labmath2

To the extent that i undrstood UPB, i assumed it could be applied to all rational actors. The difference between APB and UPB is about effect of our actions on others. Though i could be wrong.

I reject the evolutionary argument for social outcomes because it implies the current outcome is the "most fit" outcome. It is the determinist version of philosophy.

During the call in show about animal rights, i was nervous which affected my covnitive capacity. If i could go back a redo the conversation, i would ask two things. 1, what is the meaning of conceptual language and how does it demostrate a persons capacity to understand certain concepts? 2, what about humans that are not capable of conceptual language?

There is still the issue of distribution. If money supply is pegged to gold, when more is printed, how is it distributed?

My first instinct is to ridicule you, and my second instinct is to ask where you got all that information. Now to real discussion. I think most people ignore the fact that the universe is not just a random series of interactions. That is why we have science and philosophy. You should look up gravitational equations and circular motion. With that as a start, i am sure you can figure out the rest. For the other relations you site that are not based on natural phenomenon, it is either coincidence or other people found something in those numbers as well and settled on them. Like lucky number 7 or third time's a charm.

What would you tell someone who wanted to believe but just cannot think of a good reason to? How did you get started?

The idea that people are born unequal creates a world where right libertarianism is equally doomed to fail. Just because the "injustice" is not at the hands of man does not make it less unjust. I feel wronged that my parents were not rich, geniuses, or physically exemplary. I don't see why this is any worse than injustice at the hand of man. The difference is that we can prosecute man and seek to make restitution, but we cannot prosecute nature neither can we make restitution.

Aren't all forms of property rights outside of oneself social?

I believe the argument is that if you cannot solve this problem how can we trust your methods for any other problems.

How much responsibility should the 16 year old take for his actions if he expresses that we willingly took part in the act? P.S. If a 16 year old (someone who we do not trust to make decisions about who he sleeps with) has sex with another 16 year old (another person we do not trust to make decisions about who she sleeps with), its somehow ok?

I am curious if there is an explanation for why historically more free markets almost always produces less freedom in the long run. If a free market were to emerge today, how can we know it will not eventually produce less freedom in the long run?

When Cliven Bundy refused to adhere to the rules that other cattle ranchers were required to follow, did he not also benefit from the state?

I wonder what people think of this. and someone just sent me this video today also which i find interesting. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=797569513642698

While i am not well versed in legal procedures, i find this input interesting.

This is so insightful i am kicking myself for not thinking of it. If it is true, then it implies that the most efficient system for transfer of goods and services may not necessarily be the most efficient system for generating consent. I've always thought of consent and the market as mutually inclusive.

I thought the difference between communism and capitalism was about property ownership? Communist do not think people should own lands because it results in good lands being taken and everyone else having to engage in the market to survive. Where capitalists believe as long you you engage freely, it's ok. P.S I find it interesting that in the video about two guys in a room and homesteading, it was assumed that they would each homestead half the room.

I was under the impression that the fundamental difference between communists and capitalists is to whether land ownership is allowed or not. The case then for communism will be if the all "good" land is already taken, then you have no choice but to engage in the market (landowners as geographic monopolies). The capitalist will argue that as long as you engage freely then there is no problem. PS, i do find it interesting that when Stefan answered a similar question about two guys in a room and homesteading, he assumed they would both homestead half the room.

Someone asked David Friedman this question and i was wondering if other libertarians agree or disagree with his answer. Skip to 1:40:10

What are ideal standards? How do we discover them? Are they the same for every individual?

Is it just me does the ending suggest "occupancy and use" as the valid property right or at least Lockean proviso?

The point is that the question is irrelevant since the enforcement of that rule also allows others to force their preferences on the advocate of the rule which invalidates it. Unless you mean the advocate of that rule has not intention of it applying to himself, which violates the universal clause.

This is actually a clever response. It does not work because it would require the person espousing those claims to apply it to himself which would invalidate the whole thing. I would react by saying "well then you also do not own your body, and i am also free to use it as i see fit." However, a communist could very well apply those standards to himself. TDB i am not sure what your point is, but the thing about communist buying land where he can practice his believes is contradictory since he does not believe in land ownership. "So, if it's an ancap society, I'd explain to them that their beliefs are incompatible with the way things run around here, and he needs to save up some money or borrow some or get a rich benefactor and buy some land to start a different society. Or leave, or persuade everyone, or adapt." Consensus- General agreement. I read through your comments and i get the sense that you believe the majority (or super majority) will win and those who disagree can either capitulate, persuade or relocate.

I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.

The problem many people had with Sam Harris in that discussion is the use of vague language. Islam is no more particularly worse than Christianity. It just so happens many of the Christians we in the west are familiar with have abandoned most of the biblical passages that we would consider just as bad as some of the same things some Muslim extremists support. The question then is concerning the comments target, is it the text, or those who practice Islam (of which there are millions who just like many christian do not practice exactly what is in the text).

I am not sure if you see this but i will point it out for you. Those statements suggest that this is a grey area that is subject to cultural interpretation. Since in these cases the act is not in question but the justification for compensation which could certainly change based on the general consensus. If you still don;t see how these statements denote possibilities for different outcomes based on the attitude of the population, then i guess you mean something different than i understand by such statements as "make the case" or "if they can demonstrate loses, they might [be compensated]."