So you’ve declared your desire to hold exclusive authority over Mars, but that’s irrelevant because there’s nothing you can do with that. It doesn’t really create a conflict of wills of which need resolving in the first place.

Will it tomorrow? Maybe, but also maybe not. Let’s say it does. Well how do we resolve such a conflict? In addition, can you own something you’ve made up but don’t fundamentally know of what it is? For instance, what if I say I own your soul? Does your soul even exist? I would argue there’s no such thing and there’s simply no evidence to support that there’s such a thing as soul, so declaring that is kind of irrelevant. Can you own an entire planet? You know there’s apparently a planet out there and you know it has a name (likely, many), but do you have an actual context beyond that of that in which you’ve desired to own? It’s a good question I don’t have an immediate answer to but it doesn’t nullify anything I’ve said just because it’s complicated. Fundamentally, if you are the first person to ever desire exclusive authority with all of Mars, then Mars is your property.

I never said you needed to respect anyone’s will. I said it’s illogical not to. Logic is objective, and everything subjective is, at its core, arbitrary. There are ideas that are material and ideas that are ethereal - if those are the terms we’ll be using, anyway. In other words, you have ideas such as, which ship is the true ship of Theseus? But the truth there is neither, because there never was a ship of Theseus. We made the ship up. There are only simples arranged in particular patterns.

But that kind of thinking isn’t helpful for us to navigate the world. We know what fundamentally manifests the idea of “ship”, and that’s primarily material, but the idea for instance of “trans” is ethereal - it isn’t predicated on any kind of essence like ship is. We know what ship is not for instance, and we have enough cardinal attributes associated to ship to communicate the idea of ship, but trans is more abstract so as to not really mean anything - it fundamentally means whatever you want it to because that’s all anything without an essence can even mean.

So when you say, “this ship is mine” we can do something with that, but if you say, “I am trans”, there’s nothing we can do with that information that isn’t arbitrary. We can defend your property rights to your property being ship, but how do we defend your rights to being trans without it being wholly arbitrary?

I’m not picking at trans by the way, I’m just using it as an example since it’s so frequently in our discourse today.

To circle back and reiterate: I’m not saying that anyone has to respect property rights and clearly some people do not, but this is a philosophical proposition of logic that’s by far more rational than the arbitrary systems many use today to discern right and wrong. Saying you obtained your morals from god is nonsensical because it is patently clear that god-beings and “magic” just don’t exist. It is delusion to believe that they do, so predicating ones worldview around what doesn’t even exist can only lead to coincidence - it cannot lead to actual predictions of reality of which logic can - with certainty - accurately predict.

I’d be happy to go over more of this because I could write an entire book about it - not because it’s convolutedly complicated, but because most people don’t stop and think what the words they’re using even mean. Reductionism is how you get to truth, and reductionism requires logic to get there. We don’t know the difference between stool and chair, nor when something stops being something as you shave off atoms, or why we’re alive beings made of dead materials, but this is the stuff if ignorance, not of reality. Given enough time and reverse engineering, the answers are likely to come.

That being said, I believe the answers to a solid and just moral framework rely on logic and reason. If you’re not using logic and reason, you’re simply arbitrating. Everything else becomes an argument over justifying why you should hold exclusive authority over something because you feel a certain way about it. This is always just an argument over might makes right.

I would argue that the whole of human conflict does not come because two or more individuals have a different opinion per say, but because they see the same part of the world and believe it is construed in completely different ways. For instance, in Islam, the prophet Muhammed married a girl who was 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Traditional Sunni Hadith outline this, and her name was Aisha bint Abi Bakr. Muslim scholars sometimes argue that she may have been older, but my point is that many millions of people believe the former, and if your worldview is such that the prophet of god was permitted to marry a 6 year old then your worldview is likely to accept that as simply a god-given moral construct.

It is not a matter of, “why can’t we all just get along” when you have someone who believes it should be OK to marry a 6 year old with a marriage consummation of 9. For many millions, that is simply rape and there is no way to reconcile this - do this and the answer must be violence. Full stop.

Or another example could be China or Russia’s believe that America and capitalism are sinister agents of the world while many Americans see Communism and the collectivist way as ultimately sinister and authoritarian. There are never any “good” arguments between the two, simply different justifications for why “I feel strongly, therefore fuck you”.

