M.2

1. Thanks for the explanation. I still don't see any validity in it though. If we would want to build a free society, we would have to start from somewhere, probably somehwere small. The quickest way would be exactly to have a small group of freedom-loving people to congregate in the place where there is the biggest chance of accomplishing the utopia, namely in the place with the most freedom as of now. 2. I agree that the USA is a relatively free country, but the notion that it is a champion of freedom around the world is laughable. We all know that born again christian who is just WAY too eager to spread the word, even using some questionable methods. That is basically how we see the US. 3. If you want to vote on which country is the freest, I have already done some research to make it easier:

Do the behaviours of libertarians coincide with their words at all? If I were a libertarian or an anarchist, I would move to the place where there is the most amount of liberty. I have tried a number of times to engage with people on the forums to try to figure out where the most liberty is to be found, but pretty much everyone seems disinterested. By the way, is Mr.Molyneux still in socialist Canada? If so, why? Does he not care about his daughter who will grow up under Communism? He could be producing videos in the Svalbard Islands or in Zug equally well; he doesn't need to be in Canada. As far as I know, libertarians and anarchists are lazy idealists (salute the exceptions). Supporting Trump is the smallest of their cardinal sins.

Centralisation and concentration of power is something we all detest here, but there is a strong case to be made for it. Most of the time in history, collectivism squashed individualism. I often listen to EU politicians, and they keep using phrases such as "wir müssen, we have to, il faut", and the sly subterranian dictatorial air about that expression says a lot. But often times I wonder if they are actually right - maybe Europe must be chained together by any force necessary and any lives necessary. After all, it works for Russia, works for China, works for uncle sam... Let's not kid ourselves; states are not allowed to leave the federation, and the US government permits freedom only until they declare marshall law. But then again, the USA can take the rest of the world for breakfast and have room for Mars. Just following the evidence...

1. Ok... here is the problem with that. "Murder" is already a morally charged word, and the same goes for theft. Saying that murder is immoral is like saying a white pigeon is white. You are not helping anyone by being a dictionary. The same thing has addressed very well between Dennis Prager and Michael Shermer on the Rubin Report (if you are interested in how even extremely smart people don't see eye to eye on this). They never seemed to get on the same page with this, let alone argue about it. 2. Whether killing is ok in case of self defence is a legitimate argument to hold. Let's test it by the UPB. If everyone who ever PERCEIVED getting aggressed upon killed everyone they believed aggressed against them, what would the world look like? I don't know; I am genuinely curious. My view does not accord with yours. I think that if someone aggresses against you, or at least so you perceive, then you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to make sure that never happens again, even if it means killing them. If you don't, what kind of person are you? HOWEVER, it is the christian way to retaliate only as much as you have to in order to make yourself safe to the extent that you are comfortable with, and at the same time give the aggressor a chance to repent, simply because you want to give them to go to heaven. Going back to the UPB, is it more preferable to paralyze a thief from the neck down and let the aggressor live, or rather to simply kill them? Again, I am genuinely curious about the answer. 3. Let's stick with "rape" for a second, because I think it is the perfect test case. You say it is not justifiable in every scenario. Ok... justified by whom? What do you mean by justified? You say "If it is not justifable in every scenario, it is not moral". I'm going to take down your world right here. The ground thesis of UPB is the respect for human free will. Do we respect the free will of a rapist? Of course not. (If you get the "of course not" thing, you know I have read the books, so please don't be a dick, Tyler.) So there are clearly exceptions. Does that mean respect of human free will is not always moral? 4. Again, you are charging scenarios with morality before judging them. Seems like cheating. 1. So says your premise. Why? 2. I find te key word here is "like sentient entities". There are genetic differences between me and a Tongolese. Are we alike enough? Even chromosomally, women and men are different. What if I draw the line at XY? Does UPB only apply to men? 3. Let's say they are truly "alike". Who says they are all equally valuable? 4. Correct me if I misunderstand you, but from what think you are saying: A1 wants to be treated somehow, and then he projects and presumes that everyone else wants to be treated like that. Where am I missing the objectivity? - Who was it who gave us the golden rule anyway? Something beginning with J, right? I don't remember him saying anything about logical consistency though. I believe his reasoning was something like: haec est enim lex et prophetatae. 5. Do the same objective rules apply to the homo-erectus as do to us? If so, why? If not, why? 6. So we don't know for sure? Right then. 7. This looks like a strong case. If I say that I have seen a compelling case for the theory that jews are destroying the world, and go on a rampage to kill every jew, am I being logically consistent? 8. I work with mentally disabled people, and they are hardly ever logically consistent (whatever that is). Are they always immoral? Yes, they are consciously inconsistent because consistency is not something they really care about, and yes, they do have free will.

