AncapFTW

I do a lot of RPs online (roleplayerguild.com in case any of you are on there), but I've never played tabletop games. I've been wanting to do a text based RP with other anarchists. My basic scenario is basically the Seasteading thing, only with an Island. We could also do seasteading the ocean floor or on Mars, or on a planet in another system, or on an asteroid (yes, I'm a fan of Escape From Terra, is it obvious?)

1)first highlighted section: You don't feed cows grain all of the time, so this is meaningless. Cows eat grass and hay, which is grown in a field where they live. Even if that hay/feed plant is harvested and taken to another place, it isn't about weight, it's about nutritional value. Beef is about 26% protein if I remember properly. Oats are 16.89% protein. The plants they grow on have very little protein. 2) Yes, you might be able to farm the area (maybe not as crop plants are much pickier than weeds for their growing conditions), but that would require more workers, which means more food is needed. One person can manage a herd of hundreds.

According to Wikipedia, in 2012, McDonalds employed 1.9 million people and earned 5.5 billion in profits. If they gave all of that profit to the employees, as opposed to the investors, that would be $2894 per employee. Sounds good, until you realise that no one would invest in a company that didn't turn a profit. Also, assuming that they work an average of 30 hours per week, that's only a raise of $1.85/hour, less if the average number of hours per week is higher. Asking for $15 per hour is like asking the company to sell off assets so that you can double your income, because that's basically what they'd have to do. They might be able to increase their prices a bit, but that will lose them customers.

"To AncapFTW, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying they don't deserve it. If you don't feel they deserve it, but continue to support it, and argue against that it is wrong, that is your hypocrisy. I'm just pointing it out." So it's hypocrisy to say you don't believe something is happening, and to therefore not try to stop it? Gotcha. Aliens are attacking New York right now, and throwing people into woodchippers. Now, help me fight against it or you're a hypocrite. I'm just going to start assuming you are a troll and start ignoring you now.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/no-sharpstown-texas-did-not-fire-its-police-force-and-bring-about-huge-drop-crime Their source.

But you do have control over them, in the same way Google has control over its customers. The "proto-government" is basically a defacto DRO that buys land to expand the country.

I'm sorry if the fact that I actually know farmers and have even been in chicken plants puts a damper on your "Animals are skinned alive" idea. I guess the reason I don't believe it is because I go to actual farmers and food factory workers, not PETA websites where they bring in videos from third world countries to try and prove that certain things are happening.. I'm sorry, but if the closest thing to evidence you can come up with is "why don't you believe me", you either don't care about the truth or you're trolling.

In modern times, you have to be officially recognized as a legitimate government in order to not be target practice for other governments. The easiest way to get recognized would be to join the UN, but, because the UN has rules that the member nations must follow and inflict on their people, this isn't acceptable to those that want freedom. I came up with an idea for a "government" that may be acceptable to them, and therefore could create a nation they wouldn't have a problem with, but wouldn't hurt its people. The basic constitution is: 1) The Government may not force anyone to obey its rules unless they agree to follow them of their own free will, or they violate the protections of those who agree to follow its rules. The people who agreed to follow its rules people will be known as "citizens". 2) The Government may not use force to make anyone to accept its terms or rules. 3) Anyone may leave or join the government as a citizen at any time, for any reason. They may not be punished for leaving, but they may be required to pay back debts accrued while a citizen. Does anyone see any problems with this idea, or the basic Constitution?

I've never understood socialist atheists. If you say something about religion and moral they immediately say "you don't need a religion to give you morals". They immediately turn to the state, though, when you ask them why they don't do things that are "evil". They say you don't need a religion to control them, but they want the government to do it.

No one said they deserve the above conditions. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. Also, I seriously doubt most of that is even true, other than a few rare cases.

