dsayers

That is the how of the execution, not the nature of the source.

Does the rapist consult his victim before penetrating them? No, otherwise it wouldn't be called rape. Does a government secure the consent of each of the people it issues commands backed by threats of violence? No, otherwise it would be called something different. The only way they're incomparable is that rapists exist.

If the cat is owned, the owners have a responsibility to keep it on their property if they don't want to risk something undesirable happening to it. Of course that doesn't mean that other people (like yourself) can't offer to help for whatever reason they choose.

I'm sorry that you have to normalize aggression towards defenseless children to protect the artificial image you have of your abusive "caregivers." I'm not sorry that you are professing a conclusion that you have no sound data or methodology for. That's irresponsible. Especially considering that all the ills of the world are rooted in childhood trauma. That's reprehensible.

Repeating yourself doesn't satisfy, refute, or even acknowledge the skepticism that was offered in response to what you're repeating... still. What you inherit is the property of others voluntarily given to you by them. Anything that is presumed beyond that would be a reflection of the observer, the society, etc. External sources. If you take issue with this, then you have to address the external sources, not the voluntary exercising of property rights. You are simply repeating stuff you've heard. If you had arrived at this conclusion by way of sound methodology, you would be able to make the case and/or would welcome criticism in an attempt to revise your theory until it was as accurate as can be. Also, the phrases "rich people" and "poor people," when used to indicate anything other than relative wealth, is collectivism. More wealth does bring more choices, but even that is an effect of the wealth, not inherent to it. Furthermore, more choices doesn't mean that what choices will be made can be predicted by the availability of more choices alone. The collectivization is therefore meaningless except to serve as an indication that you are simply repeating stuff you've heard and haven't scrutinized.

Very well said. I just wanted to add that not only did she choose, but his involvement in your life was her choice also. She has NO RIGHT to try and guilt you out of a healthy reaction to the war zone SHE placed you in. I can sympathize so much with what you're describing. I probably didn't experience as bad as you, but it really sucks that somebody can make even just a single gesture or make a single comment and it poisons you for so much longer than any one item should be able. I had a really hard time getting passed that myself. I respect and admire your conviction towards your father. All the same, I'm curious: Where is his gestures coming from? Has he sought therapy? Or is the damage that made him so violent now haunting him about his behaviors concerning you? I guess what I'm asking is do you think he's sorry because he experiences regret or he's sorry because he wants you to stop holding him accountable?

You have to keep reading.

For a while now, I've said that I love how out of control the American empire has become over the last decade because it makes it so much harder for rhetoric and propaganda to conceal it. that showcases how somebody went from being an Obama supporter to understanding that what she's seeing today isn't just a mark against Obama, but the coercive institution of government as a whole. The easiest way to disenfranchise a potential buyer is to oversell your product. For that, I thank you for your help, Obama.

Hi there. Regarding when you said we should praise cops when they're virtuous, I was wondering what that would look like. The very institution of police accepts the claim that people can be fundamentally different in a way that some can rule, some can be ruled, and some can enforce the rulers upon the ruled. Any cop you see, no matter how well-intentioned, has accepted this anti-virtuous position. Would you agree? To be clear, I'm a private investigator who has worked with police a number of times. I've also had some major run-ins with them outside of a professional capacity. A tip I would give to your friend is that there is literally nothing to be gained from arguing with police in the moment. Once they've made the decision to take them down, nothing you could do or say would help this. Also, I don't think studying police is a good way to learn how to be a private investigator, even though PI is a vague classification. It's exciting to see a young person such as yourself finding value in property rights (NAP). I hope you'll continue to explore how this translates into our daily lives. For example, you mentioned our tax dollars paying for police and an expectation for efficiency due to this. However, tax dollars are stolen monies, a violation of property rights. Empirically, coercion is inherently very inefficient. What do you think about this?

Link? No frame of reference is provided.

I think the fundamentals have been bypassed. You cannot choose governments anymore than you can choose rape. The very terms indicate an involuntary relationship. "Panarcho-Capitalist" is internally inconsistent. Government is a contradiction to capitalism because it violates property rights.

I disagree on both counts. Without State force to socialize the consequences of bad mistakes, people will be more likely to make better decisions, including getting insurance for such things. Also, "others" is vague. Even with the State, others includes one's support network and doesn't necessarily have to extend to others. Or, in the case of people that provide great value to others, help comes anyways. Think Stef getting cancer. There would be much debate over what "anarchy arrives" means. Also, there's as much of a chance that it will be a gradual process whose coming would be indiscernible as there is that it would arrive by way of revolution, such as the enforcer class summarily saying no to the immoral commands of their psychopath leaders. This would be to dignify their claims that coercion is okay if the results are agreeable and that the State takes care of the poor.

Quick clarification: Self-knowledge isn't a blank check, it is the beginning of responsibility. I wonder, how did you father model gratitude for you as a child? Is his behavior consistent with his expectations of what yours should be? As for your boyfriend, what does "you don't express enough gratitude" mean? Did he mention it as a nurturing attempt to make you aware of an empathetic blind spot he perceives in you? Or was he trying to punish you for not meeting his expectations? If so, what specifically was he looking for that isn't being provided? Because without feedback as to what he would like to see, to simply call out the deficiency would be cruel. You mentioned a wealth disparity; Was this his reason for being generous?

Repeating yourself doesn't satisfy, refute, or even acknowledge the skepticism that was offered in response to what you're repeating. Political power, repackaged as clout here to appear less violent, is not something that anybody can legitimately earn. You're saying that people that inherit a billion dollars will have a right to the initiation of the use of force that they didn't earn. Why a billion dollars? Why not 999,999,999? What is the fundamental difference? Who decides? Why should we take interest in your opinion of a transaction that doesn't concern you? Like, so what if somebody gets something that they didn't earn. If what they got was legitimately owned by somebody that chose to give it to them, that has nothing to do with you.