I am not trying to debate anything you fucking idiot. If I don't understand something, be helpful and point it out, or please don't bother engaging. Didn't want to do this, because I thought it may be too mean, but it's for your own good.

Murder is bad because it is in the definition. Murder = killing that is immoral. There is a variable here nonetheless: IMMORAL. You have to explain what makes something immoral. UPB is usable only if you accept the premise that IMMORAL = something that nobody would like done to them. Unfortunately, now you have brought the human element into the equation, by which you have made it impossible to solve this problem; just because you don't want something, and as far as you know nobody else wants it, doesn't deem it objectively immoral. The "P" in UPB is key and very fitting, but if you switch it with an M and make it Universally Moral Behaviour, that makes a problem. Had Mr.Molyneux never used the words "moral" and "objective" in his book about UPB, I wouldn't have a single issue. He wrote "moral" 446 times, and "objective" 101 times.

For those good men still in the dark... If you ever rocked the Stahlhelm and survived a war, you had a 100% chance of reproducing - you can't argue with data, nor can you argue with honest women.

Libertarian: I don't know what is good for you, so I will give you the freedom to choose. Common dude: But I don't want the freedom to choose. Libertarian: You still have to respect my freedom to choose. Common dude: I don't. Libertarian: Please? People in general don't want freedom. Not even higy IQ people. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are all military dictatorships.

We already know this argument. Essentially, according to the stefist UPB, respecting all human free will is good, anything less is not good. To this I ask: Why? If I understand correctly, you are saying that it is impossible to know the definite objective truth. Similarly how Mr.Molyneux says that nobody has a monopoly on truth. but it is out there. Won't this be a problem though? So far in history, people said "I believe in this truth because I heard a guy say God said so". In our scenario, people will be saying "I believe in this truth because I heard a clever guy make a good case for it, and haven't heard a better case since." Does this present a problem only in my mind, or is this completely fine? 1. Whilst reading his books, the use of the word "moral" always bothered me, because I didn't see sufficient justification for its use. Maybe someone can enlighten me. But as far as I know, this system of morality is built on a sheet of ice on a lake. Morality is a very complex topic, and as far as I know, there are no simple solutons to complex problems. Thomas Aquinas wrote literally millions of pages on morality, which is just a spec of dust in the entire 6000 year works of Judeo-Christian thought, and here is Mr.Molyneux giving us the answers ( I know he doesn't claim to) in a 100 page handbook? You can't just run with your own definition like it's no biggie. 2. Could this mean that UPB is subject to change as well? 3. Knowing truth is just as important as the truth itself. The scientific method may be perfect, but here comes the Raven Paradox (the human variable) which completely undermines the entire process. Maybe not a church, but we definitely need some sort of stabiliser in order to make the scientific method work in the realm of morality.