This stance I’m presenting is a philosophical neutral point (it’s more or less the NAP just described in more detail) that explains why it shouldn’t matter how you feel because everyone should be allowed to live their life the way they so choose so long as they are not initiating actions of which violate the will of others.

In short, do not murder, assault, rob, or defraud others.

And the thing here is: The moment you want to try to argue that there are justifications for murder, assault, theft, or fraud, why should anyone care to hear you out anymore? When you show up at my doorstep armed threatening to kill my children, there’s only one answer I have for you, there’s no alternative discussion there.

And I will be on the right side of morality, it doesn’t actually matter how you or I feel about it personally.

Try to use mental gymnastics to pour over justifying why you should be able to murder my children just doesn’t matter, and it shouldn’t matter, and my explanation for why is a hell of a lot more logical and rational than justifications predicated on, “I feel strongly, so fuck you”.

In fact, what I propose doesn’t even concern how I feel personally. You could live your life in ways I completely think are nonsensical, delusional, or down right self-destructive, and my stance is simply that you should be allowed. I might try to convince you otherwise, but never use violence to control how you live.

There is no other way for us to coexist in this world without a non-stop attempt at dominating one another unless we adhere to this kind of worldview. No other worldview comes even close.

Absolutely.

So you have objective and subjective morality. Morality simply meaning actions we should or should not take. If something is immoral, it is an action we should not take. What actions should we not take is predicated on logic.

The fundamental premise here is simple: You cannot desire the violation of your own will.

This is actually impossible. Let’s say for instance that you don’t want to be punched in the face, but then you want me to punch you in the face. You are not desiring the violation of your own will here, your will has simply changed to desiring that I strike you. Even if you changed your mind again, you are still not desiring the violating of your own will.

And since it is not possible to quantify value in an objective way, you also cannot create an objective hierarchy of value for will. Your will and mine are equal, for all intents and purposes. Any and all ideas we might have that seem to contradict that claim are merely our personal opinions.

So what this fundamentally means is that since you would never want me to initiate any actions of which violated your will - AND you cannot quantify an objective hierarchy of value for human will - then it leads that you as well should not initiate any actions of which violate my will.

Imagine the golden rule but edited in just the slightest. It’s not do unto others as you would want done to you but do unto others as they would want done to them.

In fact, majoritively this is how all human societies already engineer themselves - they just take a great many smaller caveats away from this in their own quest for greed and power.

Take murder, rape, assault, theft, or fraud for instance. ALL of those things are only made manifest when at least one party initiates an act against another in which the second party did not consent. If you hand me $20 and your will is aligned to do so (a gift, say), that does not manifest the idea of theft. But if I take that $20 from you without your permission, I have violated your will within a logical order of operations across time.

In short, we both held the same will as it pertained to that $20 - exclusive authority over it.

The reason why you are the owner of that $20 is because you fulfilled two primary fundamental criteria: 1. You desired exclusive authority over it. And 2. You did not violate the will of another as it pertains to that $20 in order to obtain exclsuive authority over it.

In other words, you wanted it and you didn’t steal it.

And these things predated my will to also hold exclusive authority over it. We have a conflict here though - a conflict of wills - where both of us desire an outcome that we both cannot have. There is only one $20 bill and both of us want exclusive authority over it, but only one of us can.

So morally, we back you, because logically neither of us can desire the violation of our own wills and also because your will predated mine. In short, in order for you to continue to hold exclusive authority over that $20, you need do nothing, whereas for me to hold exclusive authority over it, I must violate the second rule of ownership - I must violate your will in order to have it. I have to rob you.

This is why societies punish murderers, rapists, robbers, and fraudsters. They don’t punish all of them because of power and corruption, but as a whole, all societies always have done this, or desired to do this, given their resources and power.

Rape as another example does not manifest unless there’s at least one non-consenting party. Same thing for murder. If both of us went into an MMA match together for example and we both fully understand the risks therein - including but not limited to possible death - then so long as we both followed the rules then if one of us died in the ring, we didn’t commit murder. Would it be a tragedy? Well, sure, but it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be called murder.

