Search the Community

I've been uploading videos fairly regularly. I recently did a small mini-series aimed at people who might be new to anarchism. I talk about self-ownership and the other basic principles underlying stateless societies. I also do random stuff too. I've put three links below: My ambidexterity: On Consistency: The State Owns your Death:

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?

Something to consider if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/donald-trump-thinks-kelo-style-eminent-d And if you're not familiar with the Kelo v The City of New London, it's a landmark property rights case that I think all Americans should be outraged about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

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!

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).

(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.

OKay. I agree that it is an injustice that the Feds are uprooting this guy. However, I'm looking for some consistency. It IS okay for the rancher to cage, manage, and butcher the cattle for profit. It IS okay for the rancher to chase other animals off of "his" land. It IS okay for the rancher to chop down trees, build over other habitats (trees are habitats), or eliminate "pests" (other animals) on "his" land. It IS okay for "might is right"; in other words, the rancher is stronger and more capable than the other animals, so it is fine for him to do what he's doing. But... It IS NOT okay for the government to treat Cliven Bundy like he treats the animals and land--with force? Why? Because he's human? So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)? Seems a little inconsistent. Please advise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz5GXDpwWN8