1. In principle, I completely agree. Still, if there is evidence contrary to our knowledge, it must be addressed. Even if I'm completely wrong, and the welfare state is unsustainable under any and all circumstances, there is a reason why the free market has a tendency of creating welfare states, and that must be addressed, othrwise we are just running the hamster wheel. 2. Yugoslavia resisted, and they lost a fifth of their population. I can't be so quick to condemn little countries for "rolling over". I'm sure you would be the heroic partisan hiding out in the Belarussian forest, ambushing columns and whatnot, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation for any country with a population less than 50 million. To take the example of Czechslovakia, back in 1938-39, the Soviets were still using bows and arrows, the British were disarming, the French were being french, and the Americans were nowehere to be found. Why would the small countries of Europe even have tried to resist the "Nazis"; seems like suicide to me. 3. Such a dead giveaway of your intellectual marxism that you use the words "nazi" and "fascist". I understand it's meant to simplify the conversation, but it's also highly inaccurate and annoying, especially after the recent culture wars. So please don't do that. I never said that the Norse bought the ideology, but it doesn't even matter if they did, as they benefited regardless. "Poor'" was not supposed literal. GDP is the fist indication of liberty and progress. Had Norway been as oppressed as you claim, such growth would have been impossible. I may even link you the data if you quit giving me sentiments as arguments, I'm talking about the highly overrated Czech resistance. I haven't got a single problem with the western hemisphere, except that some people can't seem to keep to themselves there. The IDEA of a virtuous nation, defender of truth and liberty, enforcing peace and justice around the globe... all that sounds awesome. My issue is that it doesn't seem to work too well, with the first obvious demonstration being WW1. Spreading the word of freedom via force is best left to the Europeans, as they have a record of doing it right. I don't know what the three axis of evil is; I'm not a primitive american, so I don't use such language.

That is truly alright. We are not protestant; we don't have to know everything, since we have the clergy for that. It is simply impossible for a layman to know everything there is to know about religion and phylosophy. A quality priest, say a Jesuit studies for about 15 years before they are fully annointed. They speak several languages, they read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Canon Law, Doctrine, Summa, etc. I was forced by my environment to learn at an early age because my environment was entirely atheist, buddhist, or protestant, and so I had to polish my aguments with knowledge. We shall see, won't we... If however anarchy proves incapabale of functioning on a grand scale, then by its own logic it is immoral in someway that we don't see yet. Simply because if people don't prefer it, it cannot be preferable. If you still argue that it WOULD be preferable, then you are defeated by your own logic again, because you claim to know what is good for others. I know Mr.Molyneux says a bunch of times that it doesn't matter if it has existed yet or not, but I hardly disagree. In order to make a theory work, it must be tested first according to the scientific method. I also know he says we apply anarchy in our daily lives, but I find that intellectually dishonest, because that is not what he is talking about. There are a lot of thing that do not work in large scale, though they work in the small scale. There is a reason there is such a thing as macro and microeconomics. The church is not considered infallible because it was founded by men. All structures and ideas founded by men fail. Luther was not the first wise guy, as many protestants like to claim. Although I'm open to evidence to the contrary, so far only Islam has been standing up to the test, though only questionably, as they have disintegrated as soon as the prophet died. 1. I don't know your situation, of course, but do notify me if you figure it out. 2. Eventually, all disagreements come down to values, supposing the debate is conducted correctly. And values are very often irrational, and that's ok, but you have to admit that. When however you come down to the values, there is when the debate is over. Because you cannot convince someone to surrender their values; they are fundementally integrated with what they consider right and wrong. I feel like (yes, feel) I have perhaps arrived at questioning the values Mr.Molyneux, and why he holds them. Paticularly why free will is important to respect. His answer so far is "because everyone else wants free will to be respected". My answer is "sure you say that, but that does not make it objectively right, no matter how you define RIGHT"; even if it is true that people want their free will respected, that is just like saying "Stalin was the best party secretary ever because 100% of people voted for him".

