-
To try to answer the OP's original question, property is a behavior. It is a way that an animal behaves with regard to other animals or objects in the world. Furthermore, anything can be considerred property (someone or something can act like they own something) so long as they have the ability to enforce it. For example, we are all owned by the
-
Auto said: I'd say that the Minerva Project actually did two things wrong. First, they didn't invest in any weaponry. Second, they explicitly notified neighboring states about the new "Republic of Minerva". It was that explicit notification of "independence" that led to a conference among the neighboring states where Tonga
-
There is a section in this article that deals with IP and some alternatives.
-
But the question Anarcho-capitalists aim to resolve is "How will things be?" (as a result of individuals acting in the absence of a state monopoly on force? As an acncap, I don't agree that this is the fundamental question ancaps try to resolve. First, you are making many generalizations about what ancaps want or think that are not necessarily
-
Are you cookin in here? I smell bacon. Cop abuse Video.
-
Anome said: " And that is the question of being over-powered. When one overpowers another, they put the overpowered in a state of utter helplessness where that person can do anything to them, up to and including killing them. Putting someone in an overpowered state gives you life and death power over them. This is why the woman being raped can
-
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html "A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further . "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that
-
Auto said : " ACFT , did the thief deprive his victim of all of his rights? If not, then why does the thief nevertheless deserve to be deprived of all of his rights in response (by killing him)?" Because he initiated aggression. For the sake of looking at the principle of aggression, and whether or not one should tolerate it, let us assume
-
Mustang said " But shooting the thief could permanently and easily solve the problem." Yes, do it. Why am I concerned about the rights of a theif? Defense of their "rights" seems to me like defense of aggression.
-
Andrew Cain said: "If that is your new definition of the harm principle then it is just another name for the NAP. Before you said just physical harm to a person. " The entire time I have been making references to the article I linked to. This is the definition right at the top of the article: Harm Principle : Activities are permitted so long