AncapFTW

Too bad they can't all be like this:

Reminds me of all of the half-black people in the 19th and early 20th century that pretended to be white to go to school/get a job/etc. I guess when dealing with racists it's ok to lie to them to overcome their racism.

If you go to a sperm bank and sell it, it's supposed to be anonymous, but if they do find out I think they can still sue you for child support if they want.

How does any charity work in an anarchist society? Also, if they commit a crime because of their mental illness, it will probably be a part of rehab.

Dear Everyone: Please forgive my earlier post. I try not to feed trolls, and purposely didn't respond to "dsayer"'s post, but rather the post of someone who responded to him, in order to try and avoid this. When he responded, however, I posted without thinking about it. I was going to remove the post when I realized that, but he responded before I had a chance to delete it. I marked through the post so you know what I was talking about, but left it up.

It is possible to have sex with someone without their consent or even knowledge of it, and without harming them. Does that mean it isn't rape? Trespassers haven't harmed you or your property. Is trespassing ok, then? What if I hack your computer but don't change anything, and just look around? --- Cheating is the equivalent of a breach of contract, as the two of you have a spoken agreement to be sexually exclusive to each other, therefore your spouse is being harmed. --- Such as when you are tried for murder for causing a woman to miscarry? It's not the same anyway. We're not speculating about possible future people, we are talking about an actual human that currently exists, but won't be capable of living outside their mother for several more months. They wouldn't have even existed, and the discussion wouldn't even apply, had the mother not chosen to create them, or at least risk creating them.

Yes, it is. If I know how to do something, and have the resources to do it, then I am able to do it. The only thing that could change that is if I couldn't get the resources to do it, which would make it not possible. I know that if I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I will die. I can, however, not do it and not die from it. The fact that I know what will happen and the fact that I have the power to stop it are both true.

Well, technically, they can't be exclusive, as Omnipotence would give you the power to gain any knowledge perfectly and instantly, ie. Omniscience, and Omniscience would mean that you knew how to do everything possible, ie, omnipotence.

Assuming we haven't done anything to affect each other up to this point, if I break your arm, did I violate your rights? What if I put you in a cage? If I take the food you gathered? If I take your car? Every one of those things is property rights, only the first two are self-ownership, and the last two are property ownership. What if it's ownership of one's ass, and they don't consider it valid because you are preventing their sexual pleasure by refusing to let them use it? Are you committing violence against them when you try to prevent your own rape? The claim to something is justified by how much you put into it and what you've done with it, ie, the amount of your time, labor, and resources put into it. If I claim an oil deposit and then do nothing with it or the surrounding land, then I could easily be challenged on my claim of it.

Yes, it is property, but something being property isn't inherently wrong. What if I was trying to argue that boxing should be banned and I said "Boxing, a brutal murder, is assault."? Would that be a valid argument against boxing? In both cases there are other people involved, people who are having something forced on them. Land ownership, on the other hand, doesn't involve the use of force except in defense, and only then because they are trying to force it on you first.

When he compared owning land to owning slaves I stopped reading.

I'm pretty sure that it's quite common just before an uprising.

You're assuming that he has a history of this, but yeah, that makes sense.

I never got why so many Atheists are statists. I've actually heard them say things like "we don't need a god to tell us what's good and evil, the law will punish us if we do X (insert evil thing). Guess what, the law also makes you do evil things and prevents you from doing good.

This breaks down when one person wants to add something, and decided that others should also pay for it. Then there's the fact that children would be born to those people and wouldn't be a part of the contract. As a free-society alternative, this could be made to work over a small area, but it doesn't really fit the government as it exists today.

Are you saying that the road owner would have to do things your way, IE, require superhumans to have "handlers"?

I define it as able to make decisions, being self aware, and having a desire for self-preservation. Most lifeforms fit the last one, and many apes meet the first one. As I have no way to determine if they meet the second one, I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, that doesn't mean I expect them to behave like humans. They do engage in trade, even prostitution, but how do I know how they view trade? Sure, I might think I convinced them to trade me gemstones for coconuts, but how can I be sure they understand it the way I do with communications that are far more advanced then the sign language we've taught them. And that's just the most closely related species on the planet to us.

Define "right" and "wrong" first. "Right" is a word generally applied to the correct action to take. How do you judge what is the correct action, though? Is there a definition that everyone can agree on for what is correct in any situation? That's like saying that we must scientifically prove that a strawberry is red. Yes, I could show that the primary wavelength of light reflected by it is within the "red" area of the light spectrum, but if we disagree on what part of the spectrum is the "red" area, we can't agree with each other on the color of the strawberry.

Do I own another person if I allowed them onto my property? Same thing. You created a debt, possibly by accident. How is it immoral to collect on that debt? If I let you borrow my car and you wreck it, you have to pay for the cost I incurred as a result. Me collecting it, even if I have to get someone to take it from you, isn't immoral. You refusing to pay that debt is, however.

So, in your opinion, no harm was done, despite the extreme chance of harm, therefore no punishment is warranted? ??? What are you saying?

Ok, I heard they got engaged at six but not technically married until 9. Basically, he called dibs on her and paid her father for it, but nothing happened until she was nine. Kind of a technicality, though.

1) Do you mean that you can't act, or that there isn't a limit on what you can do? I suppose I'm confusing it with sapient, but some definitions of that don't fit. I'm using the word to refer to beings which have a sense of self, and can act on its own, can make decisions, learn, and has a sense of self preservation. 4) He's kind of a pet, kind of a slave. He's a member of the species, and can reproduce with their queens/princesses, but before the human interference he wasn't really self-aware. True, I couldn't provide a huge amount of detail, and those details could change the issue drastically. My assumption would be that, like the marvel universe, people know about mutants, but that they are rare and often indistinguishable from non-mutants, and most wouldn't survive being hit by a car. The rules about drunk driving and damaging others property are different depending on the specifics of the free society, so assume your ideal form of it. The biggest issue is the person's intention. Shooting Deadpool is far different than shooting Professor X.

So, if he wants to be able to do something that anyone is allowed to do, he must enter into a contract with someone else to "earn" that freedom? A person's freedom depends on how physically imposing they are? Also, he was walking, not driving. Otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be deadly force used against him.

The first time, yes, you just posted a smart alleck comment instead of waiting for the topic to appear. Sense it appeared, though, you've responded multiple times. So why do you continue responding if you aren't getting something out of this?

Like I said, "If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it." You are the one that decided that this needed serious attention when you chose to respond to it in a condescending manner. No one forced you to read it or respond. No one even asked you to specifically. You just decided to read it and respond with snark. If there is a free-rider here, then it is you, as you are ruining other people's conversation by adding nothing except self-absorbed non-comments and links to videos where someone else explains things. As I'm not even being a nitpicker (if I am, then please explain how I am) I'm not even going to bother with the video. After all, it's really just you, once again, treating others like they aren't worth your time while simultaneously interrupting their conversations, proving that it is worth your time in some ways.