Now if I laced my gloves with lead which wasn’t in the rules and you didn’t consent to that? Then I murdered you. Even if my intent wasn’t to kill you, that is still breaking your consent which lead to a highly negative outcome for you. In many societies across the world as well we wouldn’t even classify such an act as first degree murder, and the penalty wouldn’t be as severe, though it would still be severe.

Or if someone tries to enter my home to harm me and my family and I put them down - that too isn’t murder, even though the assailant didn’t want to die, the logic there is that my will predated theirs - I did not want someone to attack me and my family, or even enter my home without my consent - so the moment they did my act of violence was a reaction to their initiated act of which violated my will. It’d be akin to taking my $20 back if you stole it from me. I should be allowed to at that point even if you don’t want me to because it’s my $20.

In fact you already agree to this because you have no choice because of the two cardinal premises here. You would never want me for example to violate your will, so even if you were to tell me you would be OK if I took $20 from you that’s missing the point - that just means your will was aligned to give me $20. I again, never robbed you. You never ACTUALLY want to be robbed, you might just agree if someone takes something from you that you subjectively agree with their justification for doing so and thus, change your will so that you would be OK with them having what they took.

Your will was never violated then.

I need not demonstrate any such thing. There’s a difference between subjective and objective morality. We live in a world where we humans have self-awareness, and with that self awareness comes concepts of logic, reason, and justice. Unfortunately for us, human conflict arises and it isn’t always clear which side of said conflicts are good or bad.

For example, maybe you don’t like the existance of these lightning cables. OK, great. And you may have a lot of reasons for not liking them, but those are all subjective. Value itself, is subjective. Someone else might love the lightning cable. So who is correct?

Even if you can come up with 30 ways why you think the lightning cable is bad that doesn’t make your stance objective. You could say for example that the cable makes more waste. OK, but I don’t have to value waste creation the same way you do. Maybe I don’t care at all about waste.

You could say that the cable is too expensive and there aren’t enough alternatives. Great, I would agree with you on all of these fronts (remember, I don’t buy Apple products. None) but that STILL doesn’t mean they’re not just opinions.

Objectively, lightning cables aren’t bad. If you don’t want a lightning cable, don’t buy one, and don’t buy Apple products. I should be allowed to have them if I want them. It isn’t for you or anyone else to tell me I can’t, and it doesn’t matter what justifiers you have for it.

The only time when the lightning cable would become objectively “bad” is if there is something to do with the cable that violates the will of another in the same logical way that manifests concepts such as murder, assault, theft, or fraud. For example, if the waste is being dumped on your property and you don’t want it there.

But then the “problem” isn’t the lightning cable at all, it’s that Apple is dumping trash on your property without your consent. Again, the lighting cable isn’t the issue, the act of violating property rights is the issue.

Does this make sense? I want to make sure I am explaining these concepts in a way that make sense.

How do you define a free market? The only laws you need - fundamentally - are those in which aren’t victimless crime laws. A free market is predicated on ownership, and the fundamental essence of ownership requires two cardinal premises:

1. You desire exclusive will over something.
2. You obtain exclusive will over that something without violating the preexisting will of another to hold exclusive authority over it. I.E: You didn’t steal someone to get it.

If a third party (the government) can tell you what you can do with your property then it is violating your exclusive will over it. In short, the government is robbing you. Theft doesn’t - and in fact cannot - simply mean I take a something from you. I could take your wallet off my counter because you left it in my home with the intent of bringing it back to you. You could borrow me your car with an understanding that I will give it back to you the moment you request it.

But if I take your car without you knowing and without your consent, EVEN if I brought it back later that day and filled up the tank, I have robbed you. It doesn’t matter that I brought the car back. Theft has very little to do with the location of property and certainly rarely ever to do with having property on ones person. The moment I leave my house almost everything I own is no longer on my person, but I expect it to be where I left it when I get home.

The moment another entity can dictate what you can do with your property you no longer have freedom, because freedom requires your will remain unviolated (in a logical order of operations across time.) So I would argue that if your consent is being violated, you are no longer existing within the confines of a free market.

Now if your argument is that an employer could ask you to work 24 hours in a day or terminate employment - there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. If YOU consent to it, then it’s OK. What on earth makes you think that a third party has any right to come in between two consenting adults? Is that third party the wise and affluent intellectual, and the employee the simpleton barbarian?

