ValueOfBrevity

Please expand on the following: -What hypocrisy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) intended to avoid? -Are you claiming: societies which do not follow the NAP (e.g. governments) are insured mutual destruction as a result of their existence? Also, the validity of your statement cannot be assessed because you have provided no premises.

Individuals in a free society have strong incentive to join an arbitration agency (DRO) to deal with contracts. Contracts not in writing would be as valid as they are in current legal system: "He said; she said." Additionally, business' have a very strong disincentive to discriminate. They want everyone's money. If they are willing to take a loss in profit in order to disassociate, then that is their right. Free societies cannot exist without the freedom of voluntary (dis)association.

If something is not observable (such as a concept), then it is just a thought. It cannot be proven to exists because it, by definition, doesn't. If god were real, he isn't just a concept. It would require changes in empirical reality for 'god' to be observable.

First of all, your claim that "a person owns a thing if he buys it" is not always true. I could buy your television from a thief, do I then own it? Secondly, the hospital has nothing to do with your argument, so why include it? If your parents bought you from the hospital, then the hospital owned you originally. Quite silly. Third, if my parents own me, can they murder and rape me? Are they excused from NAP? Last, and most importantly, no one can be legitimately owned. Stating that we do not own ourselves is synonymous with saying we have no free will, we are not responsible for our own actions, etc. People must own themselves to be responsible for their choices.

That makes sense. The people selling them the territory would probably require DRO contracts in order to complete the purchase.

I really enjoy this show, even though I am constantly yelling at the TV about certain characters stupidity. The wife and daughters are intentionally written to take the illogical positions. Mike's wife disagrees with him on such fundamental topics that I don't know why they are together at all.

lol I tried to add a time code when I first posted and it didn't work either

I don't understand what you mean by "morally force". They can't initiate force against someone who owns land within their desired "state area". Getting them to move is more of a business objective.

DROs are explained in the first 3 or 4 podcasts as well

Imagine 95% of people wanted to organize what I described previously (a state with opt-in/out) and 5% do not. Since they are upholding NAP, they only have their free association to withdrawal from those 5%. The 5% will be social pariahs; No one will do business with them. They will have very strong incentive to move.

From the old wiki on Scientism: How is the periodic table a rejection of physical reality? How is a study of cognitive bias not scientific? Ethical constructs from theology are not really derived from mythology, but visa-versa (mythology is written to reflect the ethical ideas of the writer(s)).

-

People can still choose to live in a society nearly identical to the state with the exception that one must opt in to live there and can opt out by leaving it. I believe our disagreement is semantic. Sounds kind of familiar...

Thanks for the 'protip', but it didn't seem to work for you, either

Definitely not devaluing stick fighting, but that website looks like a bad infomercial.

Removing government must be done voluntarily by individuals. If Stephan did snap his fingers, he would initiating force upon the people who might choose to live in a state.

I agree with you. There is a palpable conflict of principles. Voting for Donald Trump is an act of pragmatism. It is indeed yet another choice between evil and a lesser-evil. Only in this case, as anarchists, we can see a bigger contrast than usual.

As long as you are clear about your intentions, then it is not unethical. If she voluntarily continues to see you (i.e. casually date) without any explicit commitment, then she assumes risk for that choice.

Many people are excited about him because he represents taking corporate interests out of politics.

Voting is coercive under government systems, therefore no one here can support it and claim to support individual liberties. On the other hand, if you're voting for less government, you are doing something productive (though not effective). Also, you cast a tie breaking vote in a system that doesn't produce ties.

Have you ever been told "You've always got to be right!" by a significant other, friend, or coworker? I try to look at reason and evidence in all aspects of my life, and I get the feeling that people who are always wrong are simply not valuing truth. I suppose there is a chance I'm just stubborn and blind to it. How can I ensure I'm not being unfair to others? Should I pick my battles? Do I ignore people's constant mistakes? Or am I mistaken in paying heavy attention to detail? Can you provide some advice for communicating without setting off the defensive ego of others?

In an anarchistic society, people associate voluntarily. Avoiding mob justice is as simple as signing a defense contract.

@6:56 John Stewart used this fallacy a long time ago. "What you're doing is theater, when you should be doing debate. Which would be great but it's not honest. It's not honest! What you do is bipartisan hackery. And I'll tell you why I know it-" "You have John Kerry on your show, and you sniff his throne, and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?" "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!" Stewart had a huge viewer-base. Why didn't he do these non-partisan debates? Why didn't Colbert? Instead, they spent the majority of their episodes exploring the same things: trivialities and sensationalism. Now, what does John Oliver talk about? See above.

Man what if Jesus was a facade? Then that would mean the governments god