Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

I have posted a thread asking the question a while ago "which country is best?" It was meant to be a completely open question, and I received a lot of replies. Most emphasised the importance of NO GVERNMENT as a prerequisite for a moral society. So I have been doing some research and reading Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy to broaden my horizons. Here are the countries I have narrowed down my search to, and would like to get a few opinions on which is truly the closest candidate. Here are the largely undisputed data. Please add a few criteria if there are any. There seems to be 5 main requirements for an ancap paradise: (I deliberately used data only from wikipedia, as they have the lowest possibility of being controversial) 0. No government. Everyone fails this one, so I won't include it. 1. Freedom of education. This is pretty hard to quantify so I only gave them general rankings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_education 2. Economic freedom. This is probably the most important one. Sadly, there is only quite unreliable data out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom 3. Absolutist ideology. Sorry, so far any form of atheism is not one. Only contemporary powerful ideologies count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country 4. Moral population. Respect for the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index 5. Strong Population. Not gross strength, but strength per capita in the given geopolitical predicament . What good is a society if they can't defend themselves, amaright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

you say taxation is theft. okay fine. then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right? and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right? so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense. so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist. now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society. i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle, or i wager war on the government.

Does the NAP also apply to collectives, as opposed to only individual people? Clarification of "collective": What I mean by a collective is a group formed via voluntary association. My Stance: Yes. My Theory: By choosing who we associate with, we are also choosing to be associated with anyone that the person / entity is known to be associated with. Therefore, by choosing to form / join a collective we are choosing to be at least partially responsible for the consequences of the collective's operations up to - and as of - that point. Test Case 1: Voluntarily Practicing Islam By practicing Islam, Muslims are choosing to associate with rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Given that this case is an obvious violation of the NAP, I would say the evidence supports the theory.

Hi everyone, help is much needed!!! My three year old has developed a habit of hitting and kicking me - not to sound nonchalant, I can expand more on this if needed and am happy to. How do I deal with this so that I don't come across as a spineless wimp who doesn't believe in fighting back?

After watching the MILO video, I am very confused. I had never actually thought about how the NAP relates to age of consent. Specifically in the case of milo at age 13 and the priest. I am not disagreeing with stefans interpretation, I fully understand where he is coming from, especially about Milo not reporting the people hosting "parties" with underage boys. My confusion more specifically, is if a 13 year old consents to sex with an older man, how has the older man broken the NAP unless it is a forced event? I am assuming from stefans tone that YES it does, however I can't seem to find his arguments on the subject. In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing?

I've been reading about the non aggression principle, but a lot of sites present it as a practical guide rather than an objective moral rule. I think a lot of people hold the non aggression principle to be the latter, so I'm hoping someone can help explain it to me in that sense. Does anyone here believe in the existence of objective morality, and posit the non aggression principle in that moral system? I am curious to see someone start from first principles and reason out the existence of the NAP. Of course, I could be mistaken in my impressions, so please let me know if that's the case. Perhaps the NAP is universally seen as a practical way to create harmony, rather than an objective truth and moral rule.

