Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, those are very good answers. I’ll probably have more in the future.
What about noise disruption? If your neighbor next door turns on his music too loud and you can’t sleep, how can you go about resolving this problem?
And I know that this next one will be a painful question - but what is the anarcho-capitalist’s stand on abortion?
Ignore Spidey’s answer on children, any answer, ever. Murder is, generally speaking, never a proper response to anything other than murder. Read this. (the last few pages are where the answer is.)
What about noise disruption? If your neighbor next door turns on his music too loud and you can’t sleep, how can you go about resolving this problem?
In any case like this, ask who was there first. Is light shining in your windows because you moved in next to a discoteque, or did your neighbor just install a spotlight and start shining it at you.
And I know that this next one will be a painful question - but what is the anarcho-capitalist’s stand on abortion?
It’s neither of the two typical stances. Watch this video.
“What about noise disruption? If your neighbor next door turns on his music too loud and you can’t sleep, how can you go about resolving this problem?”
Move.
“And I know that this next one will be a painful question - but what is the anarcho-capitalist’s stand on abortion?”
Well, one has to understand “rights”. Do animals have rights? No. Why don’t they? Because they do not understand the concept of rights. They have no way of respecting rights or resolving disputes, intellectually.
Do humans have rights? Yes, because we can reason and understand rights and respect rights.
Do all humans have rights? No, we don’t. Just like animals cannot understand rights, humans that are unable to understand rights do not have rights either. An unborn child most assuredly does not understand rights, and therefore does not have any.
You can disregard E.R. Olovetto on this one. He does not understand rights or how they would work in a free society. He thinks things called “PDAs” will be able to enforce ones ideas on others, which is just another form of government. He thinks PDAs can go into homes of parents that have been accused of “abusing” their children, and just take the children and make the parents fight to get them back, ignoring the fact that if this were the case, the parents would have a PDA themselves, and that no parent would sign up with a PDA that might come in and take their children without having first been convicted of a crime, which would mean these supposed PDAs that would take children could not get much business, since almost every adult is a parent.
That nonsense is demolished in the above thread. Subscription by a pool of consumers to a security firm is not hiring your own personal group of thugs to defend you come hell or high water, and the latter would, of necessity, be much more expensive. There is a sort of equilibrium between what consumers would be willing to tolerate, what of their liberties they are willing to sacrifice in order to receive protection, and what is necessary to conduct investigations. Almost nobody will object to a clause which requires them to give DNA, given a certain amount of evidence that raised suspicion of them raping their child. Thus, the hypothetical security firm who would stonewall a rape investigation of its client, would quickly go out of business. Most consumers see child rape as a heinous crime and would contractually agree to such.
“Almost nobody will object to a clause which requires them to give DNA, given a certain amount of evidence that raised suspicion of them raping their child.” See, I told you he lives in a fantasy land. As if everyone would not instead go to the PDA that does not require such a clause.
@rosstaylor, feel free to message me directly if you would like to know more about my vies on rights. Me and E.R. have hashed this out quite a few times, and it never goes anywhere.
Again, see the difference between paying $50/mo. for some cops to patrol your street and hiring some thug to possibly die defending you at all costs.
The service you envision simply would not be provided. The security firms’ motivation is to make money, thus they try to appeal to the widest range of customers, not the 1% who think that raping children, even their own, is okay. The other 99% have no problem with molestors being subjected to punishment, so such would happen one way or another.
“The other 99% have no problem with molestors being subjected to punishment, so such would happen one way or another.” As if one could even define “molesting”.
Can one define anything?
I’m confident that my definition of molestation would be more widely accepted than yours. In fact, your position is that a parent qua creator has the right to rape, abuse, hit, molest, and kill, or dispose of a defenseless child. That anyone would side with you over me is laughable.
I’m pretty sure that what I have here is your home phone number Brodie (lol internet research). Want me to start the poll with your wife? Are you ready for round 3? It might get ugly for you. But hey, your right to rape children is one you would have actually spoken up for before, yeah?
/
As an anarcho-capilist, do you believe in God?
I don’t, but there are plenty that do.
“Want me to start the poll with your wife?”
Rofl, if you can get through to the number, let me know. And I have already talked to her about it anyways. She knows my stance. I wonder, how do the moderators feel about threats of harassment?
“Are you ready for round 3?”
I don’t really want to hash it out again. Obviously, you think people will sign up for PDAs that will invade their privacy at will. Enough said.
“But hey, your right to rape children is one you would have actually spoken up for before, yeah?” People do have a right to have sex with their children just like people have a right to have sex with animals. Do you think if I threatened to call your family, that you would change your tune on a person’s right to have sex with an animal? Or would you find that pretty childish?
All believe that State has no role in it, beyond that there any many opinions.
Block’s ejectionism seems to be popular, though I don’t find it valid.
Block’s ejectionism seems to be popular, though I don’t find it valid.
Why?
@E. R., I don’t about his reason, but this is a good rebuttal to all cases except rape: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf
Rofl, if you can get through to the number, let me know. And I have already talked to her about it anyways. She knows my stance.
Based on your next statement, I don’t believe you aren’t concerned at all. The number very well might not be good because it is old. I don’t know who these dozens of people who accepted my gimmick account’s friendship on facebook are, maybe friends, relatives, or coworkers. If you think that I am bluffing and want to continue to parrot that child rape is acceptable to libertarians, we can find out.
I wonder, how do the moderators feel about threats of harassment?
What are they going to do, ban me for telling you that I am utilizing freely available information? Your “argument” holds no water and I have no qualm trainwrecking you whatsoever. When I set this up months ago, my lawyer friend laughed and said to go ahead and do it if I want. I’m not making this up. It’s all your own words, your own position.
I don’t really want to hash it out again.
Yes, I have zero patience left for hearing your position.
Block’s arguments concerning parasites are valid, I believe his analogy to be biologically false.
A human fetus, rather than being a third party invader, is a part of the same body that it resides in. I think people tend to be willing to accept the fetus as a parasite because the egg leaves the ovary before implanting in the uteris. But it is probably more accurate to think of human reproduction as a form of division.
A closer analogy to the fetus-mother relationship than parasite-host would be conjoined twins.
no comment