Well, I'm sure you are aware of the examples of Cyprus and Argentina, so I won't bore you. But I think the best example is Venezuela, where so many people have switched to crypto, that the government had to create a cryptocurrency of their own. Sure, it's not bitcoin, but it is a trend. The same trend is going in all other countries, because inflation and regulation are a problem everywhere, but only in slow motion. Basically, the government is not the only one who has an influence on the population, but the population has a great influence on the govenment as well. Besides, there is massive value for the government if they switch to crypto, despite the fact that they will lose control over the currency. So I think it is only a matter of time before they see it. Supposing it is a sane government like that of Switzerland (crypto haven), the transition will come very soon. This, in my opinion will make it truly mathemathically impossible for welfare to continue. Even the debt industry will be impossible to sustain for obvious reasons.

I can't believe how thick you are. You have got to be a troll. But I will not treat you as one just yet, because I really want what is best for you, and therefore really want you to get this analogy because it is so damn clever and I don't want you to miss out even if you are monolingual peasant. Google translate is notoriously bad at translation, and in fact usually the translation brings up something hilariously different from what was typed in,much like you do in responding to me. Get it? It's a running gag amongst us polyglots who can actually translate.

I just spent my first christmas without Christ due to work obligations... it was an absolute borefest. Why do atheists even bother? On the other hand, I would be risking death every time I am around 10 or more people just because I'm in western Europe... so... silver lining I guess. Seriously, there are so many soldiers here, one wonders why NATO is still having issues in the middle-east. Not true, but he is cutting it damn close according to the traditionalists.

I have nothing to say, only that your reputation score kinda makes sense. It's completely as if I were typing into google translate. At least I tried.

1. You are not picking up what I'm laying down at all. And this proves my point. We are both writing in english, we are both being civil, we are both being intellectually open, yet we cannot even understand each other. There is nothing wrong with the "scientific method", but as soon as people start using it, it becomes messy. 2. If I understand you correctly, you are making the "might makes right" argument. Out of the two of you on the island, it is the one more aggressive to claim the trees who has the right to them. Is this your position? I'm not saying you are wrong, just clarifying. I think this is what I can't accept. You say it is down to what you believe. But morality does not hang on what you believe. 3. Do you even read what I write? It seems like you just gloss over my words and pick one that you think you can incorporate into what you are trying to convey. 4. So you are only talking about the US? Ok. "Society" is not ao simple as you make it be. We can't even agree on who started ww1, even after a century. I agree that objectively someone started ww1, but who is it, and why can't we figure it out? Cases where we can't figure out who was the aggressor are not exceptions, but a good plurality, and that will be a problem in our ancap utopia. 5. You are such an idiot. Under the ussr, everyone was housed by law, but when the ussr collapsed, many people were randomly thrown out onto the street, because beforehand, entire families were stuffed into one-bedroom apartments, and that system obviously couldn't survive in a capitalist Russia. On the second point, please read what I wrote, and please reply to what I wrote.

Could you please extract the argument? I would love to learn, but I'm stuck in the middle of the Ardennes without wifi for the moment. Do you have anything to say about the other countries? Edit: At first I only saw the public debt of Norway, which is around 30%, extremely low compared to other western countries, but I then found the external debt, which is around 130%... that is really high. So I retract my claim on Norway. However, their policies on imigration and economic independence from the EU are still very agreeable. The time has not come yet, but if the Roman Empire is any indication, the east will survive the west by a millenium, and only Rome will be able to revive the west. What I can guarantee is that the eastern countries are very welcoming of western refugees, so if that is what you decide to place your bet on, go for it. If bitcoin is adobted by the general population, the collapse will come sooner, but it may also be more forgiving.

