Pelafina

Respond to my argument instead of calling me a bigot.

Accuracy is my purpose and I am being accurate what I say that self-ownership is a preference. If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it is okay to own and control a different person or a different body. Just because you don't think it's fair does not mean that the belief against self-ownership is invalid.

Show me why you believe that it would be internally inconsistent. Claiming someone is inconsistent is not an argument.

You can only believe that it is legally and socially correct that everyone should have 100% ownership in themselves, and that if someone violates that right, then the rest of society should exercise consequences against the violator. If one exercises control over the body they inhabit, they can still hold the valid belief that it's okay to own and control a different person or a different body. Choosing to control the body you are in, doesn't imply that you are agreeing to limit that control to only the body you are in. The concept of self-ownership is just a preference, and as libertarians we hope that more and more people begin to believe in it. Self-ownership cannot be "proven".

The modern term for spontaneous order is "emergence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

What if it's renamed anarcho-voluntary-exchange or anarcho-peaceful-market, would they understand it then? Probably not because they don't believe in property.

Good stuff.

I found this summary informative - The twelve principles of Universally preferable behaviorBased on the following premises: We both exist. The senses have the capacity for accuracy. Language has the capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior -- or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you'll know right away: Reality is objective and consistent. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true: Initiating aggression (use of force) is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Fraud is wrong. Lying is wrong. https://rudd-o.com/archives/the-twelve-principles-of-universally-preferable-behavior

Why are there so many threads on this forum which demonstrate that almost no one who has read the book and watched the videos don't understand UPB? I know I don't understand UPB, and I've spent so much time on it. Stef needs to dumb it down for us.

Police are criminals, they have less "rights" than non-criminals. When a person violates the NAP, they are giving up some of their rights to be free from aggression, therefore Mike Brown had the right to attack and/or resist the policeman/criminal.

The Truth About Capitalism - he can distinguish between the peaceful market and crony capitalism. He can give examples how voluntary exchange is win/win. He can show how enforcing property rights and contracts, increases the wealth of all participants.

Ron Paul promoted anarchy in a recent interview. Many people credit Ron Paul for turning them toward libertarianism. You have to give credit where credit is due. http://www.youtube.com/embed/IcWPji8fXwU

Does anyone know some good sites on learning coding? (C++, java, python, etc.)

Do you know how to get an invention patented? Would that be the next step after the prototype?

I remember in a video, Stef gave the example that politicians promise crony capitalists favors in return for getting them elected, and once they are elected they don't have to return the favor, but they do anyway.

I believe that the correct libertarian position is the deontological one. Don't violate the NAP, that's it. In your example the boycotter did not initiate force or theft and therefore should have no legal consequences. This is what Stefan believes in, but erroneously he says "you are responsible for the effects of your actions".

There are two types of libertarians. Moralists and consequentialists/utilitarians. Moralists believe that you're responsible for your actions and that the ends don't justify the means. Consequentialists/utilitarians believe that you're responsible for the effects of your actions and that the ends justify the means. Do you see the difference? Stefan should be saying that "you're responsible for your actions" since he is a moralist.

You are responsible for your actions. The action of posting doesn't violate the NAP. But, according to Stefan, you are responsible for the EFFECTS of your actions, which means that even if you don't violate the NAP -- you are to be held responsible.

If this is true, then using the word "responsible" is meaningless. If I say that one is responsible for their actions of theft -- then you can reply -- yes, they are responsible, but they don't need to compensate the victim for their loss. Why does Stefan use the word "responsible" when he says people are responsible for the effects of their actions? I don't think he realizes that he is being a utilitarian.

Stefan has said many times that we are responsible for the effects of our actions, but isn't this a consequentialist perspective? I thought that Stefan subscribes to deontological ethics, not utilitarianism. Example - A neighbor fails to maintain his house and the property value of your house drops as a result. According to consequentialism, the neighbor is responsible for your loss. But according to the NAP and libertarian theory, one does not own the value of their property and therefore the neighbor is not responsible for the drop in price that others are willing to pay for your house. So are we responsible for our actions or the effects of our actions?

Does anyone here know the difference between UPB and Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics?

I think UPB is Stefan's attempt to prove that the NAP is an ethical principle that everyone agrees with. Am I correct?