AncapFTW

I'm currently watching this debunking of the video:

Including mandating Obamacare. I remember people saying that because they can regulate interstate commerce, that means they can regulate healthcare. And somehow that means they can force it on you. I don't remember the exact argument.

My family was watching an episode of the tv show "The Waltons", and in one of the episodes a 50 year old man that had had a heart attack already is drafted for WWII. He knew it was a mistake, and was in the process of filling out the papers to report the mistake, so he didn't show up when they said to. The sent an agent to his store and hauled him to the draft office so that they could deal with it. This got me thinking that the draft wasn't the only law which clearly violated the Constitution but is still in effect. (in this case, the Thirteenth, which bans slavery and indentured servitude, except as punishment for a crime. As they were selected at random, and not because they committed a crime, and kidnapped because of it, they were Warrior Slaves, not soldiers. Many laws violate the first amendment (everything from laws mandating that you serve everyone to laws banning you from protesting without a permit), all gun regulations violate the second, the Constitution specifically bans Federally mandated school standards (which they get around by taking money from the states, then giving it back if they meet certain standards), and there are many more. I was thinking that if we could get together a list, we could use it to show people how the government doesn't even follow its own laws. Which others can you add to the list?

I've seen people considering starting a new social media outlet that has free speech, fair use, etc. written into its rules. Basically, make a new business that doesn't give into this crap and pick up the people that are leaving the other services. Of course, if I had the know how and money I'd make an "onion" style phone system that encrypted anything sent over it.

Just playing devil's SJW's advocate here for the lols. It couldn't possibly be that you weren't a threat to them.

Well, if it was a preacher refusing to marry a gay couple because of his religious beliefs the government would say it was illegal.

Immigrants can act on their own. Guns don't. Guns are tools used to sometimes do crimes. Immigrants are people that sometimes choose to do those crimes.

You can't transfer a fetus and it survive, at least not with current medical tech, so the fact that it will die if you remove it is the main concern. With a cow it doesn't matter so much, and is just a property rights issue, but with a human being there's someone else that will die if you kick them out. Kicking someone out knowing that they will die if you do isn't just "a dick move", it's murder. And in this case you pretty much kidnapped the person while they were knocked out and put them in your house in the first place. The only reason they were there is because you put them there without them having a say in it one way or another. Tell me, if I picked up a guy that was knocked/passed out on the docks, sailed with him out into the ocean, and through him overboard, knowing he would drown, would that just be a "dick move" or would I have murdered him?

Seasteading?

I think you only need an area that's free of government, and enough people in the area that will stand up to the attempt to use violence against them.

Now that I know it's possible, I am ignoring it. The last time I asked about it, though, I was told it wasn't possible. We buy a cow together and it is in your pasture. I say "it's not grown yet, so you can't take it to a slaughterhouse yet." Am I claiming ownership of your land? I see you about to slit a passed out hobo's throat and grab your hand to stop you. Am I claiming ownership of your body? I see a man ripping a screaming woman's clothes off in an alley. I pull him off of her. Did I claim ownership of either of their bodies?

Time to celebrate the improvement of majority rule over small minority rule. Still have a long way to go. I wonder what kind of holidays we'll have in an Anarchy? I could see an actual Independence Day celebration happening, as well as the popular ones like Christmas, Easter, and maybe Thanksgiving/Halloween (which could be a combined harvest festival).

Too bad this argument doesn't work for defending yourself against thugs in costumes. Just try to use this as the reason you need a gun in countries/states that require you to have a reason before they allow you to carry.

Please stop trolling me. You are literally saying that a person is her property, then saying that you can't own another person. If you had actually read my post you would realize that I had just said that, but you would rather troll people by using a double standard instead. If you respond to me again I'm going to report you for trolling.

A virtual nation is essentially a group of people who call themselves a country so that they can decide what laws they have to follow. I would think that anarchists would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own laws.

That's what I was wondering. Is it based entirely on the effectiveness of a policy in having a given effect? Who decides the limits of the government's power or what it should be involved in?

Yes, it is. It may not YET me a moral actor, but it is capable of becoming one and is already on a path that will inevitably lead it there. Why is "moral actor" the measure of if it's a person or not? Small children barely fit that definition if they fit it at all. Severely mentally handicapped people can do very little in the realm of rational thought, though they are people. People in a coma cannot act morally or immorally, yet they are considered people. So why do you degrade a human that will, in a few months, reach that point to the level of "property"? And even if it you do consider it property, isn't it half the father's property as well? If we buy a car together and park it in your garage because you have the room, I'm not relinquishing my ownership but letting it be parked there.

Many European countries, like the UK. Certain parts of the US (though many areas have sectors where race-based subcultures exist in a bit of a bubble). Australia/New Zealand I think. Just look for one that has relatively large populations of people from many different ethnic backgrounds.

You don't really need to do that. Just look at a country where there are a variety of races, but everyone has adopted a very similar culture. IQ differences are extremely small in that case.

They are both immoral for the same reason, you are treating another person as your property, someone you wouldn't consider a person in that situation. In fact, the abortion is worse because you are taking someone's life, not just enslaving and assaulting them.

Or that America didn't exist when they were creating these "prophesies" and therefore wasn't an element they could incorporate into the doomsday story they were writing.

One can only hope that valuing individuals over criminal organizations will lead to the fall of the criminal organization.

There are so many problems with that explanation. First, contracts aren't the only way to determine if something should be allowed or not. Children can't sign contracts, but it would be wrong to harm them. Second, there is an obligation there, in the same way that if I invite someone onto my land they don't lose their rights. Third, it isn't slavery to force someone not to harm (or kill) someone else. The idea that I'm enslaving you by defending myself is ridiculous. I would argue the opposite of your statement, that if you adhere to Libertarianism, abortion is immoral.

So, to paraphrase: Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening. There is already a market for SEX SLAVES, and people will keep doing it whether it is legal or not, which means that they do not think it immoral, or just do not care. I am one of those that doesn't quite care, but if SEX SLAVERY was legal, and there wasn't such a big stigma about it, many deaths related to clandestine RAPES -quite a big problem where I'm from- would be avoided, because proper medical care would be enabled to the RAPIST. Legally speaking, given the risks of our current statist society, wouldn't SEX SLAVERY be a good solution for men? If SEX SLAVERY were legal, then logically the only duty of a man towards a pregnant woman would be to offer to pay half (or all, damn statists), of the RESULTING MEDICAL BILLS. Were she to refuse, why should he be forced to pay DAMAGES FOR RAPE? (I'm against the whole concept of DAMAGES or CRIMINAL courts no matter the circumstances, but I'm trying to see how it'd fit into current society). I'm not saying the morality of SEX SLAVERY is a moot point. I see good arguments going both ways, and it is a delicate issue. But no matter what we think about it, that does not give anyone the right to legislate on it. It seems objective that if the supply and the demand are there, it should be allowed to happen. It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to RAPE it, PROPERTY, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

yes, it's possible. I even want to build an automated farm one day, but it's too expensive to produce food that way.