AncapFTW

I'm going to try and ignore your condescension and deal with this as if you aren't trolling me. I detailed above the actual issues I was trying to deal with. There are many different opinions on how different things SHOULD be done, and I was merely asking how various people on here WOULD deal with these issues. Every one of these questions actually reflects on real life issues, and I was taking the real life issue out of it to get to the core of the matter. Unfortunately, almost everyone on here decided to attack or mock me rather than behave in a civilized manner, which makes me wonder if the whole forum is full of trolls and I'm one of the few non-trolls on here.

Isn't this discussion pretty much a bunch of people screaming "why don't you choose to pay as much as I do for this product and/or service? It's immoral to not pay as much as I do, so you're a bad person."

No, I'm not, I'm asking an actual question. Thanks for just assuming the worst of me, though. It really reflects well on you opinion of other people. 1) there is no "freerider problem". If something is offered for free, you don't say that anyone who uses it for free is a "freerider". You chose to pay for the use of the site, I didn't. If you don't want to pay, then don't. Don't demand that I pay and then insult me for not "volunteering" to pay for something that's free because I was coerced into it. 2) I asked a question about how individuals would deal with situations outside of the norm and some people decided to respond with condescension and insults. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. There's no need to be a dick about it.

or married a nine year old.

Jim Crow laws were "positive" as far as the racist white people in the area were concerned, as it gave them an unfair advantage over black people. Nazi Germany engaged in "positive racism" as far as the white, "true Aryan" people were concerned, as it gave them an advantage over everyone else. Apparently, a professor, someone who is supposed to be very intelligent, can't see that all discrimination is against some group.

First, thank you for taking the situation seriously. You were the first to do this. Second, while I understand your response, I don't feel that I properly framed the issues as I see them, so here they are: 1) Someone interacts with you in a way that, in the vast majority of cases, would result in serious injury or death. For whatever reason you are unharmed. To what degree can you use violence against them or their property before you violate the NAP? 2) Some of them were born sentient, some became sentient due to human interference. To what degree do they have rights? 3) How do you deal with a different species whose different biology has caused them to have a different understanding of property rights? 4) Like #2, they were given sentience, in a sense of self, by humans. For most of their life, however, they were not technically sentient. To what degree do they have rights?

Apparently, since no one here wants to answer it seriously, and would rather give smart alleck answers then answer the question. I guess this forum is just full of people who like the IDEA of a free society, but don't want to actually think of what that would entail.

I added something to it, so they have to re-approve it.

I was just wondering how different people on this forum would handle cases which differ greatly from the norm if they were the Arbiter in this case. Yes, I understand that these situations involve superhumans/etc. and therefore aren't realistic at this time, but with genetic engineering, cybernetics, and the like being possible and probably widespread in a free society, the issue could arrive eventually. Also "let's just get a free society first", etc. doesn't address the topic, so please refrain from brushing the question aside. Scenario 1: 1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car. He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine. The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages. 2) Planet of the Apes scenario, where Apes become sentient through genetic engineering. They attack humans, then run off into the wild. A year later humans start moving into their area, and they attack them on the grounds that they are trespassing. The apes then send a representative to the humans to try and get the humans to leave them alone. They are sueing to have humans banned from their territory without express permission from them. 3) A group of aliens with r selected breeding practices arrive. They quickly overpopulate their land and start spreading into nearby land, with no regard for who owns what territory. Many humans sue the individuals for habitually trespassing, and they respond with the argument that they have to spread or they starve to death. On their homeworld land ownership was quite limited, with only rarer, non-food resources being owned. 4) An ant-like alien race has a massive degree of sexual dimorphism, with the women (queens, and "princesses") being human level IQ or above, and the males being of ape level intelligence. The males have to have a connection to a female (telepathic, pheromone, we don't know), and if they don't get it their brains start to break down, essentially rapid Alzheimer's which kills them within days. A human doctor rigs up an implant which prevents the breakdown process from occurring by tricking the brain into thinking the connection is still there. The male then asks for asylum. His mother demands his return, as she owns him according to their laws and customs.

Apparently, reminding you of the fact that you, in your own words, support one person owning another isn't a strawman. Even if you don't see it as a person OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT, therefore it is still an issue and will continue to be one. And, of course you downvote me, because why should you engage in an actual discussion when you can yell "logical fallacy" and be condecending? But then again, you are the ultimate arbiter of everyone else's rights, aka, the state, so it's OK.

No, it's about the possibility of a voluntary government, not a state. You chose to interpret it as a state because you can't seem to separate the two ideas. Also, please disengage your "condescending prick" mode. People come here for a civil discussion, not to be treated like they are beneath you.

Yet you, who I assume want to live in a free society, just stated that a person, or at least someone who would become a person, was owned by another person. You obviously believe that some people will want to own other people, as you just said that one person should own another, and presumably would support them own this other person that lives inside of them.

I guess you're right. Of course, that just means that it could be a state, not that it has to be one. A nation or community doesn't require violence.