You missed my entire point. There are european governments that are not in favour of opendoors. I don't disagree with you, I'm simply pointing out that there are notable exceptions to the unstable welfare state that characterises some western countries. I may even go as far to say that the current issue that Mr.Molyneux is referring to affects only a minority of the western population. The eastern countries have been dismantling the welfare state aince the fall of communism; that is half of the west right there in terms of population. There already are examples of massive welfare state deconstruction. Such are Japan, Hungary, Russia, Poland etc. There is a sizeable muslim population in Russia. If it is possible for them, it may yet be possible for the west, though doubtful, I agree. You make a few fair points, but I can debate over all of them. 1. First... isn't it true that nato has been obsolete for over 20 years now? Russia is having a tough time subduing ISIS, let alone what would happen if they go up against the fully mechanised and armed to the teeth Gebirgsjäger of Switzerland. (I am aware that the swiss are officially not part of nato, in case anyone tries to inform me). I am even more sceptical about Russia beating France one on one. About San Marino... don't you worry about them; they have been doing fine since 300AD. 2. What do you mean "more successful"? Successful like whom? 3. It is mere propaganda that poor Norway was suffering so severely under Nazi occupation. The Norse were regarded as pure Aryans, so they had all the privileges, and none of the drawbacks of the Third Empire. Same goes for France in fact more or less. I would link you the gdp stats for ww2 era Norway, but I respect your intelligence and trust that you will find the data yourself. Czechia was fine as well - one can't build 95% of all Tigers with a bad attitude. As for Slovakia, they were allied with Germany. ...You westerners and your messiah complex... ridiculous. You morons were supporting communist insurrectionists. Familiar? Edit: Sorry for being mean. But seriously, can't you just sit one out and stay on your damned hemisphere for once?

The welfare state is in fact sustainable. (Mathemathically speaking, but also in reality.) When Mr.Molyneux talks about the welfare state, he is talking about it in context of certain attitudes, particularly those of Canada, US, France, Germany etc. Such attitudes are basically the globalist ones that we all know and love. If you are asking about these countries, my answer is that as soon as bitcoin is adopted, they will fail. The welfare state will probably never fail in the following western countries, supposing their current policies will be followed: Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, maybe San Marino. Luxembourg, for example, I like to call them the hypocrites of Europe. They are the biggest open-doors advocates, but only take in hardworking, catholic Portuguese immigrants. They advocate for the assistance of the poor, but they are generous only to those who hold Luxembourgish citizenship, which is very hard to obtain. They advocate for raising taxes in the EU, yet they have literally zero corporate tax rate.

Nazi and German must not be conflated unless you are in a cheap hollywood bastardisation of history. Wehrmacht is not Nazi either, but the SS are by the way. According to your reasoning, the polish united workers party were all devout roman catholics.

1. This assumption some people have of catholics, that we think that the pope is a never-erring genius, is highly insulting. The office of the Roman Pontiff, exclusively when he speaks ex-cathedra, is infallible. There are etremely stringent safeguerds in place for "ex-cathedra", so you can read up on that if you wish. 2. You are missing the point. My issue is that the NAP is highly subject to false interpretation. If a rule can be misunderstood, it is not a good rule. But if it so, then at the very least we need professional interpreters, like lawyers or priests. But in the case of the NAP and the UPB, we don't have any. And the assumption that the best argument will simply prevail is absolutely idiotic... I mean... when has that ever happened? 3. Neither of the Anarchy books address this issue, but here is my main contention with the ancap theory: The stefist model builds a model in a vacuum, as if either the entire world became anarchist, or as if the ancap paradise had been built on a remote island. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here; the paradise has to start from somewhere, and it has to start small. 4. I think there is no question that there is a universally preferable behaviour. As the saying goes "God always has an opinion", and so is there bound to be a behaviour that is "best". The problem arises when it comes to figuring out what that is. And this is where the stefist UPB claims to be the solution, but has at the same time not solved the underlying issue... "what is moral?". A compass is useless if you don't know what your heading is. Even if you know what your heading is, you still have to justify why it is your heading. 5. Thanks for being so engaged though. You are my only reassurance that I'm actually making some sense, as some people here don't get what I'm saying at all. You could call in if you deem it right, or we could even call in together. I think this is something worth taking up to the big man if it doesn't get settled here.