1) What part of "factory farming" is torture? tor·ture ˈtôrCHər/ noun noun: torture 1. the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. synonyms: infliction of pain, abuse, ill-treatment, maltreatment, persecution; sadism "acts of torture" great physical or mental suffering or anxiety. "the torture I've gone through because of loving you so" synonyms: torment, agony, suffering, pain, anguish, misery, distress, heartbreak, affliction, scourge, trauma, wretchedness; More hell, purgatory "the torture of losing a loved one" a cause of suffering or anxiety. plural noun: tortures "dances were absolute torture because I was so small" verb verb: torture; 3rd person present: tortures; past tense: tortured; past participle: tortured; gerund or present participle: torturing 1. inflict severe pain on. "most of the victims had been brutally tortured" synonyms: inflict pain on, ill-treat, abuse, mistreat, maltreat, persecute "they have tortured suspects in order to extract confessions" cause great mental suffering or anxiety to. Yes, they are raised in a relatively small area, but they aren't having pain inflicted upon them on purpose. 2) So, I don't have an ethical reason to kill animals. I don't have an ethical reason NOT to kill and eat animal either. That makes it a matter of personal preference, not morality. I don't have to have a moral reason to wear a certain t-shirt either. Does that mean that wearing the t-shirt is immoral? 3) That's not my argument, so nice job creating a straw man. Tell me the truth, are you a troll or a PETA plant or something? You certainly aren't a philosopher yourself, as you can't seem to come up with a reason WHY we shouldn't do something, but insist on telling us we shouldn't do it. Saying "you have no right to do this" is a meaningless statement as well.

You are trying to restrict what I can do. It is therefore up to you to prove that I am doing something wrong. Otherwise, you are just hurting me for your own personal preference. Which is called violence. Also, at no point did I say that torturing animals or saying that "causing them agony" is ok. I just said that eating them is ok, and that you needed to show me why it was wrong to kill and eat an animal. You couldn't do that, and instead chose to insinuate that I thought torturing animals was ok. Let me put it this way: Humans are different than the other animals. Because of our ability to do something mentally that they can't, we have a way of interacting with each other that they don't have and can't learn. This mental ability can be considered "morals" or "Logic", but animals aren't capable of it, and therefore there actions can't be bound to it. If we interact with animals, our actions towards them might be considered in light of "morals" or "Logic", but they cannot be considered equal to us in that context for the same reason that they can't be considered our equals in general. Some people choose to interact with animals in a way you object with, killing them for meat. Now, show us how that is either immoral or illogical, as you can't show us why we shouldn't do it on any level an animal can understand. What do you mean by "rational actor"? Even a severely mentally handicaped person's brain functions significantly differently than an animal's brain.

Yes, because a "dating site" is interested is you finding buddies you can get drunk and play poker with, instead of going home to your family. "Secondlove" obviously means a set of friends your wife doesn't know about and "You're happy with your relationship, but you also think that monogamy seems very monotonous?" Obviously refers to only hanging out with people your wife approves of and letting her know when you're not going to be home. Like I said, yes you can "cheat on" your wife in other ways besides sexually. If I was dating a girl that was very anti-drug and secretly smoked weed when I wasn't around her, that would be cheating on her. That's not what the topic or the discussion was about though. It was about Norwegian website for finding other people to have sex with while you are in a relationship with someone else.

How does the fact that it's a particularly well trained animal prove that it can reason? You train a parrot to say "no green block" under certain situations. That doesn't show a reasoning ability, but an ability to realize that something is missing, something which it already instinctually knows how to do, as it would need to know if one it's eggs is missing or something disturbed its nest. Being able to train your cat to follow the wishes of its pack leader doesn't prove anything either. I've seen videos of Ravens waiting for a "walk" symbol at a cross walk before they cross the road. Does this mean they reasoned out the meaning of the symbol and know it represents a person walking? No. They just know it's far more dangerous to cross when the sign isn't lit than when it is. THat makes them intelligent, but not rational. The human brain works differently than the brain of other animals. To put it in psychological terms, animals have an ID and an Ego, but not a Superego. They know what they want, and understand the consequences of their actions, but they can't understand a concept like morality. That's just not a part of their brains. Similarly, a computer can know what it's supposed to do in a given situation, but it can't understand the concept of "is this good or evil." The vast majority of humans will eventually develop that ability, which makes them our equal, and capable of operating on equal terms with us. Animals can't develop the ability to understand morality, therefore they can't operate on that level. If it can't operate on that level, then someone who can has to make moral calls on its behalf. The only ways I know of to decide who makes that call without resorting to violence is property rights and homesteading rights. Therefore, humans have to treat animals as property or a natural resource. You can choose to do whatever you want with your animals, but you can't choose what I can do with mine. It's not a moral choice of "should we eat animals or not", it's a choice of the pros and cons of treating animals different ways. Humans need a lot of protein and fat in their diets to function properly, therefore there is a huge pro to eating animals. If you don't want them to do that, then either make the pro less important through competition or make the cons greater through "animal rights" activities.

