Erwin

To who? or to what? and what do you mean by matter? Clarification: I know you mentioned imprisoning bad lenders, but that's a consequence of bad lending, not a definition of mattering.

So am I. Consider this example: A threatens B to steal from c. Is C in violation of the NAP when he defends himself against B? I was addressing the first case, as it was a simpler point to convey since you we are already in agreement over the assumptions. The case of the ethnostate is more complicated, since you do not accept the premise of white genocide. So to start there, you said you think eugenics is a more accurate description. What do you mean by that? Who is performing it? On who? How?

Actually this is the foundation of his theory: _____________________________________________________ To reinforce your point, this is the case even today. I can't think of a single contractor I deal with where we rely on litigation (which is a just-as-expensive violence proxy), to enforce our contracts. Our contracts are enforced through the Principle of Constant Dealings. We always split up contracts so as to avoid any kind of lump sum payment (or product / service delivery), so both parties have a lot of future income to lose should either party fail to deliver. Another example is insurance companies, the pre-agree on when to cover what so as to avoid litigation.

According to Wikipedia: "An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed period". Unfree labor = Slavery, which you can't agree to. Again, you have redefined employment to mean slavery, regardless of the term you use. In any case, I don't understand what the problem is with low-wage employment.

So you would treat your own children as equals of other people's kids. Mother of the year!

And why should it?

Ok, so you're redefining the word slavery to mean employment. No problem, let's go with that definition. On to your question: for and against what? voluntary "slavery" ?

I never said we can use force against whoever we want. Only against those who have used force against us. In the case of the government program to end government programs, the tax payers have already been complicit in coercion to begin with. Therefore, using government force against them to undo / counter the initial coercion on their part is perfectly NAP-compliant. Let's assume for simplicity that each government program costs x $, and there are currently y programs. So, initial total cost = xy Adding the government progam, intermediate total cost = xy + x Once the government program takes effect, final cost = xy + x - xy = x Therefore, final cost < initial cost. Conclusion: you actually dramatically reduce the theft from the unborn. Not the other way around. We aren't arguing over justifying the initiation force. We both agree that it is not acceptable. What we disagree on is whether government is a valid means of self-defense (and you can refute my arguments above).

Adding the word voluntary in front of slavery doesn't make sense. That's like saying voluntary rape. Well which is it? Slavery? or Voluntary?

@Soulfire, save your arrogance for the Muslims who might potentially gang-rape you. We'll see how your stupid religion of diversity works out for you then.

About that....

I'd be happy to guest. I'm sure you guys would love to debate my very deplorable views.

Word of advice to all of you, this is what happens when men fail to put women in their place. It sends a signal to the women that there are no men around, so the women have to look for men elsewhere (Muslims in this case). @Soulfire who will you run to when you are being raped by these people? The same people you have equated with IQ 85 cousin f---ing rapists?

Why? Hint: she's a woman.

They are both tools.

This is very much like a "guns kill people" argument. Government can do nothing without the people behind it. Even a government program to cut government programs? Even a government program to stop our genocide? Advocating for coercion does not violate the NAP, if coerced against first. Are you suggesting that the response to coercion should never be coercion? Cuz that has no basis in the NAP...

As in, the use of force (whether or not through government) is perfectly NAP-compliant in self-defense (i.e. as a means to defend against coercion).

The ruler's demand cannot be the cause of the mining, if the mining came first.

So you want to wait to get a job and wait before having kids? The timeline doesn't add up here, does she want kids at 34, 35?

Assuming she is in her early 20s, is there a reason she can't wait for you to get a full time job ?

No, but I don't know if my case is common... To this day, the very thought of my dad gives me absolute horror. Often, I would try to signal to adults to help me, but they would look at me with disdain as it got interpreted as me being ungrateful. People just assumed that because my dad is a good dad because he's my dad. Just look at the child's behavior and body language. If you see a terrified child, then it's probably better to leave it to the cops.

Actually, you're right and we're in agreement here. Poor choice of words on my part. I neglected to specify ""all muslims who joined voluntarily" (which is what the original example is about). Of course. In-group preference is perfectly natural.

I'm not sure what you mean by "on an intellectual level". How do you reconcile intellectual agreement with practical agreement? If there is agreement in practice, shouldn't your theory be revised to more accurately model practical evidence? The way I see it, no one gets to sign a contract, and say "well hey... I know I signed, but I'm really a moderate! I don't recognize clause IV, and I didn't mean to pay $500 per month literally". Yet we tolerate this line of reasoning for Muslims. Why?

All Muslims ever. At minimum, they implicitly promote aggression against your brother. At worst, they were the perpetrators. Actually, when you put it in those terms, I'll amend what I said. I wouldn't punch him if I were in a country with a low probability of being invaded by him. That's assault. Well of course, we can do something about it. Send them back to the Sahara. Likewise

The NAP doesn't apply under coercion. So by definition, the use of government is perfectly NAP-compliant if it used against itself, or some other coercive force.