dsayers

If that diamond is owned by somebody else, then yes. If I find a bug in the wild and ingest it, it IS my property because I've invested my time and labor in it. A fetus is not a moral actor and has no prior owner, so the mother is the owner because it is part of her body and draws off of her resources autonomically.

I'll leave you to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalala. Maybe one day, you will accept that country is a concept, that one man cannot save all that land and people (especially not with violence, which provably achieves the opposite of one's stated goals), that this thought has led to regression countless times in the past (read: EVERY election cycle), and none of these truths can be ascribed to "attitude."

I understand that government is a concept and that to ascribe behavior to it would be an anthropomorphism. This doesn't change the fact that these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example. With the perceived legitimacy of the government though, they do that much and more. The perceived legitimacy of the government is a critical component for the theft you are talking about fearing in others while assuming that perceived legitimacy is irrelevant. They steal because they think they can get away with it. Without the perceived legitimacy of the State, to "get away with it," they would literally have to oppose not only everybody else, but they'd have to face their victim directly. It's easier to dissociate when these ideas are abstract and widely held. The people you claim to fear are a critical component of the solution. Because if you could convince them that taxation is theft, there is no State since as you rightly pointed out, it only exists in the minds of the enslaved.

@jrodefeld: 2+2=4 whether you're a libertarian anarchist or a leftist troll and whether Higgs said it or not. Similarly, your use of words like blistering and poor weren't relevant (poisoning the well). What I get from your most recent post is that you are not aware of the ways in which manipulation has been modeled for you and you emulate it. I hope that's something you're able to connect with at some point. Especially if public speaking and influencing others continues to be of interest to you.

You're asking a question that is easily and has been answered. You're also using an analogy that makes the truth pretty clear while pretending the answer is unclear.

No attitude was present. Which attitude would allow for all of those things? You're avoiding what was said. Deflection. You are supporting institutionalized violence. I called you out on it and you are drawing attention away from yourself by pointing at me. You're avoiding what was said. False: "Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape. Oh and he CLAIMS to be an airplane. There's no mechanism in place to hold him to his pre-election positions or words, nor any consequences if he doesn't. It doesn't matter WHO sits on the throne; The throne is invalid." You're avoiding what was said. You said that already. And then I said: "This simply isn't true. I pointed out that institutionalized violence is morally identical to rape." You're avoiding what was said. I even pointed out: "My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling."

This only serves to reveal my accidental imprecision when I used the word "think." Which is a fair correction. The fact remains that they wouldn't actually steal from you as an institution. My challenge was against your claim that it's not the government nor the police, when it actually is.

This simply isn't true. I pointed out that institutionalized violence is morally identical to rape. I then offered no fewer than EIGHT challenges to your position. None of which you have addressed. The voting as self-defense has not only been debunked by me numerous times on these forums, but also with three of those challenges right here in this very thread. You have ZERO reason to suspect that one man could "save a country," that a country COULD be saved, or that a country should be "saved." You are supporting institutionalized violence and I am calling you out on it. My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling.

Self-defense is a libertarian principle. How does this reconcile or clarify what you had said before? How did you manage such a post while fleeing the apocalypse? I thought this was the post of a politician for a second there. What with all the trying to sell doom as reason to sacrifice freedom for the umpteenth time in human history. ALL of the most destructive empires in human history started with Constitutions, complete with their version of a Bill of Rights to protect its people. You're telling EVERYBODY to give up so that ONE MAN can save us all. Hint: everybody > 1. The fact is the State disarms people, kills people, steals from people, forces people to let violent people into their backyards, and otherwise gets in the way of those of us who understand that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. They CAN'T save you. But yes, they did provide that comfy mental prison you've grown so attached to.

Since you were kind enough to follow up, I will try and answer your question. I can start right here. How is your claim to be a libertarian anarchist at all relevant? Going back to your original post with my critiques in bold:

Thank you, kind sir. The original version of my post was to just provide for you the fact that your conclusion was flawed. However, for the benefit of those looking on who might not realize you have a burr in your saddle, I decided to occupy a higher road and express it in the form of giving you a chance to exhibit integrity. Only for you to demonstrate why you only deserved being told what the answer was. Brilliant! Yeah. Wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your fantasy of being able to tell somebody, "You get to rule us, but you can't tell us to do X, Y, or Z." Or the idea that if a "right" was "inalienable," it wouldn't need defending. There isn't a militia out there making sure everybody is succumbing to gravity evenly because that truly is inalienable.

Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape. Oh and he CLAIMS to be an airplane. There's no mechanism in place to hold him to his pre-election positions or words, nor any consequences if he doesn't. It doesn't matter WHO sits on the throne; The throne is invalid.