Ethics is described in UPB as the subset that deals with enforceable behavior. The kind of behavior that it enforces is negative behavior, as in not-murder. However, propositions of negative behavior carry no information regarding the actual behavior of the agent. This is confusing in the sense that our minds are conditioned to expect judgments based on positive actions, not negative 'not-actions'. This is why UPB deals only with the examination of moral principles, not of particular actions. In order to acquire information regarding positive behavior we would have to inverse the theory to find the positive side. But before doing that, let's examine the behavioral aspect of the theory. For the purposes of this conversation I will separate behavior into actions and interactions. A simple action is motion that does not escape the body that it produced it. If I swing my arm forward into the air I am performing an action. However, if I swing my arm forward and it knocks out an unsuspecting and random person I have created an interaction. Interactions are the transference of energy from one body to another. It is clear that the ethics of simple actions are understood to be amoral, while interactions are morally judgeable. It is often the case that people try to ban or make rules against simple actions like "killing", but that can never be valid. This in turn confuses people into thinking that secular ethics are impossible, or forever relegated to relativism or egoism - but the mistake is to ignore the reality of interactions. So I'd say that ethics is the subset of universally preferable behavior that deals with universally permissible interactions. With this information, the question of "was this interaction moral or immoral?" can be examined directly instead of indirectly. UPB would only argue that a moral theory that says that an aggressive interaction was good is logically invalid. Whereas it could be asked "was this interaction universally permissible?" and it could have a clear cut yes or no answer without having to jump into meta-levels of examination. By permissible I mean interactions that can have consent removed from them. For example, I wouldn't say that the gravitational effect of the Earth on my body is a permissible interaction because it is universally forced on me and I cannot escape physics. The earth doesn't care if I consent or not because it makes no difference. It is inescapable. But escapable interactions can be permissible since the escape is the removal of the consent and sufficient action against it. This doesn't mean that if I put you in a cage that you can't escape from I've created an inescapable interaction because I could have chosen not to put you in a cage. The Earth can't choose to not pull me in. If I were to remove my clothes and throw my body unto you while saying "I do not consent to your face touching my xxx" you would understand that there is a contradiction between my interactions and my words by which I would be judged by the interactions I caused versus the consent I claimed I didn't give. Therefore the factor of permission is relevant to the agent receiving the energy, not the one giving it as it is logical that if the energy was given it had the consent of the giver (barring mental health and other exceptions). Going back to our Rando that I punched earlier, he has now gotten up and is very upset at me for knocking him down. Nonetheless, I explained to him that I was just making a theoretical example, and that it wasn't personal. This convincing argument satisfied him and told me he was a also a Buddhist monk. He forgave me in the name of his god, and went on his way. So he gave me permission retroactively to assault him, and it went well. I had the luck of punching a very humble person, but if I had punched a more feisty person I don't think he would have forgiven me. This means that there are interactions that, while initially not-permitted by the receiver, can be retroactively permitted. These are retro-permissible interactions, or RPI's. This doesn't mean that RPI's are universally preferable, but that they contain the potential to be forgiven. For the sake of being brief I would summarize that theft, assault, and sexual assault are RPI's: Not universally preferable, but not universally unforgivable either. This doesn't mean that you should forgive them either, but that the probability can never reach zero either. I am leaving murder for last because it is the only aggressive interaction that can't be forgiven by empirical demonstration. If you murder me I would become incapable of giving you permission after the fact because I would be dead. Maybe other people could make nothing of it, but it can't be retroactively permitted by the victim either. It will forever remain in a state of non permission. Since it is impossible for third parties to grant permission over my life or property, no one else can retro-permit it either. The concept of retroactive consent or permission sounds a little offsetting and almost an admission of subjectivity since the weight of the moral category of the interaction falls on the victim's choices. Nonetheless, the ethics of interactions require this level of open ended consensus since interactions are owned by the parties involved, not by third party judges. We as moralists or philosophers cannot interfere with the judgments of the owners of the interaction because doing so would be a violation of their property rights, rather ironically. We can only observe and influence through dialogue whether a victim condemns or forgives his assailants, but to determine the ultimate judgment by ourselves would be an act of arrogance. So, UPB has four interactions as evil: Murder, theft, rape, and assault. But UPI has only one as evil: Murder - and three as wrong but locally and retroactively permissible: Theft, sexual assault, and assault. Just because something can be locally permissible it doesn't mean it will be permitted. Depending on the circumstances the probability of forgiveness is almost zero, but the catch is that it can never actually reach zero as in the case of murder. Only murder has a zero chance of ever being permissible by which the label of true evil is guaranteed. Everything else is wrong, but not absolutely. But there is one more thing. RPI's can't be considered permissible if the interaction happened under the threat of murder. Since murder is the only evil, any permissible wrongdoing committed under the threat of murder becomes evil by association. I could steal something from you when you weren't looking, and it would be wrong, but it's a RPI nonetheless. Maybe I just took a cookie from your lunch as a joke. But I could steal the same cookie while threatening you with a loaded gun and it would not only be wrong, it would be evil. And that's the difference between something being wrong, and something being evil according to the theory of universally permissible interactions. To trespass property rights is always wrong as UPB demonstrates that it can't be right, but to trespass them with the weapon of murder is evil. This also sounds very similar to the NAP, if you were paying attention. However, the NAP would say that all incursions of property rights are abhorred and should be treated with equal moral condemnation. This leads to many arguments about flagpoles, or lifeboats, or any ridiculous objection to it. I get it. I've done the same thing myself in thought experiments, and I don't like it either. This way of thinking, on the other hand, bypasses the extremists by literally saying "Bro, interacting with the property of others without permission isn't evil per se, it's just necessary during emergencies. I'm sure they would give you permission after the fact when you explain it to them, but you're not evil for doing it". This isn't something that Stefan hasn't said before, but it isn't something explicitly described in UPB either. I think that making it part of the theory is necessary to further facilitate its understanding. To synthesize: UPI's are mutually agreed interactions, voluntary negotiations, self defense scenarios. It is 'right' to do these. RPI's are interactions without permission that hold a probability of future permission. Theft, assault, etc. It is 'wrong' to do these. Evil interactions are those which are impossible to permit after the fact, and only murder fits this category. It is evil to murder. RPI's done under the threat of murder are evil by association. It is coercion to do so. Violations of property rights are RPI's as long as they are not done under the threat of murder. At the introduction I said that UPI would examine interactions and not just principles. To do that we need to ask a series of questions and then determine the outcome like a flowchart of events. 1- Was it a mutually voluntary interaction? Yes) It's moral No) See 2 2- Were the property rights of the victim trespassed? Yes) It's wrong No) It's mean 3- Was the victim's life threatened through force? Yes) It's evil No) It's still wrong 4- Was it an accident? Yeah, what if it was an accident? Accidents: By the very nature of reality, accidents are impossible to eliminate from the world. It is a feature of the chaotic relativity we experience that unintended interactions will occur. To distinguish an accident from negligence we would have to prove that there was no intention from the part of the perpetrator, no intention from the receiver to receive, and no known measure to avoid it or intention to avoid it. If we know that good brakes are necessary for safe driving, a failure to have good brakes and the resulting crash wouldn't be an accident, but negligence. If we are driving and a wild goat suddenly lunges into the car, we know there wasn't any way to prevent that from our part, nor from the goat's part since it's just an animal, it is safe to call it an accident. Maybe we steer away from it and hit another car in the process. It's a series of unfortunate and chaotic events. A lethal accident is categorically different from murder because it had no intention from either party, and no reasonable preventability. So you cannot escape the chaotic nature of reality that creates accidental interactions, therefore these do not fall under a category of wrongdoings. You cannot also forgive, or retro-permit, an accident because there is no voluntarily inflicted trespass of property rights. You can't turn it into a voluntary association since the person causing the accident had no intention in the first place to do it. It would be like trying to ascribe volition from me to you, and that's mind control, which doesn't work. So accidents fall in the category of universally permissible interactions because to not-permit accidents goes against the very nature of reality, that chaos is inevitable. However, you cannot encourage an accident to happen because to do it would no longer create an accident, but a moral interaction. If you were to say that you could cause "accidental murder" it would be a logical contradiction. You could ask for reparations of an accident, but you cannot ascribe immorality to the causing person since it was outside his volition. I said that murder is unforgivable by the victim since the victim is literally unable to do so, but what if they were accidentally killed? Wouldn't that be unforgivable too? Well, not from a certain perspective. When we agree to interact with reality we are consenting to its chaotic nature. We realize that a lightning could strike us, a falling piano could smash us, an earthquake could kill us. Accidents are already part of the consent we partake in when we interact with our chaotic reality. 