AncapFTW

Ok, I wasn't thinking of the Masters as governments, but I guess they are all kings of tiny nations in a way. By restricting the ability of the people to produce products of services based on market demand, as well as preventing the people from gaining the resources needed to do this through trade, or even self ownership, they are essentially a government restricting the free market.

I described a society that was extremely not free. The market in that society, however, was free because there was no government interference. The masters also didn't interfere in there slave's trade, so they can't be considered an interfering government either.

free mar·ket noun noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. I don't see how the relative freedom of people who don't participate can be considered when determining the relative freedom of a market. It's a different issue entirely. The reason I created the topic is twofold: 1) That statement has practically become an axiom for some Anarchists and Libertarians, and as such I think that making the market more free has lead to some ignoring or working against more personal freedom. 2) It is sometimes used as a question on political compass tests, and, because so many of the questions were false dichotomies, I wondered if this one was too.

One scenario I can think of where this doesn't apply is if there are slaves. Say every free person can trade for anything they want as long as they can reach an agreement with the person that is selling it too them, but 99% of people are slaves. In that situation, the people have almost no freedom, but the market is perfectly free. The two are definitely linked, and if everyone were free it would hold true, but in a situation where the people aren't free, the market's freedom doesn't effect much. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't know, but some people seem to think that if it's use is "unnatural" in their minds, then it's immoral. And that's what the original post was about.

Hair evolved to keep us warm in cold environments. Not wanting to use your hair to keep warm is immoral. Trimming your hair is immoral, as it is contrary to how we evolved. Using clothing to keep warm is basically the same as having sex that isn't for reproduction, and don't even get me started on fur or wool clothing, as it's practically bestiality.

If C thinks it's A's horse, then he's still a thief. If he doesn't return it to C, he's profiting from the theft, and in possession of stolen property. Even if it is better for C to have it than A, that doesn't make what C did right.

I find it strange that he says that you owe it to you ancestors to have kids, and that it's selfish to not want kids. Sounds an awful lot like a social contract to me. Somehow I owe something to someone without having a say in it or whether I got what they were giving me. Also, the idea that it's both immoral to have a kid if you can't afford it and not want kids sound like a bit of a Catch 22. The only moral coarse is to contribute everything you can to earn as much as you can, then give it all to your children, apparently. Also, only one form of sex (hetero vaginal sex between fertile people) can even produce children, so saying that sex is just for making kids is a very limited way to look at it.

My idea for a "government" would have every service funded either by subscription or via donations, like on a crowd funding site. If someone wanted to support the military, or a part of it, they would donate on military's fundraising site. Things like the police, fire, road department, etc. would be subscription based or a hybrid. Ex: I don't want the police for my personal services (my DRO does a better job), but because I am in tourism, I give them $30 per month to protect tourists. I do, however, use their roads some, so I pay $10 a month to the road department for 500 miles per month allowance. To make this work, you'd need to establish that they couldn't force anyone to donate or subscribe, or ban competition in any area, otherwise it would just become a tax system again.

I've always found Stef to have a bit of a mental hangup when it comes to kids, and have said so in the comments of several of his videos. This is likely because he is a stay at home dad, and is therefore around kids all of the time. People saying "humans haven't evolved since inventing birth control" miss that only on specific kind of sex can lead to children.

This isn't multiculturalism, it's people who aren't trying to improve their lives and are happy living on handout complaining about the handouts instead of trying to fix their situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism I'm wondering how much the government spends per person out there. I've seen people on youtube who built a pretty decent house that could house 4 people for about 5k or 6k dollars out of a shipping crate. It was pretty nice, too, and could have running water if you hooked it up like an RV.

J. D. Is a troll who is trying to use pua and other forms of manipulation to make anyone who argues against him look like they are wrong, stupid, or conspiring against him. Just ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

So, let me see if I understand. You are commuting fraud to get money from the government, who stole the money to give it to you? There's also the risk of prison, and you aren't even committing a victimless crime or protesting a bad law to get it. Not a very wise idea.