These elements aren't deterministic, so they can still be contributing factors even though they present differently in different people. It's like asking why an alcoholic, abusive parent of three children finds these children 1) drinking to be like their parent, 2) not drinking to avoid being like that parent, and 3) drinking on occasion, not at all influenced by the abuse that harmed them. Why does it present differently? I don't know. I don't know that it matters though. Because it's not deterministic, people can change form one to the other. So I think the better question is why would somebody have what is here deemed as a passive mind in the first place? I think one reason is baked right into the nomenclature: intellectual sloth. We are social creatures and with SJWs running rampant, not wanting to take a stand can seem beneficial. Secondly, I think it would stem from a NEED for contrary information to be true. For example, somebody might reject that spanking is assaulting defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children because their parents assaulted them. They NEED for that information to not be true, lest the people they regard as saints are in fact monsters who tortured them and robbed them from untold health and success in their lives. It's a defense mechanism. Both of these explanations tie into self-preservation, so it's understandable that it would manifest in such a pronounced way. Does that make sense or at all help?

What do you say regarding the empirical evidence of tens of thousands of infringements that challenges the conclusion that a piece of paper has power? Will you revisit your conclusion?

When somebody says 2+green=unicorn, their is no argument to talk over, taint, or refute. Don't hate me because my integrity level is such that I am immune to mild obfuscation. I'm glad that you are so consumed by your tantrum that you donated to the show to persist

MMD's right. Stef is a man and therefore possesses the capacity for error. This assertion does nothing to identify what error you see or where.

Voluntarily created obligation... still. One cannot infringe upon their own property by definition. I didn't read the rest because if you're willing to say that somebody could rape themselves with no cognitive dissonance that that which is done to self is inherently voluntary, your bias is overwhelming and you are making your prejudice fit despite all reason. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I choose to go where philosophy takes me because I value truth and consistency above all, regardless of how uncomfortable it gets.

Hello, Jessica! That is quite an exciting introduction. I am very happy for you As I read the first portions of this quote, I felt motivated to praise your courage as the things you described are NOT easy tasks! So I wanted to provide a little push back for you if that's okay. Stef has done so much for so many; Humanity itself I do not hesitate to say. However, don't lose sight of the fact that you have YOU to thank for it. YOU were faced with difficult decisions and YOU chose to take on the path of greater resistance. One of the ways the destructive people in our lives carry out and indeed perpetuate that destruction is by conditioning us to be smaller than what we are. So embrace what YOU have done and make yourself too large for those weak minds to think they'll have any influence over you! What do you think of that?

I didn't read much of what you wrote. Because as I began to read, I saw numerous examples of a lack of integrity. So I searched the page for "bias" and found not one occurrence of the word. If you will not be forthcoming with your own biases, then I think I have a good enough idea as to where the lack of integrity stems from enough to know that it's not worth my time. Thought I would share that feedback since the acceptance and offering of one's biases are a necessary component of an honest conversation.

This is the same, tired begging of the question and poisoning of the well that's been refuted numerous times in this very thread. We're not talking about persons... still. Why poison the well by saying "gives rise"? Obligations don't emerge, they are voluntarily created. I don't have an obligation to feed you. If however I was to abduct you and tie you up--that is, removing your capability of feeding yourself--while knowing full well that without nourishment you will perish, I have created an obligation to feed you. Otherwise I'm not only a kidnapper, but then also a murderer. As a rule, nobody that engages in coitus is unaware of the facts that it could be tantamount to the creation of a new life, that said life cannot survive on its own, and therefore needs the protection and nurturing for many years until it can. So to answer your question, the obligation is VOLUNTARILY CREATED when two people choose to have sexual intercourse. As for your second question, I could come up with a number of explanations. The most direct one though is that a fetus is the property of the woman who has homesteaded it and invested her resources into it. You would have to assail self-ownership itself to suggest that how she disposes of her property is not her decision.

Beware the man who rejects empirical evidence.

"Rape is mainstream therefore rape isn't violence" is not a philosophically sound conclusion. You're using a foolhardy methodology to make a prejudice fit. Your use of the phrase "die hard" is poisoning the well. I've noticed that in your lack of integrity, you like to do this often and never address when you are called out on it. So know that I am rebutting this for the sake of those who might fall to such sophistry. It is NOT accurate to strawman the topic into being about disagreements. Because here's the bottom line: It's not up to us. It's not up to you or me whether or not violence is acceptable. Violations of property rights are internally inconsistent. If you're so hard-pressed to have warm bodies in your life that you have to accept that, then by all means choose that path for the sake of your own support network. But don't stand on the world stage trying to make it sound innocent. The irony here is that you could be using that same world stage to establish a QUALITY support network, spreading the idea of peaceful interactions, and ostracizing toxic people who identify and support those who identify with (mainstream) violence.

The word "ban" denotes people issuing commands backed by threats of violence to other people. That's the only double standard I see.

That's not what the topic is about. The topic is about statists; People who support violence against everybody. Giving people who think violence is an answer your friendship is allowing them to maintain such a position without consequence. THAT is what makes the topic challenging. Many people maintain the statist position BECAUSE they fear losing their friends and family for not doing so. To show them that they risk losing friends and family if they DO support it is a voluntary way of pressuring others to take the high ground. It's what ostracism is all about.

I prefer thinking of it like the agent training program in The Matrix. The people around you are victims also. But until you unplug them from the Matrix, they are a threat to you. It's a really important lesson because anybody who approaches them as if they're only victims or only enemies will fail the encounter. It's important to be mindful of both and shift accordingly to protecting yourself as needed and helping as useful.