AncapFTW

care to explain?

If you think this is interesting, look up "the Pixar Theory" on Youtube. Talk about interesting connections in movies.

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to? After all, they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading. That doesn't mean they have any right to control to their own property! Neither of them are moral. The difference is that in one case private citizens are taking other people's property and spreading it around, the other is "the government" taking people's property and spreading it around. One is simple theft, the other is armed robbery.

There is no reason you can't defend intellectual property through DROs the same way you defend physical property, or even by yourself. It's very easy to know whether or not you came up with an idea and whether or not you have the permission of the creator. Why do people think that you have to have a government for people to own a song, or a movie, or a schematic? That's basically a meaningless statement made by people who want an excuse for violating other's property.

So, you're saying that they are going to force you to do things their way, despite the fact that all of their funding is donated, they can't create laws which violate NAP, and the fact that they don't even have the power to create a rule without the majority of people accepting it? What are you even talking about? Except they don't have a monopoly on anything, as their rules specifically state. If they violate them, people will instantly know. So, you didn't choose to move into the area? You didn't chose to follow their rules when you moved there and became a member of their society? So tell me, how is this NOT a DRO? I don't see anything in the rules which specifically prevents it form being one.

People had already told him he was being ridiculous multiple times, yet they continued to respond when he said something. If you don't want him to post, ignore him. Remember, folks, having principles is boring.

Patents are just a way to denote ownership of a specific piece of Intellectual property, the way a deed denotes ownership of physical property. Intellectual property is owned by the person that created it from their labor and resources in the same way that physical property is owned by the one that created it with their labor and property. Getting rid of patents would be just as bad as getting rid of deeds. Technically, an anarchist society could exist without them in the same way it could survive without land deeds, but it would simply create additional litigation as claims conflicted with each other.

Was that supposed to be me?

So you believe that destroying my property is the same as having a differing opinion? How did this forum ever become a place for people who agree with the NAP if its moderators don't even understand it? Yes, I get it. It's your forum, and you can censor whoever you want. I wasn't arguing that you shouldn't be able to, but that you shouldn't. How can you claim to believe in freedom when your every interaction with others is a form of censorship? Case in point, this post and the one you responded to have to be "approved" before they appear on here, which gives you the option of censoring anyone who criticizes you, this forum, or Stephan, something you've used against me multiple times.

I'm not sure I agree with banning them from the message board. Yes, they are annoying, but you are essentially banning them because of their opinion. Maybe I'm too much of a fan of free speech, but since I've joined this board I've been censored quite a bit myself. If you really cared about freedom as much as you say you do, you wouldn't censor people for having a different opinion.

The Constitution is meant to limit the "government", not the people in the territory. That's what constitutions do, as do the bylaws of a company. So, yes, it makes sense that they can say "no law can do X" without them claiming ownership over everything in the area. Does the auto loan company have to own every car in the area to say "No loan can be for a rate of more than 10% interest"? How about "No employee may racially discriminate against any customer?"

One of the first things I think they should do is offer to pay both nations to give up their claim on the land, or sell it to "Liberland". I would make the deal contingent on both countries agreeing to it, and maybe even add in some other land in the area, like some land across the river. This would get those countries to accept them as a country. After that, I'd join the UN, at least for a little while, so that no one could argue that you weren't a nation. A nuclear plant requires huge amounts of water, and I'm not so sure that the other nations in the area would like them having nuclear fuel. Even something as small as a coal plant could work, but they might complain about the pollution. That's one reason I suggested wind and hydro. Few people will complain about them. I would also suggest creating a neutral area there if they are still at war, possibly getting them to turn it over to you for this purpose, or a tourist trap if they aren't.

It's on the the Danube River, so I don't think water will be a problem. A well could handle a hundred or so people for a while, more if you pump from the river. A small hydro power plant or wind turbine might be possible, with a few small businesses, like a hotel/casino, or a few shops, maybe even a gas station. Take whatever the neighboring government's currency is or Euros for now, until you can phase in a different currency like bitcoin or gold script. That's how I think they should start off, at least. All of that is 20-30 million, tops, especially if the people in the area need work.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/spanking_children http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective-biblical-discipline/effective-child-discipline/biblical-approach-to-spanking But they can't accept that they're wrong, so it must be all of those other "Christians" that are wrong.

