AncapFTW

I usually don't watch Crack, as they've gotten really authoritarian (such as when they argue that the Empire in Star Wars was actually better than the Republic because "it brings order" or something, or when they said that the Alliance from Firefly was good), and "progressive" such as any time they make a video about an even vaguely political topic, but this one seems roughly neutral.

Putting aside all of the Simception talk.... I wonder if this could allow quantum entangled communications. After all, if the electrons are entangled afterwords, couldn't that allow devices to communicate with each other without a physical connection, or even having to exchange photons? If it could, encryption wouldn't be needed for communications as much. Yes, if you used an intermediary (like the Net) you'd have to have it, but it would allow direct connections between computers.

I was thinking "Sure, this form of civilization. Just like feudal civilization required monarchs and lords, and slave civilizations required slaves." They are essentially assuming that because it's a part of every civilization they are aware of that it MUST be part of civilization.

Maybe you should reply "Slavery is the price many Africans paid to come to the US.", but I doubt they would see the parallel. As for the second point, when the vast majority of people accept statism, it pretty much is the assumed position of everyone.

I was reading a review for the webcomic "Escape from Terra" and one of the reader comments on it was basically "I used to agree with Libertarianism, but then I turned fifteen." I pretty much interpreted that as "I used to accept the ideas of freedom and equality, but then I hit puberty and the primitive parts of my brain were flooded with testosterone. That, coupled with my now stronger "adult" body made the idea of ruling over people more appealing so I switched because of self interest." It was essentially his way of saying "that's just childish" without having to actually make an argument. I was wondering what other arguments everyone had heard that were basically non-arguments.

You could theoretically have a government (country could theoretically apply to a culture or geographic area, so I didn't use it) that only used force against other governments if they first initiated violence against it, but governments, by definition, violate NAP when dealing with "their people", so they must violate it in some ways.

When did I do that? Maybe you are referring to the OP? Also, this sentence is written in a confusing way. Could you try to write in a less confusing way?

Argument from authority much? It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to someone on youtube or how much they seem like an expert, they aren't perfect. Everyone can make mistakes. Claiming that you can't critique someone if they are less popular than them or are less of an authority in your eyes isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

No, I'm saying that to authoritarian people disagreeing with them can be a reason to use violence. Just look at any religious war. I don't understand the second statement. Yes there are people who won't be convinced no matter what, but they aren't the ones you are trying to convince. There are people in the middle who will be effected by your argument, and maybe one of them can reach the other person through some other method (maybe because they're a friend or lover). Even if they can't, you might turn the person in the middle, even slightly. It's like a debate. You won't turn the person you are debating with, but you might convince the audience.

I liked the quote. I don't know who said it.

Houses can actually be quite cheap, just look up "tiny house" or "shipping container house" on youtube. A few thousand for a completely functional house. Houses are much more expensive than they should be because everyone wants more than they really need, and the governments are keeping interest rates artificially low so that houses appear cheaper. The ease of financing a house has made the price increase to huge levels. Housing, like everything else in a free society, should go down in cost assuming that houses are equal, but people want so much and want them is such a good location that it drives up the cost. I don't see how renting could be cheaper. After all, the owner has to earn a profit on the house or it isn't worth it for them to keep the house. That profit is extra cost that the renter must pay.

They still exist, just outside of our group. Not only will teaching them about your view turn at least some of them to your side, but those that don't switch can at least understand where you are coming from. I don't get this "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude that some anarchists have. You want a society free from the initiation of force, yet you won't even take basic steps to insure that people don't have a reason to initiate force against you. When people can't understand your cause, it's much easier for someone to convince them that you are evil, and therefore they should use violence against you. If they understand your position, even though they don't follow it, they can at least see that the person who's trying to turn them to violence is wrong about you, and therefore is wrong about them needing to use violence against you. Look at it this way, there are many people who think all Muslims are terrorists, and therefore all Muslims are the enemy. If you can convince them that not all Muslims are terrorists, though, then they have no reason to use violence against any Muslim that isn't violent. At the very least, talking to people about it and letting them understand your views will prevent the people who are against your from convincing them that you are their enemy too.

Most people are stuck in a Master/slave dichotomy, where they think that it is only normal to rule or be ruled. Until they break out of it society will be stuck with a State. Once most people are out of it, the Master/slave dichotomy will seem antiquated at best.

It's not the only religion to do this, you know. Read the old testament. Many ancient religions were spread through violence. They thought that if they could kill anyone that was against their religion, not only would it get rid of the competition, but other "might makes right" type of people would convert.

I don't agree with this. The owner's rules only alter the rights of the individual where the person agreed to have their rights altered. They don't replace the rights of the individual. A property owner doesn't need to list a law unless it is important to the owner of that property and not a general rule. To put it another way, the mall doesn't have to put "no rape allowed" signs up because rape is automatically assumed to be against the rights of the individual. Neither do they have to post signs saying "mall security has the right to apprehend you if we have evidence you stole from one of the mall's vendors". If the rules alter the established rules of society somehow, say that the mall owner is Jewish so no pork is allowed in the mall, then a rule does need to be posted. Property rights do exist in the other answers, only it is the rights of a person to not be assaulted that is being discussed, and how far that extends. That's one thing that never made sense to me, that some people define "violence" as "binding upon me, against my will". If I refuse you service, I'm not being violent, but it is against your will and is binding upon you.