The mere fact that freedom requires violence utilized to protect from things like murder, rape, assault, theft, and fraud means that you do not need to really worry about things like labor laws. So long as an employer cannot force you to do something at gun point means you get to consent. In addition, so does everyone else.

I’m not working for a business that forces employees to work 24 hour working days. I’m also not BUYING anything from those businesses, would you?

And remember that if a business hides these facets from the market that fundamentally is what fraud is. Fraud, I would argue, is at its core about trying to get someone to consent to something by purposely (or by way of negligence) misleading them. I KNOW a lot of people wouldn’t work for me or buy from my business if they knew I employed children, so I will hide that fact - that’s fraud.

And since you cannot live in a free society where there’s rampant fraud, there would need to be individuals ready and willing to use violence against it. Frankly the proper answer to such a thing would be to just apprehend the owners of the business directly. The fact that we treat companies like individuals is nonsensical. If you want nefarious acts done via business to fade away, start imprisoning the owners/CEO’s for what their businesses do.

The good and just need not permit the machinations of the sinister. If someone shows up to your home to threaten you and your family, the just and proper answer is to end them. Violence is in no way intrinsically evil in its own right. The sword - it can be used in the defense of the innocent and goodly, or to enslave the masses.

Well it depends on what you mean by cheating. Cheating tends to be a concept where more than one player is agreeing to a single ruleset and when one of those players breaks that ruleset, that’s the cheating.

You cannot compete in a system if you don’t both work in the same system. How do you know who’s won in a game of chess for example if the other player is playing as if all of their pawns are queens, and you are not? From their perspective they won, but from yours, they didn’t play the same game you’re playing.

So it changes when you play a game by yourself. In my view, the ruleset was created by the developers. Now clearly you could say that maybe the devs wanted additional rulesets and didn’t have the time, money, or inclination to make them, and you could also say that some devs are actively accepting of alterations to their game, but you have to ask yourself then what the rulesets of that game really are.

For me, and this is just for me, even when the devs themselves make sweeping changes to a game I can lose interest - especially when those changes “dumb down” the content and make it more accessible/simpler. Take mmo’s for example: If for 2 years the game required other players and a lot of time investment and then suddenly the devs make a huge patch where you can now solo everything and achieve the same past accomplishments in a quarter of the time, I feel like that’s “cheating”. Generally I just quit when that happens.

Obviously this isn’t an objective thing here, it’s just my personal opinion. I think generally the original vision of the game is the “intended” vision, so altering it in certain ways just seems like it’s going against the spirit of the game itself.

Never. I literally never use cheats. I do not even use mods.

I’m seeing a lot of notions that traditional housewife also correlates to Christian. My wife very badly wants to be a traditional housewife in many aspects of the word (she holds multiple degrees and works in education as of current.) I happen to make a lot of money but we want to continue brining her income in to help with things like house payments.

Our family is completely atheist and open-minded. We’re all fundamentally voluntarists who believe in some aspects of conservatism and some of liberalism. For example, we believe in equal treatment for everyone regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, etc., but we’re also very critical of actual philosophy and reasoning. This tends to make our household not only atheist but also anti-government and often, anti-establishment. We’re also anti socialist/communist as well as firmly anti crony capitalist and more or less anything associated with an abuse of force monopolization.

I think there’s a lot that goes into being blanketed into a worldview. My lived experiences have taught me that if you can tell me only a few things about yourself I can likely guess 75% of your entire worldview, which generally not only makes me perceive you as utterly closed-minded, but also pretty NPC-like.

If you have blue hair and a nose piercing, you’re probably a self-proclaimed feminist who believes not wearing a mask during Covid was the worst thing you could do, backs Ukraine, thinks Trump is more evil than Hitler or Mao, probably believe in socialism in some “form”, believes in things like trans rights, and backs Palestine. And if you drive a large pickup truck and wear a trucker hat you’re probably Christian who believes Covid was a complete sham, think Trump was ordained by God, are pro-capitalist and anti-communist in every form, believes trans is a mental disorder, and finds the notion of Gays for Palestine to be the single stupidest thing you’ve ever heard in your entire life.

