dsayers

Depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to change their mind? In order to change a person's mind, you must first understand WHY they think the way they do. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You are gifting this person your time when their behavior suggests they are not worthy of your time. Also, you are inadvertently STRENGTHENING their misguided belief because you are providing resistance to it.

Value is subjective and constantly shifting based on the sums of supply and demand. In order to predict such things, as person would have to know the desires of everybody else as well as their accumulated capability of satisfying that desire.

Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. I read the title as "12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Be Allowed to Own 300,000 people.

Then the "free" money runs out.

I wonder if crack dealers would donate a bit to keep people hooked.

Agreed. Labels are generalities, and therefore not useful as the shorthand they're meant to be. I've never heard of ancaps needing a military before. You point out that we're born in anarchy. Well, we're born capitalists as well. You used your body and internet connection to invest your time and effort for a perceived payoff when you made your post for example.

Obfuscation. Gail claimed equality as a standard. Gail does not adhere to that standard. The end.

No stateless State has ever emerged because something can not be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time. I'm sorry you're not free within your own mind, but that doesn't give you the right to stand on a global stage and prophecy and champion perpetual human enslavement.

You continue to miss the self-detonation. People are not equal because they would have to be the same, in the same place (same space) at the same time and think/feel the same about everything always. This is not the case. So any semblance of freedom would come from artificial manipulation, which would include artificially suppressing (violence) some, which is NOT freedom. Immaterial. Gail spoke of equality while not living equality. The reason to pay would be because others pay and the espoused value was equality. Thus revealing that the espoused value was insincere and presented for the purpose of manipulating others.

Nobody's ever said that men aren't also responsible for their actions. Your entire post is dishonest. Have you figured out who from your past would benefit from you being dishonest in this way/place?

Countries don't exist. You asked for a proof of concept and you've been living one every day for most of your life, same as the vast majority of people.

Not really. The subtopic was "establishing equality." The null hypothesis is near infinite. Donating to the show is just one element.

This is a strawman. No force nor threats were indicated. So close. The end part is an assertion that begs the question.

Who decided? I wonder when international men's day is. Why not just treat every day as if it's international human's day? Oh, because that would diminish State power, not grow it.

That's a helluva first post there! I stopped 26 seconds in due to a fundamental lack of integrity. "We need to strengthen the State as a balance of power against large corporations." The State created the legal fiction known as corporation. The State feeds corporations by giving it superhuman power and is fed by corporations that fund it to have access to the ring of power. While not philosophical, he loses points there just because "large corporations" is such a fashionable target. Did he go on to define what a large corporation is compared to a small one and how they're fundamentally different?

Some feel that UPB only serves to obfuscate an otherwise simple topic. Let us stick to things clear items that we can agree upon. Also, the word fraud is vague, as there appears to be two commonly held definitions, with very different moral/ethical ramifications. For more on this, refer here. Fair enough. Though this only serves to reveal the imprecision in my approach. Imagine instead, the stranger asks you "Is your CC# XXXX...?" Assume he guessed correctly. Do you owe him the truth still? Would you be initiating the use of force if you didn't tell him the truth? Again, let's not bog down a simple debate with obfuscations. Let us first agree upon whether dishonesty is the initiation of the use of force, then we can apply that to any topic you like since its identity will not change based on what we apply it to after the fact. That which is moral in practice is ethical in theory. If the proposition of lying is unethical, the act of lying would be immoral. This is yet another way to avoid the point of contention: Is your honesty yours to dispense as you see fit or do we all have an unchosen positive obligation to be honest?

Thomas, you continue to dispense with consent. I think monstrous was a fair characterization.

That is true, but it does not answer my question as to how you've come to the conclusion that lying is the initiation of the use of force. I would argue that your honesty is like any other piece of your property. You are free to give it out as you see fit. Would you give your credit card number to a stranger that asked for it? If not, why not? If you're honest with yourself, I think you will agree that honesty is earned, not required of you to live a consistent life.

If it's something everybody wants, you don't need to enumerate it. Not that everybody is going to agree about everything all the time. As long as you don't steal, assault, rape, or murder, I don't care what you do. I might have an opinion, but that opinion won't include a righteous option to stop you. What is chaotic anarchy? In a statist paradigm, it is believed that only a select few have the power to stop/prevent X, Y, and Z. That seems chaotic compared to the absence of the State, where it is understood that EVERYBODY has the power to stop/prevent X, Y, and Z. It really bothers me when people use words to misrepresent ideas.

The State is the institutionalization of inequality. Stealing from the productive to give to the lazy is the opposite of equality.

Where do you live? I look forward to the free room and board

How do you know? Somebody points a gun at you and asks where your loved one is. You owe them the truth?

The proof of concept is in your daily life. How many interactions do you have with other people where you achieve your goals by initiating the use of force? How many people that you interact with would initiate the use of force against you if the they were not afraid of State consequences?

What difference does it make what others think? Should the guy who is ahead in a race be worried about what others will think? Also, why did you use the word "just"? To me, the implication is that improvement isn't a sufficient goal. Which I disagree with. From the moment you were born, your every action and decision has been how to get yourself to the next day. There are many people on the planet today who won't be here tomorrow. Does that make you superior to them? Would that be a reason to stop trying to survive? While you're still alive, only you will live your life. Why wouldn't you want it to be the best it could be? If you had to unscrew a screw, would you reach for a flimsy piece of metal that doesn't really fit and takes a long time of fumbling to achieve that goal? Or do you reach for a precision machined screwdriver that fits perfectly and is strong enough to handle the torque with ease? YOU are the tool which you are applying to everything in your life. I can't imagine not wanting it to be as good as it can be. If your tool is better than your neighbors'... so what?

I enjoyed your post. It made me smile. In order to help you with your stated goal, can I make a suggestion regarding verbiage? To me, imprinted doesn't sound very human. I think the word inflicted does a better job of portraying that it was from a person, was active, and was deliberate. It helps to assign responsibility where it is due. This should help you to emotionally connect better with what was done to you.