1. If nobody gives a good answer here on the forums, then I think we will be justified to ask him directly. You can call in too if you're so inclined. 2. Precisely. If it is so that it is merely impractical, but not necessarily immoral, then the UPB has no right to the word "moral". 3. You are not far off, I think. I think it is reasonable to suggest that if there is a UPB, or a philosophy based on UPB, then it should be the most popular ideology on the planet, since it is most compatible with human beings. The issue here is that the current dominator, christianity, has once been the most pitiful little ideology not that long ago. So again, this is not a good standard. 4. Again, we are on the same track, I think. If the UPB os derived from physics or biology, then it cannot be constant, because there is such a thing as evolution. And there is no denying that there are various human subspecies. Does the same UPB apply to all of them? If so, why? Chromosomes? That fails instantly because even males and females don't have the same set of chromosomes. In conclusion, the UPB has to be derived from someplace else... be it from the bible or some aliens. 5. By "getting along", of course I meant both parties being mutually... good...? So yeah, I don't even know what word to use anymore. 1. I morality is merely pragmatism (which I don't think is the case), then the Stefist UPB has no right to the word "moral". It should simply say "pragmatic". 2. Yeah, we have already gone through this higher up. I have read UPB, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy, but I haven't gotten an answer to this question. 3. Do that, I'll be here, This is all good info, but we are mostly discussing the Stefist UPB.

We started the topic on another thread, where I brought up my issue regarding the Stefist UPB, and this is as far as we have gotten with Siegfried von Walheim . This is not an attack on the UPB, I'm sincerely curious about the reasoning. Mr.Molyneux says the UPB is a methodology for determining what is right and wrong. What I am missing here is the golden standard. The UPB is all about respecting human free will, which is awesome. But the reasoning begins from humans, which is what I find questionable. Just because you don't want to be stolen from, and nor does your neighbour, that does not make stealing objectively wrong. Human preference cannot be the gold standard for what is moral, because morality is not democratic. To this you may reply "UPB is scientific", but I have yet to see scientific proof for why murder is "wrong"? Can you even prove that with science? Following the UPB is supposedly essential for getting along on this planet of ours, but this claim already presupposes that "getting along" is a goal worth pursuing (aka "good"). Why is getting along objectively "good"?

