AncapFTW

I saw a police car with "Serving the community" or something like it written on it. I thought "To Serve Man is a cookbook." I wonder if there's a connection there?

Also Valla from later in the series (not that she usually fought with a weapon), and Tayla from SGA.

Because this isn't a paid forum, and if it was, it would be less effective at spreading the ideas which it was founded in order to discuss. Sure we could turn it into an echo chamber for those that want to pay to have their ideas reinforced, but that does nothing to spread the ideas. Also, If they did that, why would they keep the free products up?

Trinity- The Matrix. Sure, she had a lot of skills given to her, but everyone did. Her determination and creativeness, however, weren't given to her.

I can type in giant letters to try and make it seem like my arguments are better too. Just stop. I was wondering if you were trolling us before, but the fact that you think that giant letters are better and write non-arguments in them pretty much guarantees it. Obviously, there's no point in trying to discuss this with you, since you don't care what others say, you just want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you.

in reference to the OP, aren't reflexes part of who you are? Other unconscious behaviors are, including subconscious desires/views, so I'd say that it is. Seeing as how it begins a process in which the DNA combines shortly after that, usually (85% or so of the time) followed by the fertilized egg implanting into the uterine wall and developing into a human baby, then yes, there is more potential at that point. If I mix two substances together, starting a chemical reaction (say two part epoxy or concrete), then the act of combining them does make the combined substance significantly different then the two chemicals separate. How you could get that it was obligatory that they be combined, especially when that combination would require forcing people to behave in a specific manner, is beyond me. Was that a failed attempt at "reducto ad absurdum"?

People have been paying citizens to marry people in other countries so that they can get a green card for decades. There was a guy in my town that offered one of his friends $10k to marry his niece so that she could get a green card and come live with him. Now guys can do it for other guys and girls can do that for other girls. What does that matter?

1) The "go live in Somalia" one never made sense to me. It hasn't been an anarchy for hundreds of years. England and Italy (I think) made it a colony and forced a government on them, then abandoned them after they became dependent on it. After they left various want-to-be rulers formed gangs and fought over it. Also, I think some of them have actually seized enough power to become governments now. 2) Apparently using services which you were forced to pay for is evil. So if they benefit from the mafia, then the protection money they demand is justified? 3) How is forcing people to pay for things they don't want simply because you like the idea "caring for them?" I'd argue that respecting people as equals and not as slaves/masters is more caring for them than the way they treat people now.

If you can't be bothered to respond to the problems I pointed out in your argument, then there's no point in discussing this. You obviously aren't interested in having a discussion.

You specifically stated that you didn't consider specific contracts valid, even if they are signed freely. You said also were the one that decided that it was "slavery", even though everyone involved consented to it. You were the one that decided that they were giving up ownership of their body. That isn't a part of the contract. They would merely be agreeing to behave in a certain way in a specific situation, not transferring ownership of their body. When you get to be the judge of whether other people's interactions with each other are allowed, in violation of their will, then you are claiming more ownership of them then they possess, as you can override their decisions whenever you want. That means you are a ruler, so no, it's not an absurd statement.

So I'm not free to give up my freedom in any way, and you are the final judge of whether an agreement is valid or not, not the people making the agreement? Ok, then. Nice to know you want to rule us.

So people don't have to obey the terms of a contract in your world either? When they signed a contract they specifically agreed to limit their rights in this one area. That's what a contract is.

just a stupid political game made for quick clicks. I saw someone that made one where you basically shot Anita Sarkesian in a Duck Hunt style game.

It's easier to herd a sheep if it's in the field than when it escapes. Also, they have provisions in place for sheep to leave the farm, which they have to abide by somewhat or risk frightening the remaining sheep. So, yeah, they won't bother you as much after you leave. No, you make it so that the people you surround yourself with have similar values to yours, will respect your views, and won't try to use violence to make you comply with their demands. If no one is there, then the people will have to move in, and if you have a population of anarchist in the area before people start immigrating, they are much more likely to at least respect the idea of anarchy. Thanks for admitting it.

Did she not agree to lose those rights under a certain context, the same way the man agreed to lose his rights in the form of child support? If she agreed to be a surrogate for someone else, would she still be able to get an abortion against their will?