So it's their responsibility to not be offended by you violating what they perceive as their rights, but not your responsibility to put up a privacy fence so we can easily avoid it? Also, I'd argue that having caveats without explaining why they are exceptions means that your way of distinguishing whether or not they are initiating force is flawed.

I'd start with how you build a rural house, with sewage, water, power, etc. being put in in a simple, cheap way, only with oversize pipes/wires/etc to future-proof it. Then expand. You could either have each system be run by a different business, or a co-op where people provide to it or buy from it, similar to how electrical co-ops work. That would let people make extra power/water or use extra, and it wouldn't be as critical if they do either.

We have all been exposed to multiple ways to determine the truth. All that showing them evidence is supposed to do is to get them to doubt the other ways that they determine "truth". Most people in the US, for example, have been told that "What the bible says" is the way to determine truth, or "what authority figure says" is how you determine truth as well as "logic and evidence" being a way. The people on this forum ostensibly choose logic as the best method, but many people have to be shown that it is the best method. Showing them the flaws in their other methods make the other methods worse options.

I didn't even read the post because it was minimized due to his negative rep. The only person I'm purposely ignoring is dsayers, but I told them I was going to ignore them already because of a discussion on tis same topic in another thread. I've already addressed everything in LibertarianSocialist's post though, that I know of. If you don't think I didn't, feel free to re-ask the question.

If you couldn't repair the car, they would basically be the same thing. Ideas are created at cost and then they are sold to recoop the cost, at least the ones that are created for profit, like movies, songs, patents, etc. Sure, they may not succeed in making their money back, but by copying their idea you are diluting the market for their good, which causes it to be harder for them to recoop that cost. If you distribute their idea for money, it's far worse, because you are earning a profit off of other people's work without compensating them and without their permission. That is normally referred to as slavery, theft, or government depending on the size of the group doing it and how they try and justify it to their victims. If you don't want to respect their rights as they state them, then don't interact with them. It's basically the same as going into a person's house and peeing onto their carpet to interact with someone knowing what they view their rights as and initially violating those rights. No one forces you to interact with them, but you are forcing them into a situation where their rights will be violated by choosing to interact with them.

They wouldn't, which is another failure of the system. If someone doesn't want to abide by the rules, they shouldn't interact with my property. It's the same as if I told them not to interact with my car if they don't want to respect my physical property rights, or not to interact with me if they are willing to assault me. If they do interact with me, and I feel they are violating my property rights, physical or intellectual, then I should be able to defend those rights. If I'm in the wrong, then let them sue me for it. The point is that by saying "I don't have to respect your rights if I didn't agree to already" is that you are essentially placing all of the responsibility for having their rights violated on the victim. Oh, your factory was raided? You can't own the means of production anyway. Oh, your husband raped you? Too bad. He's Muslim, and the Koran says that it's impossible for you to rape your wife unless she's under 15. You're wiccan? Well, time to get burned at the stake. If society was the way they wanted it to be, I could simply do whatever I wanted with the excuse "well, I never agreed not to do X" and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Sure, their buddies wouldn't deal with me, but what do I care? If they won't deal with me, I'll just target them next. I never agreed not to kill anyone, so they don't have the right to self defense. I wouldn't do that, but someone could. By letting other people decide the limits of a person's freedom, you open the door to them stripping all freedoms from them. Which is essentially slavery or government depending on the size of the group. What should happen is that the DRO or I would get to say that I have certain rights, and they, or I would be able to defend them. If you don't like that I claim I, for example, have the right to walk around naked, then don't let me interact with you and don't interact with me. If I say I have a right after interacting with you, and you aren't willing to respect that, then don't interact with me any further. Sure, I might believe a violation of those rights warrants a certain punishment, but if no arbiter will uphold that, then I can't really use that punishment. In the example above, if I think that telling me to put some clothes on is punishable by you giving me the money to buy clothes, but the arbiter doesn't agree, then you aren't punished for it. If they do agree, however, then it is a viable punishment for you and other people violating my rights later.

I have already incurred the cost when I created it. I am just trying to recover that cost by selling it. True, I may not succeed, but if you provide it to others without my permission/compensating me then you are impeding my ability to do that and possibly earning money off of my labor. Because I didn't agree to let you earn money off of my labor, you are essentially saying you own my labor, therefore me. Therefore slavery.

Can you explain why you can only homestead physical things?

Why can't you ethically organize society? Can you not create a set of rules based on a group's views of what the rules should be, and then allow people to join the group or not? Can you not create a standard which other people choose to follow? I think you are confusing "organize" with "force compliance." Organize doesn't imply force, however. It is merely the opposite of chaos. When some group "organizes" a convention, are they using violence? I guess that means that the security at comic-con is forcing you to be there. I've already mentioned a baseball game, where people come together voluntarily and agree to follow the rules. Do you believe the Umpire is forcing them to play? Maybe the "fans" are having guns pointed at them in order to make them cheer?

Yes, but under a strict DRO model they would have to agree to respect IP before they came across your idea or you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. That means that people who don't respect it would get a free pass and others would be incentivized to not respect it, as you can easily make a profit if you don't have the cost of developing a product included in the sell price. I favor more of a hybrid system, where you could use a DRO if you wanted to simplify things, or you could deal with violations of your rights on an individual basis, with individuals, not DROs, being directly responsible for their actions.