I'm saying that in a discussion about cheating (it's in the title) other ways you can break a marriage contract are immaterial to the conversation. Now, if you want to create a topic about all of the ways you can betray your spouse, I'll talk about that. If the topic was "is it immoral to buy trade secrets from a competitor's employees" I wouldn't talk about all of the other ways they could breech an employment contract because that wouldn't have any bearing on the conversation unless you can tie it in somewhere. I can't talk about embezzlement or not wearing appropriate clothing at work, or taking too many sick days, or anything else because they have no bearing on whether or not they are selling trade secrets.

It goes to whoever is willing to trade gold to the holder for it.

Sure. Not as bad as violating the contract in the first place, but still bad. Because cheating specifically involves breaking A. Whether or not they abandoned them when they got sick, or hit them, or ignore the kids, or anything else isn't part of "cheating". Or are you saying that she's justified in sleeping with the neighbor if he quits his job and gets drunk every day?

How would the Amish system fit in? They share a lot of their stuff among the congregation.

I've never been published (I get writers block about 3 or 4 chapters in and give up generally), so take everything I say with a grain of salt, but I have two approaches to my lead character. 1) Make them an everyman that learns and grows, eventually reaching your philosophical ideal. 2) Make them the embodiment of your ideal, and have them weather the storms of adversity, bringing other characters closer to your ideal. You also have to take into account your setting. For example, a medieval peasant isn't going to be a philosophical anarchist. They might, however, be fed up with the corruption they see in the nobles and sympathize with the bandits/outlaws who stood up to them and became criminals, real or fake, because of this. If your character is an anachronism, they are less believable, which distracts from the story and the lesson. I'd avoid monologues, and instead have them teach by example or answer specific questions from other characters, depending on their personality and the situation.

Cheating is more akin to a breach of contract than theft. You aren't physically harming the other person, but you do have an agreement, even unofficially, that you will only engage in sex with them. I'd say it's closer to compare it to an employment website helping people break exclusivity contracts. Yes, it's a bit immoral to try and cater to that market, but they aren't really responsible for the person's actions.

I've only every dealt with HTML and C variants, like Basic, C Basic, C++ and visual C. I'd love to learn, though.

My plan is basically: 1) Buy private island. 2) Convince the politicians to let you succeed so that you can create a hedonistic paradise for the rich and powerful. 3) Create a pseudo-government for the island and turn it into a party island. 4) Join the UN with the original nation's support. 5) One year later, leave the UN, because they are a bunch of statists. 6) They can't say you aren't a legitimate nation (you were recognized by the UN with their support). They also can't attack you, because the rich and powerful would lose their playground. 7) Open up to large numbers of colonists. I've been toying with the idea of a pseudo-government for a while. I'll start a topic about it soon.

When I first heard someone say that, I thought about it. This lead to the question "How is voting for more freedom "using force to violate someone's freedom"?" If, for example, I vote to legalize weed, how am I using the government to commit violence against others? I'm not stopping people from restricting its use on their property.

Sounds like a preacher to me.

to change it, you need to know the old one. The "forgot my password" thing is showing up in my other browser, though. it just didn't show up on my cell phone. Thanks.