrong person or for the wrong reasons will actually exacerbate this problem, not solve it. In terms of internal stability, well it's internal. Adding somebody to the equation or upgrading their importance in the equation CANNOT change this. In fact, it would exacerbate internal instability because less focus could be place upon it in order to serve greater external obligations. Is this at all helpful? I will try and help more if more details become available. Such as his level of self-knowledge, his assessment of her self-knowledge, your being friends with somebody that might lack self-knowledge, etc.

Hello. Can I assume that your parents either abused your or allowed you to be abused? I think this is indisputable and yes, it would mean that you were limited in terms of responsibility. However, for you to present day be morally conscious of it, there is nothing wrong with apologizing to him and trying to make amends. If he accepts your apology, the two of you can explore how it came to pass and it might help him to process the abuse/neglect of your parents that the two of you shared. Yes it might be uncomfortable for him and he may even choose to avoid it all. It's not your decision to make though. If you are motivated to repair the damage, I think you should act on that.

I strongly disagree with these items. First of all, practicality and utility are some of the ways demagogues are able to bypass moral consideration and unleash the worst aggressions in the world. There is no consideration more important that the moral one, which is not subjective by the way. Something that could be described as causing massive chaos and destruction could not also be described as moral.

If you're not interested in being accurate when trying to communicate with others, that's your prerogative. It doesn't mean they're uncalm for clarifying. Even your use of the word "officer" frames the conversation whether you realize it or not.

I was having a conversation with a friend tonight when it got quite ugly out of nowhere. So I wanted to seek outside input to possibly help sort through it. Scenario: You are walking out of a restaurant when somebody in front of you falls and breaks their leg. Are you morally obligated to help them? Please note that the question is not would you help them or should you help them. Simply put, do you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help them? Thank you for you help with this.

On what basis? My analysis was that violence had already started. Do you find fault with this interpretation? I think proceeding as if it wasn't made is counterproductive. As I'm patrolling an empty building at the request of the owner of that building, if I happen upon an intruder, I'm in a dangerous situation regardless of what language they're speaking. So is the person who broke in. They chose that risk when they decided to break into somebody else's property. Compare this to police and military who are the ones doing the breaking in. The danger they're in is the danger they created by aggressing against innocent people. Unless you can make a moral connection between being found to have been responsible for a noise disturbance and having your freedom of movement arrested. Or do you not realize that these people are trained to take over any situation they enter into for the express purpose of minimizing the risk of the danger they're creating? That's why those people were given orders with what to do with their own bodies that led to them having hands on a pickup truck. If you want to warn police/military against the dangers of aggressing against people, talk them out of their violence. The language barrier is a straw man.

That's so wretched. Abusing you, encouraging others to abuse you, then abusing you for having been abused. All of which have negative consequences for you well after the events occurred. I'm not qualified to give therapy I'm sorry to say. Is there anybody else you can stay with? Just getting away from your mother will give you a CHANCE at sleeping, being able to function, and maybe even begin healing. When you were being physically tortured, was there anybody you could talk to? That's criminal behavior and I'm very sorry nobody contacted authorities to try and save you. I am curious as to how that came to pass though. I know abusers can be isolating and children can be terrified of antagonizing their abusers.

To raise awareness, Mos Def underwent the procedure to demonstrate what it looks like in . Fair warning: if you have an ounce of empathy, it is very hard to watch. After watching that video, I decided I would never refuse food.

For those who enjoy frame of references, I believe that UP stands for upper peninsula. A relatively local colloquialism denoting the more northern half of Michigan, a state of the United States in North America, western hemisphere, Earth.

These words are not interchangeable. Security personnel voluntarily provide services to people who delegate power they actually have. Some people talk about how police work is dangerous, which I think is what the point of what you're saying is. However, most of the danger police are actually in, they create. Not to mention they tend to create more danger to others, who have far less recourse, then they themselves could be described as being in. Unless the party mentioned was so loud as to disturb others nearby, there was no initiation of the use of force (ITUOF). Even if that was the case, loud noise can be dealt with by way of verbal negotiation. I get by your use of the phrase "four men were placed with their hands on a pickup truck" that the police ITUOF. For people who are believed to have immunity to consequences and no moral code by which to be held to ITUOF, there is no way of knowing what, if anything, will limit their aggression. These people did not deploy the guns they were speaking of, so we can only assume they were plotting how to best survive if in fact the aggression approached lethal levels. I'm not sure what the source or point of the story was, but I hope this adds some clarity.

On the contrary. It's been my observation that "green" folks are the most artificially self-righteous people in the world. They cannot explain the actual problems or where they come from, but they are certain that they are better than you because they "care."

I would say that nobody understands like you do how hard he (doesn't) work on your guys' relationship. The rest seemed vague. You mentioned something about a word used and a sentence, but I have no idea what you're talking about. So I can't follow most of what comes after that. Except the part about being born out of love. Did you ask her how she defines love? I think that would be a good place to start. Also ask her if she understands the importance of modeling behavior for children. Being told you were born out of love isn't going to mean anything to somebody who as a child was never shown that they were born out of love.