4) Was it an accident? There's nothing to forgive nor to condemn. The Question: Why should I be moral? Under the framework of UPI this question has some interesting repercussions. Let's remember that ethics concerns itself with interactions, not simple actions. That is, not all behaviors are considered in ethics, only those actions that exchange energy between at least two agents. A simple action is owned by the actor, but an interaction is owned by at least two agents - a giver and a receiver. If you as a giver ask the question "why should my caused interactions be moral or universally permissible?" you would be asking "why can't I judge my interactions by myself?". This is because if you could judge your given interactions then victims could be blamed for the perpetrator's actions. The two agents involved own the interaction, not just the giver or perpetrator. It falls on the receiver's end to permit or retro-permit interactions with perpetrators. In other words, you have to behave in universally permissible ways because you cannot be your own judge. If you want to declare immunity from moral judgments you would have to deny the agency of the other person, ascribe it to yourself, and absolve yourself of any violation. So, from the giver's side there is a negative answer: Because you cannot give yourself permission to interact with another person's property by yourself. This would imply that there is a positive answer from the receiver's end instead if we follow the symmetry of the equation. The question of "Why should I behave morally" looks different from the side of the receiver. What the receiver would ask is "Why should other people respect my property rights and my agency?". Another way of putting it is "Why shouldn't you murder me?". This reveals a contradiction in the logic of attempting to question morality. If you allow people to murder you, then it wouldn't be a murder. And the same from any other question of property rights. If you allow the trespassing of your property then it is not a trespassing. This is explained in UPB repeatedly already. The only way of escaping this logical trap would be to state that you have no self awareness, by which you would have no agency, by which you would have no causality, by which you would have no property rights. Well, if I were to believe your argument against your self awareness, I would have no choice but to consider you mentally incapable, and call a professional to assist you. It is then that if the receiver asks "Why should other people initiate universally permissible interactions with me?" the positive answer is: Because I have self awareness, and that grants me the agency to give or take permissions over my property as I wish. To deny this would be to plead insanity to the judge. The catch-22 is that declaring yourself insane proves that you have the reason to realize it, and thus you are sane. The question of why should we be moral cannot be answered without the context of a moral theory, and in this case UPI. If you tried to answer it without context, you would just say "because!" and you'd have fallen into the trap of the nihilist. That is because it is impossible for a person to be alone in the world, and be good or evil at the same time. To be good is to be good to others. To be evil is to be evil to others. And when you ask "Why should I be good?" it can only be answered in two ways, from the giver and from the receiver - not from a third and uninvolved party trying to troll a philosopher. In UPB, however, a person alone in the universe would be considered good because it is not-stealing, or not-murdering. In this sense UPI does deviate from UPB, but I wouldn't mourn this difference at all. I think it is a better interpretation of what being moral means at all, if you ask me, but I'm biased anyway. The final word: UPB & UPI & NAP When you use UPB to prove the NAP you find that there is a gap in the process. UPB is a meta-ethical theory of all behaviors, and the NAP is a moral rule against aggressive behaviors, but the moral theory in the middle of the equation seems to be missing. UPB is the grandfather and the NAP is the grandson, but where's the father? UPB only deals with moral theories, not moral actions. In that way, UPI is a theory of moral interactions that fills the gap between both the larger theory of behaviors, and the lower ground of rules to moderate behaviors between moral agents. The argument when there is only UPB and NAP looks like this: -Why should people follow the NAP? Because it's the only principle that passes the test of UPB -Why should I believe in UPB? Because denying it confirms UPB -Why should I be moral then? Because UPB is true -That doesn't answer my question I don't care. If it's true, you should follow it -Just because something is true doesn't mean that I have to follow it Right, but that doesn't invalidate the theory -I know, I'm just asking why I should change my behavior to follow it I don't know, it's up to you to choose to be virtuous, and have justice, and it will save the world... Suffice to say that the moral doubter is left unsatisfied and devolved into nihilism or egoism, and has no answer as to why he shouldn't be a jerk to other people. But let's try it with UPI and see what comes out. And if I rigged the conversation, well, I came up with it so I'm biased. We can try it for real later. -Why should people follow the NAP? Because you, as a receiver of moral interactions, cannot avoid having the capacity to deny people access to your property, or give them permission. -But what if I want them to trespass my property? That would be a voluntary, or universally permissible interaction instead. -Yeah, but what if they violate my property, but I don't complain about it? Then that's just a forgiveness, or retro-permission. It's part of the UPI theory. -Ok, but what about what I personally should do? Why should I follow the NAP? Why shouldn't I steal? Whether you follow or not the NAP isn't for you to judge. Other people, the receivers of your interaction, are the ones who judge whether you are violating them or not. -That's a bit confusing, can you explain it to me a little simpler? Sure, what I mean is that even if you were to violate the NAP in the absolute, wait, do you follow me there? -On the absolute? Yeah. - You mean, if I were to break the NAP in theory over any little thing? Right, so every single tiny violation of property rights that you do is technically wrong. -Ok, and then? That's what I'm saying! Even if I touch you, or do something you don't like, or take your shoes, or step on your lawn, you could shoot me for trespassing your property! How crazy is that? I know, I know, that's what I am trying to explain. It doesn't have to be like that. There's leniency. -What do you mean by leniency? I mean that not all incursions into property are evil. All interactions between agents occur when their private property comes into contact with each other, right? -Right. So my body would be my property, and your lawn yours. Yes, ok. That is not an evil interaction. To trespass into my lawn is technically wrong, I didn't let you in, but it's not unforgivable either. There's reasonable ways of letting things pass. -So you're not going to shoot me if I overstep, or if I take something, or if I (etc)? No, it's not like that. If you were to initiate lethal force against me I would have no choice but to defend myself. Don't you agree? -Yeah, I don't want to argue against self defense, that as much I understand. Sure, I'm glad we understand each other at least on that. -What if I stole money from you? Would you shoot me then? Steal money how? -Like, if I were to take your wallet when you weren't looking. I'd like to have my wallet back. -Yeah, but I took it, and then I ran away. Ok, so if I were to find you, and ask for my wallet back, would you give it to me, with all the money intact? -I guess I would... Right, so you were just pulling a practical joke on me. It's a prank. Nobody has to get shot for that. -On second thought, I won't give it back What are you going to do with it? -I'm not giving it back I'm assuming then that you would use force to protect the wallet from me taking it back -Yes In that case you have initiated the use of force against me, and I can use force to get it back -No! Yes I can! You agreed on self defense. -Darn, you win this time. All in a day's work. So from that highly biased towards me conversation you can see that if you argue against UPI you don't have to immediately jump in the argument of performative contradictions because arguing against UPI doesn't confirm UPI in the way it happens with UPB. Yes, technically a debate is a universally permissible interaction, but the fact that you chose a UPI to argue doesn't mean that RPI and evil interactions exist either. It could be that evil doesn't exist and all interactions are universally permissible, but as we've seen in the theory, that can't be validated (I hope) - but the act of debating it doesn't prove it either. However, as the debate above showed, there is an unavoidable annoyance that I like to call The Asshole Zone. The ASZ is the zone of interactions were it is just too much work to restitute property and assholes can take advantage of people's patience or leniency. This is why trolling exists, and 4chan exists, but I don't know how to get rid of it in any sensible way other than "don't be an asshole". Epilogue: If you're already someone who is convinced of the validity of UPB you might be wondering why you should care about another theory on top of it. UPB was never intended to be a theory of ethics, but a method, like the scientific method, to validate or invalidate moral hypothesis. In science you would propose a scientific hypothesis, run it through the scientific method, and then either validate it is a scientific theory or discard it. UPB is only the method, not the theory. What I propose with UPI is the ethical theory itself. Not the method to validate it. It is not my intention to discredit or reject UPB, on the contrary. It is an effort to build something that actually guides behavior and provides answers to people hell bent on erasing any and all moral idea from planet Earth. And that includes my own nihilistic tendencies as well. This essay is the direct result of trying to cope with UPB and understand it. In that process I also caught up on its criticisms that could almost be called arguments, but ultimately end up being nothing more than whining. It is totally unproductive to try to discredit or disavow any theory without trying to find the answers to the gap it would leave by its absence. In science it would be a waste of time to go into a lecture only to complain that maybe Einstein was wrong about General Relativity without any reason why and just yell like a monkey that science is based on assumptions. In that sense, this is the result of my personal struggle with secular ethics, and I hope it can either be improved or discarded. But please, if you want to say it's wrong, also tell me what is right instead.