I realize that sometimes non-lethal (by which I mean things that aren't' very likely to be lethal, as you can't ever know for certain) force may not be appropriate, but the current method of "everyone in this area is my enemy and will get shot" doesn't work either, for police or military. There should be a non-lethal way to deal with threats, either because you aren't sure if they warrant death for their crimes or because there are people who don't deserve death mixed with those that do. Also, I'm not sure I would be willing to take a life, even in self defense. Besides, even in a war setting, it wouldn't be about "being nice" to people that want to hurt you. Any war against a superior force is primarily a psychological war. For the purposes of the argument, let's say that there are a few thousand anarchists (us) living on an island and, after they succeed (or try to) the US military attacks them. Five thousand ordinary people verses one thousand troops with air support, tanks, and a blockade around the island is much too large of a force to deal with. If, on the other hand, we were able to make the troops question what they were doing we might convince them to pull out. Failing that, if the people of the US saw us getting slaughtered by the military for no better reason than "they tried to leave", we would become martyrs. Perhaps that would lead to even more people succeeding, or at least weaken the government's hold on its people. If we kill large numbers of them, though, the they become the martyrs and we become the terrorists or, at the least, the enemy who's killing their brave troops. In a police situation, the same thing would happen. If cops die when they attack you, everyone assumes that they were correct to attack you and that you are evil. If, on the other hand, the cops get hit with pepper spray and tazed before you escape, people think the cops were inept and were attacking people who didn't warrant the use of lethal force. Thanks. I'll look into that. I've got ideas for non-lethal weapons (nullweps?), but I need to build them to see how well they work. I'm considering dialing down the power and shooting chickens to test them if I do make them.

And how much training is required to learn to do that reliably and quickly? I was thinking of something anyone can do, or lean to do quickly, like use a taser or fill a balloon with pureed habanero peppers and throw it at them. The second one requires prep time, but should slow them down long enough to use slower, less lethal methods.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this topics, but... I had an idea for a book about possible non-lethal ways to deal with aggressors, including long-term conflicts (an Anarchist's cookbook that wasn't about killing people, but stopping them with non-lethal force). Then I realized that, while I had some ideas, I didn't know enough about how to fight to know how well my ideas would work. That's when I got the idea for an "open-source" (not sure the term for literature) book where anyone could contribute and their contributions would be marked. They could be rated based on reliability as there ideas were tested, and the most trusted of them could look at it to fix mistakes. Then I realized that this idea could work in other areas as well. We could even make textbooks, books on foreign languages, even how-to books. We could create an entire library. Has anyone heard of someone already doing any of this? Yes, I know there's Wikipedia, but it's more of a topic-by-topic site, not a place to find e-books. If there is someone doing it I'd like to look at them before trying to do it on my own.

Explaining why it's immoral wouldn't work. As far as she sees it, it's good if the Bible says to do it and Evil if the Bible says not to. The Bible says to hit your kids when they don't obey. That makes it Good. If I show her how it doesn't work, she might consider it to be one of those things that you can just ignore in the Bible, like how it says to stone adulterers and not charge interest on loans to other Christians.

and I told her that I didn't think you taught a kid anything other than "obey or else" and "obey the one in power" if you punished them by hitting them. She countered with "I've seen kids that weren't spanked and they are all spoiled brats." I assume what she actually saw were kids that weren't disciplined at all, but I started wondering if there was any kind of chart or study I could show her about how well kids behave compared to how they are disciplined/not disciplined.

You MIGHT be able to say that about the American civil war if you accept the explanation that it was about slavery (which it wasn't) but WWII and the attacks on Japan were because they were attacking the US and were allied with our enemies. In fact, the only reason the US was even in WWII was because of Japan. Before Pearl Harbor we weren't in the war, after it we joined quickly.

So, their highest principle is NAP, yet they would support someone violating NAP? A group that sees personal freedom as sacrosanct would support someone violating that personal freedom for no better reason than "they wanted to"? I know you see NAP as a religion, but people who follow it try not to pick and choose what it does and doesn't apply to, as that would invalidate the whole thing.

Niche markets, similar to the way lifeforms compete against "superior" lifeforms. While the rabbits might be inferior to the wolves in their ability to fight, they are superior in their agility, ability to hide, and reproduction speed, allowing them to survive even when being specifically targeted by the wolves. In this case, however, it's more like the competition between deer and squirrels. There is a bit of overlap in their food and habitats, but each survives by having a niche where they are superior.

The only MMO I've played that I really liked was SWG (Star Wars Galaxies), because you could develop a character however you want, but then they tried to turn it into a WOW clone and ruined it. I can't seem to find a good one that doesn't use the class model (maybe Shin Megami Tensei Imagine, but you have to act like it's a class sytem to be any good), and my internet is crap, so I can't play them anyway.

Just because something can't be universalized doesn't make it immoral. Having sex can't be universalized, but that doesn't make it immoral. Eating peanut's can't be universalized because some people are alergic, but that doesn't make eating peanut's immoral. All that not being able to be universalized means is that it can't be good, because by definition it can't be universaly preferable.

Well, it will drive down the prices by destroying property value, but it's still criminal activity. Also, I don't really like it when violent or destructive groups call themselves "anarchists". They aren't anarchists. They might want to get rid of the current government, but they want to do that so that they can become a government. "Revolutionary" seems a bit more accurate.