dsayers

One need not be the "arbiter of language" to be able to identify a word's classification. Also, how do you get "it is okay to inject children with hormones" out of "is an adjective, not a noun"?

Did you mean to specify COMMERCIAL porn? I made a number of pornos not long ago and not one of them was intended for 3rd party consumption.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46786-the-anarchistss-guide-to-voting/#entry428125

Please mind your surroundings. The thread isn't asking about the hierarchy of the Girl Scouts. It's asking about a voluntary State, which is a contradiction in terms. It's a common occurrence among people who are new to the idea, but are having a hard time accepting a position that would lead to social discomfort, so they try and mesh the two not realizing they're asking about peaceful violence.

On what do you base this? Did he choose to go to government school? Aren't you asking with this thread how to get him to do other than what he wants? At 9/10, his personality is pretty much formed. You're probably mostly dealing with momentum of the past, so it will be hard to alter it. Assuming altering it is even a good idea. How much has he been free to communicate with his parents? What kinds of things does he communicate about? What kinds of things is he passionate about? Why wouldn't he write about that? That's a serious question. If you suspect he's anxious, why? Your expectations? The school's expectations? His peers' expectations? Perhaps the fact that he's being made to do something that doesn't interest him?

I'm not sure how to respond. Voting is certainly an observable behavior. Also, since I'm not making the case for morality, I'm not sure how if "legitimizing" weren't a behavior, it would have any effect on my observation that it perpetuates the system. If the majority understood that taxation is theft, it would be unfashionable to support it TODAY, same as with slavery for example. There are people that experience extreme discomfort at the very suggestion precisely because "everybody" supports it. Playing along with your enslavement is not defending yourself from that enslavement. I hope you will make an effort to try and identify why you need for political voting to be excusable.

This is not the case in terms of child rape. The general consensus as I understand it is that sex offenders are motivated by control, not sex. I would imagine that the amount of it that is engaged in to supply the demand is comparable to the degree that murder is committed for the profit of a 3rd party. I don't think this proposal lands in the way you intended for two reasons. The first being that indeed, the hiring of a hitman is not immoral. Also in the fact that the hiring of a hitman takes place before the anticipated murder, whereas possession of the depictions of child rape occurs after.

You are in the running for the "most times poisoning the well in a single sentence" competition! Consent seems to transfer whether a vagina is worth abusing from thieves and rapists to the "whim" of its owner, a single individual. How ghastly! /sarcasm

You said that blacks couldn't find lodging within entire swaths of some state. I challenged you to explain how you know that to be problematic. I have not seen any such explanation. So tell me how you know that a woman must allow the use of her vagina to who YOU think she should. I will admit that I'm not entirely clear on what you're talking about because your use of words like network sort of fail the five year old test. So from my perspective, where you mention initiating the use of force is when you imply that you're looking to force people to dispose of their property how YOU see fit because YOU think that the ways they (could) dispose of it now is problematic. Without actually explaining how it's problematic or how your idea for correcting it does NOT involve the initiation of the use of force.

Effects come after actions. Legitimizing comes before. Your masters say to you that they own you and they will let you decide how you'd like to be owned. To even consider voting is to not be free within your own mind. When you choose to vote, you are choosing to not be free. Which is sad to me, but you are also choosing for your neighbors to not be free and that is appalling to me even if you have convinced me that it is not immoral.

No, for two reasons. The first being that the word "criminalize" means people who pretend to exist in a different, opposing moral category "righteously" initiating the use of force. Secondly because possession of something cannot be the initiation of the use of force. If I'm in possession of your bike, which I stole, my theft was the immoral act, not retaining it. By the way, there is no such thing as child pornography. Pornography denotes consent. There is only child rape.

Woman chooses to have sex, that's okay. Somebody else chooses for her to have sex, they are the devil incarnate. Funny how consent works, eh?

I said violence AND different, opposing moral categories. If you could name something that is available to everybody AND is voluntary, then it's not indigenous to government. My claim stands.