To borrow a principle of quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which says that position and momentum are mutually uncertain. Knowing the position will leave momentum in uncertainty, while knowing the momentum will leave the location uncertain. This strikes me as eerily similar to what happens in moral philosophy in regards to ethics and justice. I call it the MUP. The Morality Uncertainty Principle says that as the certainty of morality increases, the certainty of punishment decreases. The more you know about morality, the more objective it becomes- the exercise of justice and punishment becomes less known and more subjective. The certainty of morality is the uncertainty of justice, and viceversa. People expect specifically determined punishments and judicial action out of a specifically determined system of universal ethics. However, universal ethics contain no information about the actions to follow after immoral behavior has occurred - and this upsets people. So they codify their laws, try to write down specific criminal justice codes for each and every imaginable situation, and in the process of doing that they create uncertainty of morality. As a psychological note, the preference for certainty of justice over certainty of morality seems to be as a way of managing the anxiety that uncertainty generates in people. Not knowing what to do bothers people, and they don't want to think about it. By having an instruction manual they get to relax their upset sensibilities at the expense of a rational and universal set of ethics. In other words, if it feels good, it is good. But a minority of people reject this paradigm and are perfectly comfortable with the certainty of ethics versus the uncertainty of punitive action. The anarchists, philosophers, libertarians, and so on. It is the inverse way of thinking and even feeling. Back to the topic of certainty, this ambiguity of the right side of the equation is often used as an attack on universal principles. They think that if a violation of property rights, a violation of the NAP, or any other likewise principle is broken then it must be that justice and punishment must follow and this must also be objectively determined. No, it's not like that. Tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, pity. These are all possible outcomes of a violation of ethical principles. Total and utter justice and restitution is also possible for the same crime. It is this 100% to 0% uncertainty of follow-up behavior that bothers people deeply. Some philosophers like Daniel Denett go as far as saying that they simply don't want to live in a world without punishments. It is unthinkable to them because of their feelings, which is rather anti intellectual. The approach I have to the uncertainty of justice in the certainty of morality is one of intensity. The intensity approach is as such: The intensity of a moral problem is inversely proportional to the intensity of justice. Meaning that situations of intense moral duress like life or death scenarios lower the intensity of the desire to proceed with punitive actions. In the classic flagpole example, it is certainly determined that breaking the window to save your life is a violation of property rights - but the intensity of the moral choice was so high that proceeding to prosecute a man for it would be unthinkable since it follows inversely proportional intensities. But what if its the opposite? What if someone who is in no duress whatsoever, no poverty or hunger, someone simply breaks in your window and takes your stuff just because. The moral intensity is so low, so minimal, that the resulting justice intensity increases almost to the max. There is no good reason to break property rights in such low intensity, thus restitution and actions against him are perfectly understandable - but always with the low probability of mercy and forgiveness. Maybe you just don't want to go through the trouble and let it go. In the end, it is the shift from certainty of justice to certainty of morality that can effectively change society, and it begins with individuals capable of standing up saying "I don't know what should be done about this crime, nor do I want to".

