what is your political preference?

[TheButterZone]

Slavery is already a violation of the NAP and inherent human right not to be enslaved, so would-be slavers should surrender or be killed in self-defense. No laws codifying what is inherent are necessary, without a government existing to violate (or enable the violation of) those rights in the first place.

[1714106322]

1714106322

[1714106322]

1714106322

[1714106322]

1714106322

[TheButterZone]

Sure, if you're willing to misdefine terms... but then nobody can debate your categorical BS. /ignore

Terms like slavery vs indentured servitude.

[ErisDiscordia]

haha another person praising law for abolishing slavery (brought about by law in the first place). Gotta love statist logic 

[Anon136]

Anarcho-capitalism[/b] -- even worse than the Libertarians. At least the Libertarians/"Minarchists"/whatever seem to acknowledge there might be some need for a smallish government that would to initate violence against innocent people to attempt to restore order, just in case any of their voluntarist/private arbitration/NAP non-innitation of violence against innocent people theories didn't go according to plan.

i suppose its possible that it might end badly. still im willing to give it a shot. when societies outlawed slavery there was a risk that it could have ended badly, does that mean they shouldnt have tried? plus we dont want the entire world to test this out on, we are perfectly fine to just be left in peace on a few square miles of land somewhere. if cannibalistic death cults pop up somewhere on our few square miles and we dont find any way to solve that problem than feel free to invade us.

In response to something you didn't actually write (but was obvious from reading in-between the lines), yes, I do think you're a fool. Your slavery analogy makes no sense in the context. "Outlawing" slavery means the introduction of laws, which you're opposed to on ideological grounds. Even if you don't like slavery for warm fuzzy reasons, your political ideals would allow it to happen.

rofl, the ultimate argument that i could possibly make to show that your argument is erroneous is to show that you are actually arguing against something i didnt say and you have already done this for me. You defeated yourself and as a bonus pointed out that you were defeating yourself in the same breath that you used to defeat yourself! classic! if you have to qualify your argument by saying "im not actually going to argue against something you said but" than you probably should just keep your mouth shut.

[Rassah]

If someone signed a contract obligating them to an indefinite period of indentured servitude "in the extremely unlikely event that a debt would be unable to be paid off", the NAP says that's fucking legit!

Now don't get me started on the hypocrisy of disrespecting intellectual property, while simultaneously worshipping the sanctity of contractual agreements.

Slavery was codified in law. If you stop "slaving" by, say, running away, or help a runaway slave, you are breaking the law. We all know what happens when you break the law: men with guns come chase you, and then either imprison or kill you. In this case, they take you back to your owner.
Your indentured servitude example is a contract. If you break that contract, you have only broke a contract between you and your "owner," at which point the two of you would have to go to an arbitrator, mediator, or civil court to figure out how to resolve the breach of contract. If I was mediating or a member of a jury, my "ruling" would have been that the indentured servant and the "owner" should figure out some other ways to resolve their debt issue, and that the indentured servant should be deemed as untrustworthy for entering into indentured servitude contracts, and thus not be allowed to enter into them any more. At least until they rebuild their trust. This indentured servant would have to start from scratch, maybe only doing short one or two days long indentured servitude contracts at most, and would take a while to build up their reputation enough to become a professional long-term indentured servant again.

[ErisDiscordia]

... slavery (brought about by law in the first place).

Evidence please.

Wikipedia on slavery:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property (first hint. no property without law) to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally(second hint) recognized by many societies.

[Schleicher]

Wikipedia on slavery:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property (first hint. no property without law) to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
...

With law you mean "rules written on a piece of paper"?
Well, laws existed even before people knew how to write.
Even the very first human tribes probably had some rules.

[ErisDiscordia]

With law you mean "rules written on a piece of paper"?

Since it's common to conflate the concepts of "law" and "rules" and even Wikipedia is confused so I think I should clarify:

Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition,[2] but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures.