I made this same case in the comments section of Larken Rose's most recent Youtube video. He ended it by talking about how Statism is another religion. This was my post: Government is the family. Most parents raise their children in an authoritarian manner. That's why so many people need religion or statism (which is another religion). Some might denounce one, but for them, this means they have to have the other. It's all they know. It's way more comfortable than facing the reality that their parents were abusive and society coddled them for being so.

I disagree. If we own ourselves, then we own the effects of our actions. Just as if you pick an object up off the ground, it has the energy you have given it by counteracting gravity. It follows. If somebody uses your car, I think it's more accurate to say that they are exercising ownership over it. To determine if that behavior is valid and moral, we must seek a potential previous owner. Since cars do not exist in nature, we know that it has an owner. If the person currently using it is not the owner, did not seek permission from the owner, and is not fulfilling a voluntary positive obligation created by the owner, then the use is theft.

I disagree about the accent. I enjoyed the times I heard him talking with Stef once upon a time because he seemed curious, intelligent, empathetic, and well-spoken. I even burned an hour long interview between them to share with others because it made for a good "anarchy 101" presentation I thought.

I think it's accurate to say a will is not a contract in that contract is a mutual consent arrangement. If somebody willed to me a grand piano right now, I don't have any place for it. I might consent to receive it and store it someplace out of an expectation of selling it for more than I invest in handling it. But nobody can force me to suddenly take ownership of a grand piano. This is even more true under a State, where you can get stolen from more than the object is worth if you receive it. Even if it's not worth more, some people might refuse just to keep the extra theft out of their lives.

Pedophilia is a preference, not a behavior. I think you mean molestation or rape (common mistake). Not that I would necessarily agree with that conclusion, but you'd be saying what you meant to say.

Welcome. I would like to share my thoughts on the subjects you mention if I may. I think the primary source of controversy around non-heterosexuality is that there are people in the world that do not want it/agree with it. They are willing to initiate the use of force (ITUOF) against such people and incite others to do the same. Even though those at whom their ire is aimed are not ITUOF. Many speak as if whether it's a choice or not makes a difference. I would argue that for as long as they are not ITUOF against others, no other consideration is of particular importance. This is the kind of assertion that requires defining terms I think. I disagree with the conclusion and have no way of understanding how it came to pass that one could call the State a "primary society." It's like calling the fleas on a dog the primary creature. On what basis could person A tell person B what to do? Legislation is a command backed by threat of violence. If person B is not ITUOF, then person A has no moral authority to ITUOF against person B. Basic property rights, stemming from self-ownership, prove that the State is inherently immoral as it violates property rights if only by way of dispensing with consent. I used to feel the same way. Once alex put it into the context of positive and negative obligations in this most excellent video/thread it made a lot more sense to me. I recognize that most people misuse the term "right," but this doesn't mean there isn't a place for it in these sorts of discussions.

This is one of those moral gray areas. There are a lot of people that believe that even a post-pubescent adolescent is not capable of consenting to sexual behavior because they cannot fully understand the ramifications. I happen to disagree with that in the abstract as any inability to reason, assess risk, defer gratification, etc would be a "pre-existing condition" from before the equipment was ready. That said, I do agree with the sentiment that there can exist a condition where consent cannot be granted. It is possible for somebody to be so drunk, the world is blurred to them. It's possible for somebody to consent and then pass out. I would argue that both of these scenarios would be rape if somebody had sex with them. Others might not agree, but we can certainly agree (my initial point) that even if it's not rape, it certainly doesn't mean that the person is innocent. I don't know that I would agree that it's possible for something to be both predatory and not violate property rights. I suppose I'm ambivalent on the subject since I'm generally unsympathetic in regards to fraud as it is a sort of cooperative occurrence. It is the responsibility of the person making any commitment to understand what that commitment entails.

Yes. I believe the term they use is agorist/agorism.

There are people that approach the young so they can hook up more easily. This isn't proof that their actions are not predatory.

Yes, I was commenting towards the irrationality behind this concern. If "safety" is what's of interest, the last thing you want to do is ask somebody to touch their holstered weapon. Are they the type to ignore trigger guard safety and risk discharging it by drawing it? Do they know to not hand over a loaded firearm, especially in an closed-action state? There are a number of potential hazards that you welcome that would not be present if you simply skipped the step of rooting through people's pockets. Rather than having to use other measures to address the unsafe environment you created, it's better to simply not create the unsafe environment. I'm assuming you're talking about the armed guards you mentioned, and I'm sorry I didn't respond to that the first time. Armed guards in a populated area are less safe for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is: Nobody cares about your safety more than you. Period. Greatly reducing the number of targets to be neutralized makes hostile action easier. "There are others here to protect you," offers a false sense of security and subsequent lowering of situational awareness. I mean, if you want to watch for suspicious activity, is a dozen eyes better than a thousand? Nothing is safer against criminal action than a crowd of people who MIGHT all be packing because of the mystery alone. If you don't know who's armed and who isn't, it's a serious risk to aggress against even one amid many.