Hey everyone. I'm not a parent or in a relationship, but I have a strong interest in someone. I stick with NAP as a basis for my morality and she doesn't agree with it and believes a state is required. My question is, if either of us don't change our thoughts and we begin raising children, what implications would there be for the children?

After many months, on and off, writing and editing a special page on my website, it's now publicly released. http://guide.assafkoss.com/ The Moral Guide is a page dedicated to be a concise guide to morality; personal morality. What behaviors should a person turn into habits. What makes for justice. How to define a free person. And how to make sure these ideas, and others, have a place in each person's life. I made it somewhat interactive, to browse the chapters and sections more easily. They are all very very short. This is not intended to be a book, or even an article per se. It's intended to be a short accessible guide for individuals. A clear introduction and reference. I have no reason to assume it is conclusive nor complete! It's designed to be regularly updated, and I am looking for feedback about it.

Religion teaches it's followers to follow God without question. So whatever God says must be obeyed. I am wondering if there is a parallel here with the NAP. Is the NAP subject to debate? In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith.

Due to the fact that manipulation deals with controlling someone by either lying to them or exploiting them in order to get what you want, it would seem that you are initiating force. Especially if you are using abusive tactics to manipulate. I would love to hear what the community thinks. Thank you for reading and have a beautiful day!

I've brought up a couple statistics and facts about cops. The domestic violence statistics, how addictive and dangerous power is on the scientific level, how the system is broken (it's immoral, worsens the problems it tries to solve and is a recepie for corruption, violence and injustice), but the party we were at moved forwards and I wasn't able to further the conversation to the NAP. We are hanging out more and more though, and this conversation will come up again. He brought the conversation to me- knowing I'm an anarchist. He is open to reason, and he is willing to talk to just about anyone to learn other points of view. I'm not certain yet if this is an appeasement tactic or a genuine search for knowledge, but either way he dialogues with me so that's a plus. Additionally- he takes correction very well, he conceded a couple points to me, which is why I have hope to bring voluntarism and philosophy to another individual. Does anyone have any experience with these kinds of situations? What works? What doesn't? I'm going to bring up the "against me" argument, as well as Kokesh's "do you own your body" argument. But I want a couple more tools to help illustrate the philosophy. I can bring utilitarian points all day, but I want to avoid those points until after he has universal principles and the NAP down. Any help, would be massively appreciated. I also remember a couple points that he brought up if that helps- he is statist, and he thinks he is a 'bad kid' for the basic spectrum of nonviolent crimes, but thinks he can help and protect he and his family best if he is on the side of the state. He loves the tools of the police, and their ability to hunt and track down drug dealers, as believes that with the growing threat of domestic and Islamic terrorism, that militarizing the police is justified.

Is the non-aggression principle ("NAP") prescriptive or descriptive? NAP (short-hand definition): No one has the right or right to claim a right to initiate force against another in order to cause harm to another or to another's property; to defraud another; to extort another; or, to break contract without cause*. *Cause being a moral argument. Now, I found that the NAP was not precriptive but rather descriptive, though I might be in error and any help would be appreciated. My reasoning is as follows: For it to be prescritpive, the NAP would have to derive an ought from an is. And, I fail to see how it's telling anyone how they ought to act when the ought is derived from one's interests, i.e. in this case, what outcome people want as far as human discourse goes. In other words, if you want a voluntary society, then you ought to abide by the NAP. To say that's prescriptive would be like saying a tuning fork tells you how you ought to tune a piano. But, that's not what it does. The tuning fork serves as a medium for deducing the harmonics of a sound as it provides a standard, i.e. a principle. Ultimately, it is the user that decides how the piano ought to be tuned. A valid moral theory works in the same way. What you ought to do is always going to be derived from your interests. What is going to happen is derived from governing principles be it NAP (a moral principle) or theory of gravity (a physics principle). Needless to say, since no one has a working crystal ball, the best we can do is use probability to predict outcomes. So, by understanding principles we can deduce probable outcomes, and with such understandings, one can make a more informed choice as to what he/she ought to do in order to achieve a desired consequence. Thus, moral theories help us extrapolate plausible outcomes of human action. The NAP is such a principle, and its function is to help one determine what actions will lead a society to more voluntary exchange as opposed to acts of conquest. Thus, to put it analogously, it is a compass (describes a direction, i.e. descriptive), not a heading (prescribes a direction, i.e. prescriptive).

The Non-Aggression Principle presents a problem when applied to environmental pollution (damn, that's some alliteration there). Taking air pollution as an example, the idea is that if you pollute the air with cancer-causing particles and other people consume that air then you are exposing their bodies to danger without their consent, therefore you have committed an aggressive action. I think a lot of libertarians are familiar with this, and they either accept polluting acts as aggressive or they have an argument to say that it is okay. These arguments are normally along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can get out" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg - South Park clip to demonstrate), which I hate to see coming from libertarians, or they say that your life is better and safer in a polluted world, which just disregards the NAP. There's an obvious alternative which is to say that the act of breathing is also pollution, because you reduce the oxygen content and increase the content of particles that cannot be used in respiration and of particles that your body has rejected because they are harmful. That of course makes breathing an act of pollution => aggressive, so I search with hope for an alternative. My response is to say that people have no ownership of the air being polluted, until they breathe the air in. Nothing can be owned until someone takes control of it (I'm talking about how the property rights over yet-unowned things are created, not about the philosophical origin of property rights in general). For example, you could not own some piece of wilderness just by looking at it; you would have to do something to that land (eg. build on it) in order to associate it with you for it to become someone's (your) property. You could not own an apple from a wild apple tree just by seeing it on the ground; you would have to take it in your hand for it to be yours. A body cannot be owned by anyone until the mind within it takes neurological control. Likewise, the air on the planet does not belong to anyone just by knowing that it is there; people need to collect the air in one way or another, breathing for example. It is not aggressive for Bob to pollute the air because Bill does not own that air until Bill breathes it in. Pollution is aggressive if it is done on something that is already owned. So, your thoughts on the whole problem and on my solution?