How do you know? How do you arrive at the conclusion that a society that accepts that people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories would abide a tool that requires as much? In my last post, I specifically addressed that you're calling for the initiation of the use of force to solve a non-problem that does NOT involve the initiation of the use of force. You have not established how the scenario you claimed is problematic. And you haven't fleshed out how initiating the use of force is justifiable in response to that scenario.

This is arguing from effect. I think it's more efficient to focus on the fact that people who politically vote are adding to the legitimacy of the entire system. Since that approach covers the effect and much more.

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that because you think certain people would make a certain decision, that the overarching observation that people respond to incentives and behave based on profit is completely false? You're trying to establish that there's a problem without demonstrating where the problem is. Let us assume that your claim here is accurate. How do you know that is a problem? How do you conclude that the way to stop "people [from] being hurt" is to hurt other people by forcing them to dispose of their property the way YOU see fit? What's stopping you from putting up the only lodging that accepts blacks and enjoying ALL of the black business for yourself? What's stopping you from raising awareness and encouraging businesses that trade with the no-blacks lodging from ceasing to trade with them? Once you accept that the initiation of the use of force is justified, you stop looking for the real solutions.

This is a common misconception and is false. Government is predicated on lack of consent. There is no good lack of consent. Also, its central premise is that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Since this is pure fantasy, there's literally no way people could make it into good. If it's voluntary, it's not government. You don't even need to look up podcasts. Your life is FULL of examples of people interacting with one another without using violence to achieve their goals.

I burst into tears at the end when Stef mentioned being coached by his 5 year old to overcome his fears.

You are free to pay for whatever you choose for whatever reason you choose. As such, there's no reason to be dishonest about it. Here, you've put forth obligation as a standard, but you pay for things every day you are not obligated to. So clearly this is not actually a standard that you hold (nor should). IF you receive value, then the just thing to do is exchange value. This doesn't HAVE to be by way of donation, which I think has been the central pushback to Graham's call. However, given you manner of approach, I don't think you find it just to exchange value for value in any form. And you couldn't even be honest about it. So this is me ostracizing you for being parasitic. Please do the right thing and exchange value for value. You do this in 99% of your interactions every day and the work FDR does is too important to be that exception in my opinion.

Ah, I see. I've heard it referred to as network strength. The telephone is useless if only one person has it. But the more people that have it, the more useful they all become. Note though I said useful, not valuable. I think your analogy falls apart here. Let's take a car for example. Many people interact to produce a car. Is it valuable to all involved? No. Those involved were exchanging their labor for comparable value, not the car itself. If any step of the car-making process excluded part of the labor pool for reason X (in the context of your thread, ethnicity), then the entire company suffers. For what if the best person for the job is somebody within that set of X? Not only will such a company not have access to that talent, but their competitor does. It's one of the many ways in which a free market is self-correcting. In other words, the case for non-segregation is (as with all other human behaviors) the profit motive.

What are YOU doing to stop it?

I think people of rigor would be more shocked to find a compelling case that contradicts their own conclusions. There's nothing shocking about somebody saying something provocative and not fleshing it out at all. It comes across as attention-whoring. I thought I'd mention this because it seems like you start a lot of topics with this method. Maybe aim higher?

I was mostly lost due to obfuscating language, but this part really lost me. "Network" benefit? "Larger" market? People exist. "Crowd" and the like are concepts. So in order to determine what is valid in a crowd, you need to look at what is valid for people. As an individual, I am free to dispose of my property as I see fit for whatever reason I see fit. If a person wanted to limit their capacity for profit by deliberately excluding part of their potential market, they are the only one that loses out. Ostracism would account for additional loss from those who feel that "discrimination" is a bad word and practice.

It's a question of ownership. Humans understand the consequences of their actions and so they are responsible for them. We can comprehend that to assault means to use one's body to deny another the use of their body and the inherent contradiction therein.

It's a shame you're not addressing this. I think it makes for an interesting analysis. But not if you're not going to provide the meat to actually get the discussion going.