That's more or less what I mean by law. The part of it being enforced by a social institution and made by government is the crucial one.

People love rules, they always make up new ones. What I dislike is the idea of a single set of rules being enforced on everybody. I'd like to see a multitude of systems. I find it fair to assume that this might lead to better and more workable rules. You seldom get high quality with a monopoly and rules are no exception.

[supernovax]

I'm a political atheist - I don't believe that there are special people who can be trusted to steal people's money and then do good things with it.

[ktttn]

With law you mean "rules written on a piece of paper"?

Since it's common to conflate the concepts of "law" and "rules" and even Wikipedia is confused so I think I should clarify:

Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition,[2] but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures.

That's more or less what I mean by law. The part of it being enforced by a social institution and made by government is the crucial one.

People love rules, they always make up new ones. What I dislike is the idea of a single set of rules being enforced on everybody. I'd like to see a multitude of systems. I find it fair to assume that this might lead to better and more workable rules. You seldom get high quality with a monopoly and rules are no exception.

There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.

[Cameltoemcgee]

I like the looks of that poll!

[u9y42]

I'm a political atheist - I don't believe that there are special people who can be trusted to steal people's money and then do good things with it.

Wouldn't that effectively make you an anarchist though? After all, society will always be organized in one form or another; that way, you would get to organize with other people and decide what to do with your money/resources, instead of entrusting it to others and hope for the best.

[Chef Ramsay]

I'm a Rand Paul Republican which is the growing brand in the GOP. Or course, I have ancap roots but will work w/i the system to attempt to downsize it to nil.

[TrailingComet]

Broadly libertarian with some basic layers of social safety built in

[Anon136]

I'm a Rand Paul Republican which is the growing brand in the GOP. Or course, I have ancap roots but will work w/i the system to attempt to downsize it to nil.

Good luck with that! i truely hope you meet with some success. But as stefan molyneux always says, if you have grand aspirations you should always test on a smaller scale first. Like if you ever watch the myth busters they always start with a small boat in a fish bowl before they move to renting out some cargo ship. You should try infiltrating the local mafia and turning it into a charity organization first. IF you can manage to do that than you could prove the concept on a small scale fist, then you could show that there is atelast a chance that the basic idea is possible on a larger scale.

[thehun]

There are some options missing, like communist, fascist, islamist, etc

I see myself as social-liberal: I believe the state's role should be reduced to an absolute minimum but some services like security, education and justice should be public, and others like healthcare (up to a certain level) private but with state regulation (like in Germany).

And of course I believe in direct democracy (Swiss style, but powered by new technologies), where the role (and number) of politicians is also minimized.

[Anon136]

Broadly libertarian with some basic layers of social safety built in

But the all improtant question. Who's money is providing this safety net? Is it your's? or someone elses? did they agree to it? is it ok to threaten to murder them inorder to aquire their resources for this end? Im not saying it isnt, all i would ask is that you treat this question with the seriousness it deserves.

[Balthazar]

There are some options missing, like communist, fascist, islamist, etc

Communists are radical socialists, so they can vote for socialism.

[bryant.coleman]

I'm a Rand Paul Republican which is the growing brand in the GOP. Or course, I have ancap roots but will work w/i the system to attempt to downsize it to nil.

It will be interesting to watch the 2016 Republican primaries. Right now it seems that Rand Paul is one of the strongest contenders. Let's hope that he will be able to achieve what his father never did.

[Anon136]

I'm a Rand Paul Republican which is the growing brand in the GOP. Or course, I have ancap roots but will work w/i the system to attempt to downsize it to nil.

It will be interesting to watch the 2016 Republican primaries. Right now it seems that Rand Paul is one of the strongest contenders. Let's hope that he will be able to achieve what his father never did.

don't get your hopes up. rand paul will be president but he will be just as corrupt as the rest of them. this is not just corollary either, its causal, the reason why he will become president when his father never could is precisely because he will be corrupt when his father would not have been.