I Don't know where to begin and I feel a great deal of anxiety thinking about telling people this. I'm just going try to explain. My issue is: I need to apologize to someone, because I have physically attacked them without warning and without being threatened. I know this person is and always will be such a terrible person i don't know how to apologize to them. I don't think they will know why I am apologizing if I attempt to apologize only for the attack, but refuse any communication unrelated to explanation or closure for the attack. I want to apologize for what I have done and offer closure for the terror I brought upon his life. I can't imagine what that could have been like for him. I can’t live the rest of my life knowing I have attacked someone and haven't even apologized. I feel i can't live my life now knowing this. When i start saying things like this I start to think i don't know who this apology is even for. It starts to seem like the point is to relieve MY guilt from doing it rather than his pain and trauma and emotional damage for having it done to him. When I consider the emotions he must of felt I think it must have been terrible for him, to think someone could hate you so much to actually attack you, to fear for your safety. When I consider those things I am partially doubtful, because he told everyone about the incident immediately after it happened, didn’t call the police or press charges, made the scar I gave him his FB profile picture, and he continues to brag about the scar/incident and use the topic as a conversation starter… I guess context essential…. The Story:The Situation is so complicated and has so many contributing factors on my part that go back so far, I have no idea where to start so I’m just going to try and tell you how this happened. I also want to say that I can remember my thoughts from when I was on the SSRI, but it’s like the thoughts of a mad person to me. Any thoughts in the following paragraph are memories, not the thoughts I have about this now. This took place 3 years ago when I and all my friends we're about 19. The previous year i had attempted suicide and I was gladly put on an SSRI. It was like being on a little speed all the time (I now have a ‘working diagnosis’ of bi polar, something I’ve been told SSRI’s have a manic effect on). I got my first apartment with my boyfriend, this guy (call him N) and others, as a product of my parents’ divorce. I broke up with my boyfriend because he had anger issues, and kicked him out when I was told he was the source of missing food. When N’s girlfriend left him he became very depressed, I talked him out of suicidal thoughts and I felt I could trust him after his vulnerability. For unknown reasons, I become too horny after time, and it’s been like this since puberty. I wrote a note proposing we be ‘fuck buddies’ without fucking, or kissing because I didn’t really like him I wanted to use him. He agreed, and later asked if I would harm him in ways like cutting, I agreed to scratch him hard on his back. We had only a couple encounters. Soon after, N and the other roommate told me they were moving in to another apartment and not paying the rent that was due in about two weeks. I felt betrayed and confused. I found a new apartment with another who I considered to be my bestfriend.One day, a couple weeks after moving in to the new apartment the bestfriend let it slip that N said we had slept together and after convincing him I was unaware of this and that it was untrue, a couple friends enlightened me as to what had been happening behind my back the past month or two. N had twisted real events, like us having a sexual encounter into stories like we slept together and we were dating or that he didn’t want to date me and was using the scratches on his back as ‘proof’ we’d slept together. Said things like my breasts and genitals were unattractive and unpleasant. That I was a regular hard drug user. That I had sex with other people we both knew. I realized that he had framed one of my good friends for stealing from me, when of course it was him. I found out he was attempting to date my friend at the time, someone he previously said had unattractive genitals and called a slut ext. I found out he was the one stealing all my food, and that he regularly bragged about instigating fights between myself and my ex. N took pictures of the written conversation between him and I and sent the pictures to my ex, stating that I had really broken up with him for N.Then my bestfriend told me he was going over to N’s house and I could confront him if I wanted. We left within 10 mins of me hearing all this.Over the past couple of weeks I had been so angry and sad about not knowing what was happening to all my friends, I was stabbing cardboard boxes to try and relieve my anger without cutting myself. I grabbed the blade I had used to stab the boxes and my friend said ‘are you going to scare N?’ I quietly said ‘…yeah’.(I wish so much that he’d realized how mad I was and that I had no idea what I was doing and taken the blade from me. Every time I see this ‘friend’ I wasn’t to ask him if it’s all been a dream. Sometimes I feel like if I could just ask him, that I would wake up before it happened and it would never have to happen. I’m crying my eyes out right now, I’m afraid to type to word pad what happened)I had no idea how or what I planned on doing, I just had a notion that somehow I would humiliate and betray him the way he had me. I would let everyone know that what he was saying was a lie, and I would expose something he had told me in confidence. When I saw the blade I thought I could somehow tell everyone that he was bitter because I wouldn’t have sex with him and that I wouldn’t cut him, only scratch him. When I picked it up and my friend asked if I was going to scare N with it, I sort of thought that was something I could do and brought it with me.We went to N’s apartment and I yelled something like ‘so I hear you’ve been telling everyone we slept together’ in a room of about 5 or 6 people. I remember the beginning and end of this exchange but not the middle. I just remember that he was twisting what I said to make it sound like the lies he had been telling were just secrets I didn’t want people to know. When I could not respond to this I became so enraged and hit him somewhere on the head or face, and he laughed at me, and then I cut him. I actually c u t him, I didn’t see where, I found out after it was the right side of his neck. I can see myself doing this in memory, but I can’t remember feeling myself in my body, grabbing the blade, swinging, deciding this. I’m light headed thinking about this, and I feel like just stopping and puking. I feel like …what I feel I should feel like, disgusting.My friend grabbed my hand and I dropped the blade. I realized what I had done about 15 mins after in his car and I started asking him how bad it was, where and what was going to happen to both of us. He assured me N was taken directly to the hospital. Then I realized that I may have just attempted murder depending on where the wound landed….The wound was two inches wide and I think half an inch deep on the right side of his lower neck. I went to jail for the weekend until my mother bailed me out. He texted everyone we knew and told them I tried to kill him.I had a dream when I was younger(7-10) that I had done something terribly wrong and I was being sent to a detention of sorts. But I didn’t go, I ran and I ran all over the town while being chased by authorities. I accidentally jumped into the detention ‘room’, it had no ceiling and everyone sat in it willingly. I jumped back out and continued the spree. I was caught and because I did not willingly go to detention I was sentenced to something worse. I was suspended with my head floating above water, in a lake. I think I had to stay like this forever until I died. My dad came to see me and he was so ashamed and sad that he was losing me. He asked why I did this, I told him I was sorry. Then I shrivelled up and died. I thought of this dream immediately after being put in jail. I felt like this dream was coming true. I felt like my whole twisted life had been coming to some twisted end like this. I felt like this was the end. This was the end of my life, this dream was the prophecy and I had fulfilled it. I felt like I was dying in that jail cell, l felt like guilt and shame could kill me.If that was what was what I was capable of doing, something needed to change. I started really trying to figure out what was wrong with me and how I could fix myself and come back from this terrible thing i had become.I spent the next year in court and weekends in jail for the next 8 months after court.From what I’m told his life has not changed that much. ..How do I even attempt to approach apologizing for this?