Well, I posted the dictionary definition, and it didn't include the state, so you couldn't mean me.

Obviously you don't care about taking the conversation seriously. You haven't even read what I wrote, assumed you knew what I said, then repeated what I'd already countered. Then, of course, you equate a village with a group of girl scouts, instead of accepting that it is an actual civilization. There's no point in talking to someone that's not even going to bother treating you as a human being, so goodbye.

maybe you have a plugin we don't.

Who are you talking to? I assume this is to the OP.

A group of villagers send their goods into town with a merchant to be sold. Two people hire an arbiter to decide who is in the wrong in a situation. In both cases they are governing according to the first definition, and the first is a government according to the second definition. If the arbiter is commonly used by the community, they could also be considered a government in that situation. One person or a group of people can, by definition, be a government without using violence or existing in a separate moral category. Your claim only stands when you use your definition of government, not the technical one. That's why I was wondering how they defined "government". If they use the one that people on this forum favor, that a government is any group that uses force to make you do things their way, then a peaceful government is, by definition, impossible. If you use the dictionary definition then it is possible. It's like an SJW saying that minorities can't be racist because by THEIR definition it is a logical impossibility. By the ACTUAL definition, though, it isn't.

Your definition of "government" includes the use of involuntary force, so of course that means that it must use it. By the dictionary definition, however, it doesn't have to use violence, though. That's just the norm for governments. gov·ern ˈɡəvərn/ verb gerund or present participle: governing 1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people). gov·ern·ment ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/ noun noun: government; plural noun: governments 1. the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Nothing in the definition demands the use of violence.

Can't help but think of my dad, who has a concealed carry license, but would flip out if he knew a trans man entered a public restroom with him in it.

I haven't listened to the clip above because I have no idea how long it is, but here's my answer: 1) DROs are the best option as far as I can see, as they will work as a kind of direct substitute, but without the need for taxes to pay for them. People could also decide not to hire them, but would deal with crimes on an individual basis as they happen, like how you would deal with traffic accidents or medical bills if you didn't have car insurance or medical insurance. Those that couldn't afford a DRO membership (which would be very rare) would likely have the services covered by charities. You could also go with a system similar to the ancient Norse or pre-colonial Somalia, where family units or groups or people got together and defended each other when they were wronged. They would then go to a neutral arbiter to have the issue resolved. 2) What's the difference between a criminal organization and an invading army? A DRO could also cover this, though I suspect that militias would also form to help deal with such issues due to the large numbers or criminals involved. 3) Not really needed, as there wouldn't be large numbers of handouts for anyone who came in, and they would have to contribute to get anything out. Because things would be privately owned, though, it would be a case of the owner allowing them/not allowing them and trespassing. 4) People would enforce their own contracts. If you violated the terms, there would be punishments in the contract for such occurrences. If you refused to abide by those written punishments, you would be letting everyone know that you don't honor contracts it would become more difficult to get others to contract with you in the future. Crime and Contracts could become something like a credit rating. If you respect people's rights and therefore don't face charges, your rating goes up over time. Be found guilty of a crime, and it goes down. Break contracts and/or refuse to abide by the punishments laid out in them, your contract rating goes down. Abide by them, and it goes up.

The explanation I've heard: It's not murder if it's justifiable homicide. Or in war. Also, if God tells you to do something but you see it as a violation of his previous commandments, which do you follow? The christian answer seems to be "the second wasn't really God's voice." The muslim is "the latest revelation from Allah."

What I've never got about it is why it's ok to try and teach the Ferengi/Romulans/Cardassians/Klingons to follow your cultural beliefs, but if I landed on a Theocratic oppressive dictatorship which was stuck at a early 2000s level of technology I couldn't interfere. Klingon moon explodes, we take advantage of it to form an alliance, eventually causing massive cultural change. World ending meteor heading towards a Renaissance level society? Sucks to be them. They try to explain it away in Enterprise in an episode where there are two sentient races of humanoids living on a planet. One is spacefaring, but doesn't have warp drive and is dying from a genetic disorder, and the other only have a crude language and are servants. The doctor says "what if an advanced society had given the Neanderthals an advantage?" as if it that's a reason not to help them. I would have responded "then we might have two sentient races on Earth, we don't know. How does that make it wrong to help them?"

When someone mentions a muslim country or sharia law on the internet there is usually at least one person that says "we don't have morality police in (insert western country)." What do they think the vice squad is? Vices are just things that people think are sinful or immoral. Sure, sometimes they stop actual crime, but if someone in Afghanistan arrested someone for being gay and then found out he murdered his boyfriend, would that make them ok?

Nature is the way things are without interference by intelligent beings. If you don't like the way something is in nature, then find a way to work around it. Something being a certain way because it's natural and something being a certain way because an intelligent being made it that way are completely different. You can be killed by a lightning bolt, but if I put you in an electric chair and electrocuted you it would be murder, whereas being struck by a lightning bolt is just an accident. That's the difference.