Tyler H

Property rights do not require force, the violation of property rights does. Self defense is perfectly valid. The initiation of force is the issue, not force itself.

How does a monarch attain this property? The counterargument to “taxation is rent” is that the property is never justly acquired.

Who claimed that? We want a world free from violence and coercion. This does not limit itself to governments and taxation. We focus on reforming those aspects of society because most people are blind to the fact that they are included in the category at all, but their absence is not the only criterion for freedom. If I have to live in a barren wasteland where my capacity to produce is significantly diminished, if not entirely nonexistent, then I am not free. If the only reason you are there is because you will be assualted for your preferred choice then the choice is still not one made in freedom.

I’m not going anywhere. This is my home. I want the world to be free, not just myself. I’ll stay and fight. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on the fact that taxation is theft. You can try and avoid that fact by appealing to the majority or some illusion of consent created by prior violations of person and property, but the logic is inescapable. Taxation is taking property through force or the threat thereof; taking property through force or the threat thereof is theft; therefore taxation is theft.

This happens to everyone, I’m not sure what buzzwords flag posts but I don’t think it’s because of your views. As long as your posts are not abusive then you should be good.

Yeah I ended up seeing it this past weekend and would entirely agree with that synopsis.

If you’re inquiring as to whether or not information should be property, Stephan Kinsella wrote a book on intellectual property that you may find interesting. Free in multiple formats. Against Intellectual Property

Do you think it’s possible you inferred a tone or meaning that I did not imply? I admit it was a tad flippant, but not meant to mock. I apologize if that was your experience. And a slave is given a choice between servitude and death- but that isn’t really a choice is it? It’s a few thousand dollars to expatriate, and if one were to do that where could he move where he would not be stolen from in the same manner or worse? And even if such a place did exist, why should he abandon his home just because thugs with guns say he has no right to his property? I signed no such contract. Yes it is, a crime worse than slavery. Slaves have no rights and work for another man’s benefit, the conscripted are forced to commit evil themselves- murder or die, possibly both. If Walmart ran the education of the young for generations, what would you think of contracts people signed beneficial to Walmart? Do you think there would be a conflict of interest in those contracts? Yes the majority is told this is true and they believe it, our goal is to show people the truth. Is it possible the avoidance of these feelings is at all related to your position vis-à-vis taxation? I’m not saying it is, I’m just proposing a possibility for you to ponder. Allow me to ask you this as well: would it not be preferable for all human interactions to be voluntary instead of coerced?

That’s all we ask, let us opt out. Oh yeah, and don’t shoot the competition. So why do you think that’s not an option?

Got as far as the first sentence of the second paragraph before checking out. You said “ancaps seem to think” which tells me you don’t understand the position, an hypothesis that is quickly substantiated when you begin to compare a voluntary relationship like FDR to a coercive one like the government.

What would you be voting against? This is generally an issue of legal rights (in the eyes of the state) and tax benefits afforded to spouses that are denied to homosexual partners. Marriage offers a certain reprieve from state control and predation and to deny that option to a certain population would be to support the continuation of that control and predation.

Also, if the government could run a profitable business they wouldn't need to steal the initial "investment".

The post office gets ~$18B In subsidies every year.

I don't normally enjoy horror flicks, but for some reason this one intrigues me. Perhaps it has something to do with the cultural significance, but I rewatched a trailer today and it seems as though there is an underlying message regarding the adult cover up of child abuse. I'd be interested in hearing Stef's break down of the symbolic messaging in the film. Anyone else? I thought his analysis of American Psycho was fantastic. If anyone hasn't listened to that I recommend it.

You're equivocating "arsenic" and "poisoned" in order to make your analogy fit. Arsenic can be poisonous to humans but the amount in an apple is not. The term "poisoned" means that there is enough poison to have substantial negative effects. So I'm going to come by your house and give you this beautiful clay pot I made (it's not beautiful, it looks like a turd you could use as an ashtray, maybe) and demand you pay me $100 for this provision I have so beneficently graced you with, and if you refuse I will have no choice but to forcefully extract my just payment, and if you try to defend yourself then a never ending supply of reinforcements will arrive until you comply or your miserly, freeloading heart ceases to beat. And this we will call the cost of living in a civilized society. Excuse me, I need to vomit.

Do you have any evidence that promotion of homosexuality results in homosexuals that would otherwise remain heterosexual? And that this plot disproportionately affects white people? edit: guilty of not reading everything, I see the reference towards targeting whites in the OP. Apologies.

If drugging girls and having sex with them isn't rape for all girls, then drugging girls and having sex with them isn't rape. Hmmm, just doesn't have the same ring to it without all the propaganda, does it.

Then the gun is an unnecessary overhead. It's not there for those who consent. The introduction of the gun into the equation is proof that consent has not been given.

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Does your son want to be around Bob? Does he often prefer Bob over John?

"I made a statement and you don't agree, you're a bigot!" Nothing here portrays you as a bigot. In fact I'm willing to bet if I had the entire transcript of your conversation leading up to this point I would find that your "friend" is projecting and is therefore, by his own standards, the bigot. Im curious, why are you friends with him? And I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't be, I'm genuinely curious what are the positive aspects of the relationship for which you maintain it.

Could you define rightist for me, please?

Wondering why "most gods are sophists"...

If you think you can change their mind via reason then you haven't been paying attention...

Perhaps you should define your terms. If by "Centrism" you mean a political ideology which mixes American Democratic and Republican policies, and if by "free markets" you mean voluntary trade free from coercion and force, then I fail to see how the two can logically coexist.