I'm sitting here listening to FDR2681, and kindof surprised at the conversation. Ok, perhaps this post is a bit of a stretch in terms of practicality, but I actually appreciated the caller's quandry to a degree, and like him am interested in Stef's analysis of the hypothetical example. The point of it is to get at the heart of the moral issue, not to create a silly hypothetical merely for the sake of it. These scenarios call us to question the limits or boundaries of the NAP, and that is important. I have added a few more elements to make the scenario even more interesting than was discussed in the podcast. To paraphrase, Stef's perspective of the essence of morality in this example lies within the complaint, and cited rape vs. rough sex as an example. But that analogy doesn't seem to corelate well to the moral questions contained here, now does it? What I added to the scenario below is done to dilute the moral outrage, such that it becomes less black or white, right or wrong. In today's society people would cry to the government, "there out to be a law against that". Really? Aren't there numerous scenarios where people are "at risk" and without insurance to protect them from that risk? What about unknown risks, like meteors the size of a car falling out of te sky into your house, or space junk? Or throat cancer? Just what is the risk to the community in the examples below, and does that really matter if a nosy neighbor complains? Could Bob sue the nosey neighbor for slander or defamation if his reputation is harmed but Bob's activities are proven to be totally safe? One could imagine many ways Bob's bombs could be safe, such as no explosive materials in his home (they're added to his bombs elsewhere before detonation for example). 1) The basement bomb maker, let's call him Bob, is discovered one day to have been making bombs in his basement for lets say 10 years (arbitrary but lengthly timeframe), during which time no issues or problems have occured. 2) This was discovered quite by accident when a neighbor noticed a bright reflection of the sun coming in his window from a rather odd shiny thing glistening in Bob's driveway. When the neighbor brought this to Bob's attention Bob explained it was for his latest project, and it must have fell out of the box he took from his car. The neighbor, not being satisfied with that explanation started watching Bob and eventually saw him through an open window working on something the neighbor was uncomfortable with. 2) Bob is a long time employee of Acme Explosives, a demolition company for quaries and structure disposal. Acme and several other former employers have recognized Bob for his "extreme" safety conciousness and have awarded him many plaques and other honors for his expertise. 3) Bob is passionate about his craft and has no malice or destructive intentions towards anybody. It is his hobby to build these devices and claims they're perfectly safe. He points to the many uses of his bombs to remove obsolete buildings which are in and of theselves a safety hazard and for reducing the time required to escavate the massive amount of earth for the nearby river dam project that brought electricity to 1000s of homes. 4) Bob would like to continue his experimentation and development of explosive devices and is willing to have a panel of explosive experts evaluate his basement "lab" for safety with the goal being to become certified as being safe for his residential setting. 5) Bob's experience gives him great confidence he will obtain the "safe" certification. But if not Bob will cease all work on his "hobby" devices until he can relocate to a place where there are no concerns for his activities. 6) Bob claims his bombs are no more risky to his neighbors than the sportsman down the street who reloads all his own ammunition. In fact he claims it's much safer. Now who is in favor of letting Bob play with his bombs? Would your decision be influenced if you knew Bob kept no explosive chemicals in his home, except for perhaps minor ones like primer caps or similar very low power, non-lethal detonators? ----- Perhaps another man is a collector of world war 2 biological weapons, claiming he is keeping them out of the dangerous hands of terrorists and politicians. Similar to the story of Bob above, a large underground storage bunker is discovered with these weapons and it has been under this man's control for a very long time. The man is well respected in his community and the discovery divides the community as to this man's motives and intentions for accumulating the weapons. Where would you stand on these issues? Isn't is similar to your stand on living near the San Andreous fault or Yellowstone? Or what about on the hurricane risk of the Atlantic coast or Gulf of Mexico? What about unknown risks? Do you know what dangerous industries are close to you? What about dangerous cargo on a nearby highway?

(I must emphasise that I am not asserting my opinion here; I am just asking a question. I know that a lot of you in the Peaceful Parenting topic are parents and this post is not intended to attack your moral integrities. This question has been troubling me for a while and these forums are probably among the best for handling the Non-Aggression Principle) Is it aggressive to give birth? My understanding of the word 'aggression' is that an action done by X against Y is aggressive if ALL of the following criteria are met: 1. X controls whether X does the action 2. The action takes control of Y's property (bodily or otherwise) 3. Y does not consent to the action 4. X and Y are and/or will be conscious (eg. it would not be aggressive to kill a plant but it would be aggressive to have intercourse with someone passed out drunk) Let's say that Anne is pregnant with a baby who we shall call Chris. Anne has two choices: to give birth to Chris or to abort Chris. Anne controls whether she gives birth; in the developed world, unless she is imprisoned and/or unconscious, she has the resources to go either way. (1) If Chris will be born and become conscious, then he will have ownership rights over his body and whether to live or not. Giving birth to Chris causes his body to become conscious. (2, 4) Prior to birth, and for a while after, Chris cannot consent to anything including his birth. (3) All four criteria for aggression are met, therefore it is aggressive for Anne to give birth to Chris. The only objection to this I have ever met (this was in the comments section on one of Stefan's videos) was that this action precedes the baby's consciousness and is therefore not aggressive. In that case, it is not aggressive to chop off someone's arm while they sleep (this is obviously aggressive). Please respond by telling me if I misunderstand 'aggression' and/or how this logic is faulty.

Lately I have been wondering how to further implement the NAP in my life... When most Libertarians talk about the NAP they usually refer to the initiation of force by the government primarily for taxation. This force would include arrest, more theft and in some extremes death. These forces all more or less exist in the physical world (the tangible world). So... I have been wondering can the initiation of force exist in the physiological world (World of Thought/Consciousness) as well? This idea came to me when I over heard a conversation about someone getting defensive. Defensive in this context can be defined as: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings. As we all know, as Newton Theorized; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if there is a defensive action then their must first be an offensive action. This said, if I where to initiate my offensive thoughts on another person, and they become "injured" it is justifiable by the NAP for them to retaliate in defense, but not a return in offense. What I am trying to say is, If I were to call someone a "Lying sack of Shit", they can either offer me an intelligent rebuttal or flip me the bird. To each his own... As long as they don't come up to me the next day and call me a "Lying sack of Shit". That would violate the NAP. Right???? And if someone did in fact initiate physiological force on me, is it justifiable to defend my self with physical force? i.e. Punch them in the face. I am all new to this and just scratching the top of these subjects. Could someone please help me answer this question? Or perhaps elaborate on an idea? This could be a complete shot in the dark. BUT I MUST KNOW!!!!!