1. I am not disagreeing with you. You may claim you have the objective facts, but if someone else also claims to have thr objective facts, then we have a problem. Sure, you may say testing can prove who is correct, but apparently that is not how things work, otherwise we wouldn't have a climate-change debate. Secondly, why is it objectively bad if I end up dead? 2. My scenario is the one most worth considering, because it is one that the anarchist theory always ignores. People are good at cooperating, but they are very often incapable. Such instances may be rare, but they are devestating, as we can see all the wars in history. - You are assuming my position too often, and missing my point. There are two of you on the island, so how do you decide who the food belongs to. I understand that people usually come to an agreement, but again, they often don't. And this is something the ancap theory doesn't seem to take into account. 3. This is where I think you are wrong. People having irreconcilable differences is not an exceptional case. There have been somthing like 4 days in world history when there were no ongoing wars. About your 1 year old, I don't know. That is why I'm asking you. Should you and do you have the moral right to? 4. What the hell do you mean by "today's society"? Only a fifth of all people on the planet live in the first world. I understand your point on self defence, and I don't disagree with you. But who decides what is self defence? Regarding the Iraq war... what makes you right? I don't disagree with you, I just don't see why you should be more right than the Pentagon. 5. Logic doesn't necessarily apply to the real world, as we see from history. Ancap is completely logical, but it hasn't existed yet, supposedly for good reason, I don't know. But if I'm a homeless man in Krasnoyarsk, and it is February, then my best chance at surviving the night is breaking into a private property. You assume that it is completely unthinkable for a person with a few IQ points to initiate force, and I don't think you have tested your theory in the world that avoidance of violence is always better. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't find that your ideas stand up to the test. At some point you just have to ask: If my position is so obviously right, then why don't more people hold it? 1. For a catholic, it is pretty easy. We presume that the Church is infallible, so we simple look to her for guidance. For other denominations, I have no idea. 2. Well, you see, you may not see something wrong with it, but someone else may. You said "unpreferable to the community" but that is conrary to the U in UPB. There has to be a universally acceptable solution to every issue, otherwise UPB is invalid. I think the fault in the logic is that UPB is relativistic - let me explain... If Germans believed that Slavs were a toxin in the gene pool, they are not violating the NAP by exterminating them. How do you even argue with them? And how do you know such an attitude cannot errupt in an Ancap utopia? This is not at all an extreme scenario in terms of feasibility. 3. If your child is communist, he may say that it is not stealing if the burgoise class took it from you first. Can you beat the shit out him in that case? In all seriousness, my issue is that there is still no objective arbiter of truth here. If a disagreement erupts in an ancap community, the community will take sides by ostracism and whatnot, but that doesn't indicate who was objectively right. Sure, the anarchist will say "Science will prove it", but so far in history, people who worship science above all else haven't always been good. I will grant you any day that ancap makes a lot of sense and sounds awesome, but there ought to be a good reason why it hasn't existed yet. 8. So I've read in Everyday Anarchy. I'm not convinced though. In a family, there is government, there has to be. And as far as I know, policies within a family have to enforced. I suppose peaceful parenting works in a high-IQ family, but I know for certain that it does not work in a low-IQ family. I don't think it is corporal punishment that decreases IQ, but that corporal punishment is the only thing that works for low IQ people. But I may be wrong, of course, which is why I'm here. 910. This scenario doesn't exist because every country has a policy on how to deal with foreigners, who are not subject to the social contract of the citizens. My scenario takes place in ancap paradise. Suppose Hungary were an ancap paradise in 2015 during the migrant crisis. Let"s also suppose they already had a fence back then. So if a migrant gets past the fence, stumbles onto your land in order to get to Austria, and you shoot him, how does your society deal with that? He has no papers, so you can't tell whether or not he is a member of your society. You may know that he is not associated with a DRO, since you an check in their databases. So who decides whether or not you were justified to shoot him?

6. The UPB method of christians is usually the following question: "Does it serve the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" I think if someone insulted my mother and I retaliated with force, it does not serve the greater glory of God, nor necessarily the good of any sould, so it is pretty straightforward. But with the UPB of the Molyneux kind, I don't really see a conflict. I don't think it would be terrible if retaliation to insult was universalised. Do you see what I'm trying to say? 9. How do you test for it? This is something I am not informed on. 11. Do that. I think this is eesential to this topic, but it is so massive that I wouldn't want to go into it here. 1. It doesn't matter of scientists disagree? I don't understand this response of yours. 2. Even though I have written everything clearly, you still manage to misread everything. - Where did I say "have to"? - The entire point is that you cannot cooerate. - He is not burning my food. We just landed on the island. Property has not been established. - Sure, he is leaving me alone, all while burning all the trees. 3. Who has the mental capacity? Who is "we"? 4. I am saying that violence is more often than not utilised in PERCEIVED dire circumstances. And you are pointing out the insane minority, who kill and steal for fun. Rule - not exceptions. You may think it was unnecessary of the US to bomb muslims, but clearly they thought otherwise. Which one of you is objectively right? 5. Do you have historical examples to support this claim? 8. I am just playing with scenarios here, since I honestly don't know how it is supposed to work in an anarchist utopia. My main issue is not the details, but rather the WHO DECIDES part. Just because people come to a mutual agreement, that doesn't make anything moral, even though human free will was fully respected. But this traverses into the age-old question of good and bad, so I don't expect to settle that one here. 910. My point is: what of no contract exists with the individual because he is foreign? Who is the judge then? When I was reading Practical Anarchy, I was expecting there to be a discussion on the scenario where there is no contract. It is a completely realistic proposition I think.