Could micro-hydro dams work, as they don't require you to dam the river? Also, if you just cut enough trees to supply the area with building materials, do you still need a license? Maybe you could let an existing company do it in exchange for them giving you a percentage of the trees back in lumber.

If you buy the land from Canada, couldn't you buy the supplies you'd need to build it in Canada? There are probably mining/pipeline/lumberjack cities that already do his to model this after. It may take a while to stabilize to the point where your exports equal your imports in value, but with enough investments it should work. Power would be the main problem, as it can't be bought in bulk and shipped in, but you could probably pay to run a line from Canada or run on generators in the beginning. A 30kw diesel generator could power a small town of a few dozen people.

That's why it would have to be specified that it was sovereign territory. Otherwise, you're doing little more than starting a new city or state/territory. No one cares if another country lets its own citizens do things that are illegal in the first country. Just think of all of the human rights violations people ignore in other lands. minor laws like drug offenses would be meaningless. Now, if Canada caught people exporting cocaine into their country through Ancapistan they might have problems with it, but they could deal with it by arresting the offending people. If they entered Ancapistan they'd have to arbitrate the extradition.

When you live in a society in which toxic people can and will force themselves into your life at the point of a gun, that isn't entirely possible. This topic is about how to create a new society in which those people don't exist. You are assuming that it is impossible without proof or even an argument as to why it is impossible. Sounds like a way of avoiding the idea to me, almost as if you aren't seriously considering it.

I thought of a few ideas on how we could start one form scratch instead of trying to convert an existing country into an anarchist model, where there would be a large amount of resistance. 1) Buy land from a country, with the fact that it is sovereign territory being specified in the deed. I suggest either Canada, Russia, or Greenland, as they are sparely populated and have large areas of land they don't use. This would give you legitimacy in the view of other countries. This might necessitate the formation of a minarchist government, though the constitution could speculate that the government must be periodically (I suggest every five years) ratified by a popular vote or it loses power and has to sell off all of its assets to the people. Also, you could join the UN temporarily to gain more legitimacy. 2) Settle Antarctica. The problem (or possibly the benefit) of this is that by treaty no country can colonize it, so depending on how the other nations see you, you could either be breaking the treaty or protected from invasion by it. 3) Seasteading. Either a floating city or an underwater city. This would be expensive, but you would have access to underwater resources such as oil and ores, which may be plentiful. Major problems include the engineering issues and the fact that homesteading would be expensive until the tech caught up. 4) Native American reservations have special treatment under US Law, and it may be possible to get one of them to help you in some way. Maybe if they bought the land with your money, then made it a territory? You would still be subject to some US laws, such as only being able to sentence people to up to 3 years in jail, but their could be a work around such as indentured servitude, though it's illegal in the US, so I'm not sure how legal it would be. I'd have to research this. Does anyone have any other ideas how it could be done, or do you see any other pros/cons with any of these ideas?

Depends on what the GM considers "lawful" in a way. I heard one person that make RP videos on youtube say that in some RPs you could use a personal code of conduct as the "law" you follow, but it would be hard to do as it wouldn't be know to the others, and could feel more like an excuse to do whatever you want. He also said that he considers the scale to be "altruistic/selfish" and "legalistic/non-legalistic" instead of "good/evil" and "lawful/chaotic". I guess that makes it easier to figure out your alignment.

Found these on youtube. They're they first videos I found where they actually talked about the fact that there isn't a provable connection between increase in CO2 and warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0iwI4LZ5go

What does this even mean? Are you saying that the US culture should have few "criminals" for some reason? First, I use "criminal" to mean people who hurt others without just cause (self defense, etc.), so people in jail aren't necessarily criminals. The reason the US is second in per-capita people in prison is because we have stupid laws and punish people for crap that isn't even a crime. Yes, they'll be similar, but not the same. Also, if they are raised in different cultures, they'll pretty much differ to the degree that those cultures do.

You can also call them on a ham radio.

Not that you'll even give a second thought to the idea that it might be real, but here's a link to a live feed from the ISS. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload