dsayers

Are we talking about political voting or making changes? The two are not synonymous. Government is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. Participating in that, however remotely, is not a beneficial use of one's time. People engage in political voting for the way it makes them feel. They're lying even to themselves if they believe they are making any meaningful difference in the world, save to perpetuate mankind's enslavement.

No it doesn't. The dissenter is poisoning the well with the word benefit. Tackling somebody who is about to be run down is moral because there's an expectation of consent. That is, f the person could consent, it is reasonable to expect that they would. It is not reasonable to expect that a defenseless, dependent, not there by choice child would consent to being assaulted by their caregiver. The dissenting claim also supposes that violence is the only way to accomplish X, Y, or Z. But the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence itself. It is intellectual sloth and a parent trying to cover their own prior failures to resort to the claim that it benefits the child to assault them.

No need to water down your argument. It doesn't matter how the fetus got there because the logical steps you followed prior to bringing that up were sound.

@ValueOfBrevity: That's called backpedaling. The Daily Show definitely weighed in on the State and such. Then, if it was pointed out, hid behind "it's just comedy." It would be like talking while trying to claim you're not responsible for what you say. That's not what the word "comedy" does or even could mean.

I can't imagine an employer who would reward the behavior of asking for a handout instead of pursuing earning. That's actually what I think about every time I see a panhandler: Why aren't they using that time to get a job?

Me neither. But I can see the title. Trump is one person, so caring about what their position is on X, Y, and Z is a waste of time. Also, "immigration" is similarly worrying about what other people are doing, usually in the context of FORCED wealth distribution. So I'm guessing the topic will be one that avoids important questions by focusing on minutia.

It is probably more true that the state was already in crisis and it's just now more apparent. I think you're asking the wrong questions though. For as long as you're asking about HOW the initiation of the use of force should be utilized, you're not asking whether or not people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. The state is in crisis because violence achieves the opposite of one's stated goals.

Meaning using their bodies, which is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

So... property and property. But you said in the absence of property rights. This means my inquiry stands. The very act of dominating assumes property rights to be valid.

Dominance of what? If an absence of property rights were possible, there would be no property to dominate. Also, I think you'd benefit from defining your terms.

If somebody comes to a conclusion by ways other than logic, reason, and evidence, then you will not be able to use logic, reason, and evidence to challenge that conclusion.

There is only one way to meaningfully divide people from without: Those who initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not.

There's nothing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence other than violence itself. So whatever you think the State is providing, we can provide it without pointing guns at people.

As somebody who has openly carried, I am curious as to how such a comparison would be helpful.

You: Everybody is forced to rent. Me: Not everybody is forced to rent. The point is to contradict you to reveal that your conclusion is provably false. A curious/honest person would welcome this as an opportunity to revise their conclusion to more accurately describe the real world. Difficulty has been YOUR offering. You will not find me ever having said such a thing, you curious/honest person, you. *I* accept that morality is determined NOT by way of difficulty. But by way of consent. Which is how speaking as if consent is assumed is begging the question... still.

Then I think the answer to your titular inquiry is that "we" are not so quick to write people off based on one superficial reason.

Sure it does. Your every thought is biochemicals and electricity, both of which are comprised of matter and energy.

And then I said "You did NOT ask them."

In your artificial catch all, the landlord is not renting. Begging the question and talking in circles.

This is the problem with labels. There are people that feel both ways. Some who might even go so far as to feel both ways, as if men in leadership roles is an extension of that traditional family structure.

"Pay your taxes... or we'll come steal from you, cage you, and escalate up to the point of killing you, with perceived legitimacy to all of society," says the State. You are not free to decline and therefore it is not voluntary. Choosing between which make of car runs you over is not the same as choosing to not be run over. Taco Bell doesn't get to say to me, "Do you want a taco or burrito for this dollar we are taking from you?" Because I'm free to not patronize them, this is how you know that when I do, it is voluntary.

This is assuming that the absence of a father is because he ditched. In the case that he did ditch, is she not responsible for having chosen to have a child with somebody that could leave? Like it or not, men can spray and spray again, move around, etc. A woman, once impregnated, cannot escape the result of that action. Biologically speaking, she has WAY more incentive to be selective of her mate. I don't know if this means she's more responsible, but it does mean she is the last fail safe.

First of all, be careful with your words. I view the word "rage" as dysfunctional. Did you mean pronounced anger? Anger is a very healthy emotion, so long as it doesn't motivate one to rage. Secondly, on what platform did you attempt to hold somebody accountable for being dishonest that others could interject at all? If I suspect that somebody is being dishonest, I prefer to question them privately. That way if there's a misunderstanding, it's not publicized. Or if the person is willing to address it, they're not shamed for what becomes the opportunity for growth. If it turns out that they were deliberate and unwilling to address it, THEN if circumstances require it, you can let others know of their indiscretion. What do you think of that?

I think this paragraph is where you begin to go astray. This is the problem with taking some simple and making it unnecessarily complex. If person A enters into a contract with person B OR persons B, C, and D, there is no fundamental difference. There is no such thing as an implicit contract. If I get onto a bus that you are riding on, I have not promised you nor committed to anything regarding you. It remains true that it would be immoral for me to assault you, but this has nothing to do with my association with you, but rather the fact that the act of assault simultaneously accepts and rejects property rights. This assumes that that government (anthropomorphism aside) owns the individuals and/or that they have consented to what's being enforced. If these things are true, then as with the bus assault scenario above, it's basic property rights that tell you about the relationship, not the coercive labels of "government" and "citizen." Does that make sense?

First principles includes ideas such as a=a, b!=a, a!=-a, etc. But to further address your question, the answer would be: Any conclusion that one did not arrive at by logic, reason, and evidence must be treated with skepticism. "There is a deity." "How do you know?" "Humans exist in different, opposing moral categories." "How do you know?" etc