You don't see the contradiction here, do you? Your manipulative use of the word "required" aside, "someone else's gain" is not only vague, it's circular and omnipresent. If you go to work for McDonald's, yes, they will profit off of your labor. Just as you profit off of their equipment. It's a--ready for this? VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE OF VALUE You cannot escape the "for somebody else's gain." McDonald's does what it does for somebody else's gain. Namely, the customers. But by serving the customers, they profit also. Just as while you work for them, you profit also. In any voluntary exchange, both parties gain. You cannot escape this. It's not even a blight, let alone one on capitalism. I'm done. I only bothered arguing against the Marxist bullshit for the benefit of others, but by this point, we have an entire stable of dead horses and you are clearly not interested in the truth.

Check out Stef's . There was no such consideration and that the biggest movement to end slavery was done by way of voluntary trade as if such a suggestion were true. Not that "was considered" equates to "was". "Was considered subhuman," were it true, would be unprincipled intellectual sloth.

This is what I was going to say. Stef's def fits into this purview, but this definition also explains why people who are not virtuous find love in others who are not. It's just an affinity for those share our values and have sex with us. It's a biological instinct to help us find a suitable mate for the purpose of reproduction.

Ooh, rain forest. Magic words. You're not using your head. What good would it do to invest in all the equipment needed for logging only to cut something down one time and stop there? Lumber is a renewable resource. Calling it environmental destruction is manipulative. The State is more responsible for pollution and "environmental destruction" than the private sector could ever be. Do you know why? It's called the tragedy of the commons. Without ownership, nobody has the incentive to replenish and plan for a sustained crop. This would be true of your everybody roaming the forest, planting their own stuff as if division of labor doesn't make all of our live more efficient and rewarding. You also mention need vs greed and I can tell this is just your cop-out for trying to make your position seem unassailable. What people need and greed is for them to decide. I've already pointed out that if you want to live and need food to do that, you can accomplish that. If you're not willing to voluntary exchange value with others just because they have more stuff at the onset of the transaction, then it's not really about needing food, is it? If you won't aim your contempt at the State, how about your parents? If what you're saying is true, then they seriously screwed you by not amassing more property to be able to give you some so you could play on a level playing field as everybody else. No no, it can't be the state, it can't be your parents, it HAS to be those bastards that promote property rights even though making these posts, and even just the act of joining the boards, turning on your computer, etc is directly accepting property rights.

Why save when you can just get random strangers to steal from your neighbors or your unborn grandchildren and pay for stuff for you? It's the law!

No one person has bought up all the land. You're describing an effect of the fact that we weren't here first. This is something that applies to 99.999% of humans that have ever lived. We all have to compete for the limited resources of this world and we do that by improving our human capital and working, storing value, and securing some of it for ourselves. People die every day and people are selling that which they own every day for a variety of reasons. Not that I see there being a problem as you do, but what is your proposed solution? I myself cannot picture anything that wouldn't violate the property rights of those who own things before us. If their acquisition wasn't coercive, we couldn't possibly suggest having a greater claim than they do. I phrase it this way because of your later attempt to distinguish unused from unowned. I agree that just claiming something and never making use of it isn't the same as owning it. However, it is unclear to me as to how things such as parks, nature preserves, etc could ever be possible if we only considered use as proper ownership. There are a lot of people who wish to preserve such things and there is no more valid way to do so than to buy that land and NOT develop it. A privately owned park would surely be much better maintained than the publically owned ones we see now. Please, be specific. The vague descriptions make reading and responding quite laborious.

Hi there. Thank you for exploring alternatives to the coercive status quo and your sensitivity in this matter. How do you know that the only way he'll learn this is if somebody inflicts it upon him? Also, you mentioned preschool. I was wondering if you're familiar with the potentially permanent damage to the child's immune system that nursery schools and preschools inflict upon children. I was kind of bothered by the title of your topic. "Working parents" suggests that the parents are correct to be spending time away from a child that they chose to have. I don't agree that this is a given. Which leads to the main problem I see with the idea: It's sacrificing what's best for child for their entire life in exchange for what suits the parent in the moment. And it would encourage/enable other parents to do the same. Don't get me wrong; it's a step in the right direction. I just think it's up to us who understand the dangers of improper parenting to be setting the example. Not stopping half way because it's convenient for us in the short-term. What are your thoughts on this input?

Written records, paintings, and sculptures is proof of a character or a belief in a person, not actual proof of the person. I was laughing quite a bit. You're straight on "what?!" face is awesome. What camera(s) and/or audio recorders were you using for this? I'm jealous because my recording equipment doesn't compare.

Maybe bigger text is what was missing. Nope, prescribing actual violence won't solve imagined violence. So if you voluntarily enter into a trade with somebody, and that trade involves food, the trade is suddenly involuntary? So if somebody invests their body, time, and effort into growing food, they owe it to everybody else because nourishment is a requisite to live? Isn't that suggesting coercion (positive obligation without consent) against the guy with the food? More importantly, if you need food, then why would you be bellyaching on a forum about how everybody else owes you food instead of developing your human capital and providing value for others to provide for YOUR need for food?

Hey, quit talking about me like I'm not here! Welcome! Thank you for your support of the show. Have you seen Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? I regard it as a requisite prior to debate. Particularly the parts about why we think the way we do.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38914-theres-nothing-wrong-with-bribery-in-parenting-says-stef/ TONS of data there, including Stef speaking as if open to the possibility that his example was wrong.