AncapFTW

No, I contested your claim that the poor need some sort of artificial help to make enough to survive in an anarchist society, and your claim that the rich would prey on the poor.

You seem to think that there is only a set amount of wealth in a society. The talented can also make money off of the talented. The poor, if they aren't talented in some way, work for the talented to maximize the amount they can earn, as the talented can create things more efficiently. People are talented in different ways. Stephen Hawking would still need a cook, or someone who's talented in other ways. No matter how talented a person is, they can't do everything. If the non-talented people can't earn a living, then the talented people can't either. Therefore, some sort of equilibrium will occur. It might even entail the less talented people only dealing with certain talented people because they know they'll get treated better. If the talented people have any business sense, they won't over-exploit any resource, including employees and customers.

Sure, wealthier women could raise kids on their own. Windows have raised kids on their own too, but it wouldn't be incentivized. In fact, because people would have to take responsibility for their actions and children raised by two parents end up better off, people would be incentivized to raise kids with more than one parent. Daycare wouldn't be a substitute for parenting, just a way to handle situations where the parent can't watch their kid. I think that abusing the daycare system by having them basically raise your child would be stigmatized, as it would be inferior parenting.

51k includes the vacation time, assuming that it effects wages. Also, buying a house will save them money long term. So basically all you've managed to show is that the average person lives beyond their means by $50 per month, and doesn't do things like buy a house which would decrease the cost of living. Cost of living is based on a certain standard of living, and isn't actually the minimum amount they need to spend to meet their needs.

All of it. It's as if you were writing in a foreign language.

Seeing as how there are billions of galaxies with millions of stars each, that's a very long way in the future. First, land would have to be scarce enough for people to colonize the oceans and the planets/moons in this star system, then it would have to become scarce enough to drive us to other systems, and eventually property in the galaxy would have to become scarce enough, etc. You can abandon it as long as you aren't infringing on another person's property. I can't give up my claim on nuclear waste by dumping it in your front yard. In the same way, you can't give up the claim to your actions if doing so subjects another to harm, ie. abandoning your child. If, for example, you give up the fruits of you labor in the form of a book by letting others have it for free, that doesn't harm anyone, though. No, you still own it, it's just virtually worthless now, like your body after a period of hedonistic abandon would be.

"The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice." You specifically said that because you couldn't be sure if the guy was lying about being in the situation due to violence against him or because he brought it on himself, you didn't care how he got there and it was ok for him to steal. No, not just ok, but moral, ie. good. So now, because you can't be 100% certain that it was immoral for him to still, it was now moral. Be honest with us, please. Are you just trolling? The previous post doesn't even make sense, and you ask why we can't understand what you're saying. Why would I be shot because no one can prove I'm a complete asshole? Or are you saying that people can't choose who they will and won't interact with?

No, it's about opposition to having rulers and the ruled, which is a form of hierarchy, but not all hierarchies are opposed. There are many voluntary and natural hierarchies that aren't opposed. I doubt any anarchist is going to start complaining about the food chain, or about voluntary master/slave sexual relationships, and only under certain circumstances will they complain about parents being hierarchically higher than children.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Unfortunately, they sent it to you and drafted your bank account without you knowing. Also, they don't bother looking much at it when making changes to the product, so it's not very accurate.

So, if I am a complete asshole to everyone and no one wants to deal with me, it's moral to steal from others to get what I want from them? It's moral to rape because I'm extremely horny and no woman will willingly sleep with me?

Two trolls getting in a flame wars. I don't know if it's funny or just pathetic.

While that is is the only form of consciousness we've observed, I don't think that we can rule out the possibility of any other form. Anti-matter, for example, could form a conscious being, and it may be possible for conscious beings to exist without the need for matter to interact with, or at least not a specific form of matter, such as energy based lifeforms from sci-fi. If you are talking about humans continuing to exist after death, though, I would say that everything we know about how the human consciousness exists requires a human brain, so we have no evidence that it could exist outside of a working brain.

No, there isn't as far as I know, and you haven't yet proven that it is true, so it wouldn't apply if their was. How did he get into this situation? Was it his fault or was it forced on him? If it was forced on him, then I don't see a problem with stealing from the person(s) that forced it on him. If he caused it himself (say he spent all of his money for the last week on booze), then he put himself into that situation and others shouldn't be subject to violence to fix his problems.

Kennesaw is actually on the outskirts of Atlanta, which has a much higher rate than most of the rest of the state, which makes this even more interesting.

In an anarchist system, roads and "public bins" (I assume you are referring to trash cans?) would be privately owned, but most likely the various owners would work together to streamline and simplify the system. Immigration would be a non-issue, as any immigrant that can live peaceably and provide for themselves would be welcome. IP is a contested area, as some anarchists (including me) support the idea of having security companies protect ideas and research data, and others basically say "you can't own an idea."

Was does this even mean? Just because they aren't looking for a relationship doesn't mean that they want to not be in a relationship.

So because I, as a guy, fit 8,9,13, and in certain situations 16, I'm not fit to have a relationship? same. Why does it matter if they are a woman? Why does only wanting to "eat healthy", the definition of orthorexia, make them unfit?

Trying to attract a mate isn't the same as consenting to mating with anyone who's attracted. Even in the wild, among animals, it merely gets them to come by to be tested as a possible mate. I get it, you don't like them acting like that. This isn't really a "white knight" thing, though. They are people who didn't deserve to be attacked.

So, Jack will somehow Butterfly effect the result of WWIII? That's like saying "What if I could say some magic words and float? That makes Gravity invalid", only it's stupider.

It depends on if the "marginalization" and "ostracization" was the result of violence. If they were in an internment camp and stole from the guards, that's one thing. If people just refuse to deal with them and they respond with theft, that's completely different.

So, basically, you minimize civilian casualties by deliberately targeting civilians? Well, at least it fits with the standard government double-think.

I think you can register yourself as a gun dealer and get more modern weapons. It makes you subject to periodic inspections and a lots of other bureaucracy, but at least it works.

"Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true." Not sure how they'd respond to that.

The post already includes the answer, as the emboldened text also applies to life. You have a right to preserve you life, but you are also subject to the consequences of it, such as jail if you stole to preserve it.

So He wasn't the only one that Monica was interested in?