-
Why you need a supreme being for there to be an objective morality? This is pure nonsense and I would say non-sequitur. It doesn't matter if you are moralist or nihilist, there is no need supreme being in human relationships . Supreme beings are fantasy. They don't interfer in our lives, they can't even talk and are invisible. End of story
-
but the best option is not to be enslaved by anyone. I choose that option. I saw what happened with a "small state" in USA
-
Government just wants your money. That's it. For protection you are responsible yourself.
-
Esuric replied on Sat, May 1 2010 8:56 AM The majority of women in this country are currently tied up in a voluntary slave contract; it's called marriage. Women sell their bodies to men in exchange for financial security. It's the oldest contractual relationship. haha, the best comment, so far
-
Oh, slave contracts. An oxymoron. The classic. What if I am masochist, and I wish to have a master (preferably a woman) to punish me very very hard? Can I "sell" then my body? P.S. If I can't, then who the hell owns me? THE OTHERS!!!!
-
brix will be shat. No, seriously, I don't much care, but I hope he will not win, because [quote user="Merlin"] if he ever wins he’ll tarnish libertarianism for generations to come. [/quote]
-
so again, it seems that many people use quote function perfectly fine, but it doesn't work for me (used FF 3.5, Opera 10.10). I only can quote manually by copy/paste and then add "block quote" from the menu bar. But when I do this, it doesn't add the name of user I am responding to, so again, I have to add it manually. Is this proble
-
ClaytonB wrote the following post at Thu, Apr 29 2010 8:17 AM: @OP: It's just a matter of degree... the government judges in all its own disputes, anyway, this is no different than the government granting itself the authority to assassinate on the basis of its own "assessment" of someone's guilt or innocence. If you appear before a
-
But see, that's where I think egoistic libertarianism goes too far - it's not aggression for me to forcibly grab my 5-year old as he tries to run across the street, even though he knows full well that he could be run over by a car because I have told him in the past that could happen and I am currently yelling it at him, "Stop, you could
-
How are you defining the term "rape" in this context? Do you mean a violent act of aggression? Or do you mean a re-definition of the word 'willing' to mean 'not willing' -- as the state has redefined that term? I don't accept the latter definition, so based on the news story , it's not clear whether or not a rape (in