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft." What do people think of this argument?

Principles are found in Peace.Anarchy is the ULTIMATE respect for Humanity.

I was hoping that the community could start building up a thread of success stories shared by parents using peaceful parenting methods during negotiating and resolving conflicts with/among their children. I know I have seen a few scattered here and there on the forum, but I think it would be beneficial to consolidate these stories into a nice, long thread that can be shared around the internet wherever pro-spanking and coercive parenting statements are encountered. I think this could be especially helpful to those like me who don't yet have children but want to spread the peaceful parenting message and want to show real world examples of how it can work, not to mention gain some knowledge and wisdom for future parenting reference. I invite parents to share stories of all kinds, both from those who have employed peaceful parenting strategies from the beginning as well as from those who shifted to peaceful parenting mid-stream. I would also like to ask peaceful parents who grew up in a not-so-peaceful environment to share (if they are comfortable doing so, of course) comparisons of situations from their childhoods to similar situations they encounter while raising their children now – typical things like bedtimes, chores, toothbrushing, sharing communal resources like the TV, computer, etc. If you grew up in a household where your parents employed peaceful strategies, don't hesitate to share your stories either, whether you have children now or not. I think it would be great to hear perspectives from your point of view. I think it would be of particular help and interest if stories could be shared by parents who have changed from coercive parenting to peaceful parenting. What kinds of changes did you see in your children and your relations with them after you made the shift? Was there a transitional period that your children needed before things really improved? If so, how long was it? How did you go about making the shift to peaceful parenting? Finally, please don't feel that you need to limit your responses only to my questions, suggestions and requests as listed above. They are only meant as examples to get the ball rolling. Since I am asking questions from a position of practical ignorance, I am sure there probably are many things that I am missing and important questions that I may not be asking. If anyone has something that they think I should add or refine in this post, by all means, send me a PM and I will make an appropriate update.

Hello everyone at Freedomain Radio, My name is Alexander, I'm 29 years old 30 years young, from Melbourne Australia, and have been listening to FDR since about June of 2013. I am also known as The Critical G on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/thecriticalg) and Blogspot (http://thecriticalg.blogspot.com.au/), where I talk mainly about libertarianism, atheism, philosophy, and indulge in the occasional critique of statism and feminism. For what it's worth, my YouTube channel recently passed the milestones of 2,500 subscribers and 350,000 lifetime views, and my blog has over 75,000 page visits. Listening to FDR has had a profound effect on my life. The most obvious change has been political -- it marks a major stage in my journey from standard-issue politically correct Statist in that I've finally accepted the general validity of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the comfortable position of small-government libertarianism. There are a couple of particular details, eg restrictions on mass migration, that I'd like to explore with people here though. However, the most important change has been in my personal relationships, especially with my parents. TALK THERAPY I started going to a psychologist about 10 years ago; although talk therapy has been instrumental in identifying the origins of my troubles and developing the capacity to observe myself from a distance, I believe I was being tripped up by what we here would call bad philosophy. SOCIAL LIFE A very large part of my social life is swing and blues dancing, of which there is a great deal in Melbourne, Australia. Unfortunately, this means that my social circles are filled with Leftist, trendy, hipster types; I greatly enjoy the dancing and get along with people, but I feel like a Marano Jew in Inquisition Spain once people start talking about politics. Not that “right-wing” Australians are generally any less statist than Leftists, to be honest, but they're at least tolerant of different opinions. This means that I love dancing, but can't really connect with the people on anything but the most superficial level. PARENTS However, with my parents there has been a tectonic shift. Although my parents did not discipline me -- no spanking, no time-outs, etc -- they did let me down in a number of profound ways, which left me with much to talk about with my psychologist over the last ten years. For the most part they are kind, loving, approachable, willing to discuss difficult matters; however, they are reluctant to talk about where they went wrong, or the legacy of their own childhood experiences, and most certainly would not bring it up without my insistence. Nevertheless, they allow themselves to be pulled into serious conversations -- it's hardly ideal for the child to have to cajole his parents into meaningful discussions, but I make do with what I've got, and I believe I have good cause to be optimistic. POLITICS To make a long story short, my philosophical and political thinking has passed through the following checkpoints: Being trapped in a radical feminist English Department at university for four years; Discovering Men's Rights Activism and avoiceformen.com in 2011; Witnessing the disintegration of freethoughtblogs.com at the hands of feminists; The Ron Paul craze of 2012; Reading up on Austrian economics General acceptance of the NAP and the “taxation is theft” argument Implicit (although unconscious) acceptance of UPB as the basis for moral behaviour You could say that all this took me along the following path: Lukewarm socialist Socially liberal and economically conservative Right-wing conservative / libertarian, acceptance of NAP and UPB Tacit acceptance of anarcho-capitalism After the great disappointment of Ron Paul's bid for nomination in 2012, I remained interested in libertarian thinking, but what that really got me interested in FDR was Stefan Molyneux's playlist about Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B883EE065DC5B8C As soon as he posed the question of what would happen if Ron Paul miraculously became president, my doubts about the efficacy of political action and education crystalised. It was at that point that I began to seriously consider anarcho-capitalism, but more importantly, I have since come to accept as supreme the need to apply the NAP and UPB in our personal lives, especially in our dealings with children. The resources available at FDR have helped me to shed light on innumerable matters of concern, and have given me the tools to initiate deep and meaningful conversations with important people in my life. All of this has had a profound effect on my personal relationships with my parents and friends, and has enriched the content of my own YouTube channel and blog. (http://www.thecriticalg.blogspot.com/) The call-in shows have also provided me with inspiration for my first major writing project, The Odessia (www.theodessia.com), in which I have begun to explore philosophy through fantasy fiction. I'll talk about that in the Listener Projects section. I want to thank Stefan and Mike for providing one of the most valuable resources on the web and look forward to participating in discussions with all of you in this forum.

These words are sometimes used in ways that may not refer to their standard definition, so can someone please put up the definition as used in the book, that would be great. 1. Universal 2. Behavior 3. Consistent 4. Ownership 5. Aggression 6. Ethics 7. Morality