dsayers

No. You have a right to not be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. These are negative obligations. Right to life means that if your kidney fails, you get to take mine. It invokes unchosen positive obligations, which can never be ethical. Right to life != right to not be murdered.

Deflection; Doesn't answer the question. As for the rest of your post, you're going to believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Point taken.

Strawman. Investing in something is not the same as gazing upon it. Not an argument and poisoning the well.

Strawman. Releasing somebody isn't the same as transporting them somewhere.

His body is your mother? Or is it that his computer is your mother?

Kidnapping for a day is still kidnapping.

Do you think that this disproves that people respond to incentives, the underlying point? This in stark contrast to millenia of empirical evidence to the contrary. Again, you missed the point. There's nothing useful in trying to point out that a murderer also stole a candy bar.

Actually, you can't. Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

How would I know? Was anybody talking about your mother? What has this to do with what you quoted?

I don't have any formal resources to share. Just wanted to point out that it's highly effective to "teach" by modeling. So parents who negotiate with their children will be "teaching" them liberty and economics.

You know that adage work smarter, not harder? They're accomplishing greater tasks with less risk to themselves. It's like saying that somebody that travels inside a metal box (car) is a coward compared to a biker who has less protection at higher speeds. Why do you ask? If we know that they're psychopaths, how would labeling them as cowards be of any significance? If you ask me, it's the people who fight for them for no reason other than "orders" that are the cowards. As well as the people that conditioned them into believing that orders, duty, country, whatever is a standard.

Do you realize that by saying this, you're asserting property rights? Not just by way of using YOUR body, YOUR computer, etc to type it up. But also because you're putting forth "happiness" as a standard for determining property rights. It's YOUR computer because you invested YOUR body, time, and labor to voluntarily trade for it. Not because the people who made it thought it would make you happy. "I seen it first!" is really quite juvenile.

I don't think how it came to pass is relevant. B invited A over and A's presence in the basement did not create a debt to B. It's B's property and A makes it clear he wishes to leave. If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to alleviate such restraint, he is then deliberately binding A without his consent. This is why it's so important to understand that reason is the seat of self-ownership. B didn't know that not unlocking the door would trap A at first. Once he knows, he is responsible because it's his property.

Deliberately misrepresenting what somebody has said is a Strawman.

The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself.

Strawmen are not arguments.

How do YOU achieve your goals without the use of violence? Also, apes are not reasonable, so you're comparing apples to oranges. You should have led with this instead of pretending to be curious and/or looking for a discussion. Only now is it revealed you're only looking for those who will agree with you.

Not much to think about here. Grown folks voluntarily incentivizing other grown folks. Nothing wrong with that. Like most "(don't) choose this candidate" efforts, it's focusing more on who's sitting on the throne rather than the validity of the throne itself. "I'll send you nudes if you choose for a blue car to run you over." "Um... can I choose to just not be run over?!"

To be fair, the true self is internal. What gets tattooed is just the body of the person. As for your ambivalence, where did these conclusions come from? Was one inflicted upon your or from societal influence? Not that experiencing ambivalence is problematic in and of itself. Though I do appreciate your desire to understand it in yourself.

No. "Collective" doesn't exist (not actionable) and "punishment" implies people exist in different, opposing moral categories. Individuals engage in behaviors and if they have the capability of reason, are responsible for those behaviors.

Nope. Dance, little monkey!

Do you only wish to dial back any illness that you have? First, historical examples aren't terribly useful because the fact that it's always been that way does not mean it always will/have to be that way. In fact, I think there's been no better time for this kind of push back. Economies are falling all over the world. It's clear to many that institutionalized violence has failed us. Secondly, I think you present a false dichotomy when you say that people have to form a State to repel a State. The State does not exist in nature, so it isn't even eligible for a descriptor such as "inevitable." We are up against enormous momentum from the past, but this doesn't mean we cannot slow it down or stop it with enough push back.

I don't see the relevance. If you can go to any number of mechanics, what's wrong with choosing to avoid one for any particular reason? Isn't this how ostracism works? The way I read the thread, OP is making an assessment of value and is doing research prior to making his decision. All very healthy and reasonable in my book. I'm just afraid a comment like this could be interpreted as saying that the pursuit is foolish, which I would disagree with.

In receipt of stolen goods is sufficient for me. Immoral is immoral. You don't get to steal a candy bar because you didn't steal a car. Also, murderer or no, accepting you exist in a different, opposing moral category and voluntarily being a cog in the machine raises that machine's level of credible threat.

Which doesn't violate your property.