So the concept of being honest in a relationship is incomprehensible to you? Equality and truth when dealing with others doesn't exist?

Except that you are manipulating people, not nature. That means that you have to work with them, convincing them to do things your way, not alter them based solely on your views of how things should be.

I watched the commentary "thebiblereloaded" did on it. Not as scary as "kidnapped for Jesus" but still really bad.

I would have thought Atlanta was much worse. Of course, I won't drive anywhere near Atlanta during rush "hour" so I'm not sure how bad it is.

More like: I was lied to about the truth, and therefore made a decision based on that lie which benefits the one that lied to me. Because I never would have made that decision if I was told the truth, their lie was effectively violence against me, as it put me in a situation against my will due to another's actions. That force is a violation of NAP. The thing which makes it invalid is the other person's use of fraud to trick you into making a decision in their favor. You never have all of the information, but when someone purposely gives you wrong information to manipulate you into a position they want you in, they are essentially committing violence against you.

Also, force isn't required for it to be rape. No force is required if someone convinces a 10 year old to have sex with them. Very little force is involved if you roofie them, as, at most, you are drugging them without them even knowing it. You don't need force if they are unconscious, either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdgfnHaryb0 This also isn't a scene of two rapists, with one about to rape a woman. After all, the rules specifically forbid him from hurting her physically, she can't get pregnant, and she isn't even aware of it. So, no violence means it wasn't a rape, right?

So, say you agree to by a car from me. I offer you a 2 year old BMW in good condition for 12k and send you pictures and even a video of it. You give me the money. I send you a fifteen year old Ford Taurus with 200k miles on it. I didn't steal from you, right? Only sex is reciprocal, so more accurately: I have cancer, so I find a surgeon who also has cancer and tell him I too am a surgeon. I even pay my buddies a few hundred dollars to give me glowing reviews. I offer to operate on his cancer if he operates on mine. He agrees, and performs the surgery. After recovering, I operate on him, but because I'm not a surgeon or even a doctor, he dies. I didn't commit murder, right?

This isn't a case of "I didn't know X at the time, therefore retroactively consent can be removed." This is a case of "they purposly misrepresented the truth to trick me into agreeing to their terms, therefore the agreement never was valid." It's no different then, after sex, saying "Oh, yeah, I know you asked if I was disease free, and I said yes, by I actually have herpagonesyphilaids. And you know how you told me to use a condom? I didn't." Is there any chance she'd have consented, knowing what you were lieing about? No, so no, the consent wasn't valid. A rich man, who would actually be able to give them child support. Yes, they most likely consent only because they wanted money, though it's likely the money was only an option should things turn out badly for them. No, but offering little kids candy to get them into your house, and more candy to get them naked and let you do stuff to them isn't force either, so their's nothing wrong with that either, right? "Yes" already sometimes isn't valid, otherwise rape and statutory rape wouldn't exist.

If I commit fraud to get some to give me something, it's theft, as getting it was strictly because of the fraud and contingent on the fraud not being fraud. If I commit fraud to get them to sign a contract, the contract isn't valid, as their agreement to it was made on the basis of a fraudulent claim. Having sex with someone withoit their consent is rape. He commits fraud to get women to consent to sex and teaches others to do the same. So, regrettably I must agree with the feminists. Yes, he's a rapist.

You mean mass shootings which almost always happen in a gun-free zone? Even the ones on military bases count because they aren't allowed to have guns in most cases, only the MP can have guns. Most of the people in prison are in there for non-violent, often victimless crimes.

You certainly are making a lot of assumptions. First you assume that no one would want them except out of curiosity, then you assume that anyone who does use them is an addict. Did it occur to you that maybe they are addicted but still like it? Porn, for example, fulfills a biological drive. So does food. Just because people use a food you don't like doesn't make them addicts.

It says in the wikipedia article that it is the stages you go through in your life and how you justify those decisions, not an evaluation of how moral the decision is.