No man should be able to discern so much from you from so little. If this is the case you probably do not think for yourself and you’re fundamentally, at your core, just a collectivist and authoritarian who has never had a rational thought in your entire life that wasn’t simply something you heard someone else say.

And that’s sad. Truly.

Not everyone fits neatly into these little bubbles. There’s nothing wrong with being a “traditional” housewife, it just depends on all the other aspects of your worldview you’re bringing into it. Much of the perceived problem for instance likely has very little to do with being a housewife and more to do with organized religion and the way social stigmas fall behind it.

I’ve been here for a week or so now and my experience here has quickly shown me that there are a lot of very shallow-minded leftists here (I’m not a Republican/conservative) and a lot of people really quick to just sling profanities and slurs around if they don’t agree with something you have to say.

And I probably make exponentially more than you do.

Public schools should not exist, that is also correct.

Rich people don’t send their children to public schools because private schools are superior. The reason why I could not open my own private school for instance to compete against a local public school is because I am heavily regulated if I did so and I have to compete with an entity that does not need to make a profit to stay in business.

When a public school does so poorly that had they been a for-profit business, or even a non-profit business (but not “public”), they would have gone out of business, the government can just funnel more money into them because the government doesn’t make money by producing quality goods and services like the rest of the actual free market does, it just robs you and spends your money.

The USPS hemorrhages roughly 8 billion annually while both FedEx and UPS are fortune 500 companies, and on top of that, this is considering that USPS holds a monopoly on certain services, plus they lose millions of packages every year (or they get damaged), and the services themselves are horrible compared to businesses like FedEx, UPS, or even Amazon’s shipping.

I can pay almost nothing and have a package shipped from Walmart of Amazon same-day, but if I wanted to ship the same thing from the USPS - let’s say I wanted to ship a 5 lb turkey - that would cost me between a whopping $7.00 and $17.50 for standard domestic.

In addition, USPS has the worst on-time delivery performance.

In the US, phones in general are regulated by both federal agencies and the states. The FCC is a prime federal regulator, for example. The FCC auctions off radio bands to mobile carriers, it sets rules for signal power and compatibility as well. But I digress.

You pointed out the lightening cable. Why is the lightning cable a problem? Is it not for the consumer to decide what they want to buy? If the lightning cable produces waste, and you care about that, then is it not incumbent upon you to just not buy an iPhone?

Let me ask you a question here: Do you believe that if you and someone else had agreed to a trade of some sort, that your neighbor down the road would have any right to come along and mandate that this trade produces too much waste and therefore, threaten you with violence unless you change or nullify that trade?

What you’re referring to here actually isn’t even a problem. It’s just something people want. If you don’t want it, you don’t buy an iPhone. In fact, only 25% of active smartphones globally are iPhones. Android phones command 72.36% of the market. So 25% of the market clearly want the iPhone more than they care about any waste produced by an outdated charging cable.

I don’t buy Apple products, nor does any of my family. I don’t buy them because I actually don’t like how Apple does business. This is how it’s meant to work in a society predicated on CONSENT. The moment you don’t like something you don’t have the right to start threatening people unless they do as you say.

What does this have to do with what I’ve said?

Yes, lol. It isn’t for you to decide how someone else can use their property. The only thing you need to concern yourself with is if they are using it to violate the will of others per a logical order of operations.

For example, if Joe owns his bathroom, he absolutely can say black people can’t use it. It’s his bathroom. What he can’t do would be to shoot a black person with his gun. The reasons for each of these are logical and follow a very particular pattern of reasoning predicated on whether or not either is an initiated action against another’s preexisting will or not.

Public property is a misnomer. You are so very wrong and I hope you rethink your positions in light of how very inaccurate about the fundamental, logical aspects of reality that you’re so wrong about.

I don’t want to ban anything until you’re any age, I want to know what seems to be the most rational age that best quantifies the sentiment that you must be able to provide consent to interact morally in this world with your personhood. If you cannot reason properly, you cannot produce consent.

If you can - by way of sufficient evidence - show that a 21 year old can produce the fundamental same level of rationality as a 25 year old, then I would agree that a solid age is 21.

But the problem here isn’t age, it’s consent.

Sort of. I would probably say the best current descriptor would be voluntarist. Anarchist also works. I disagree with the notion that communists are anarchists.

A birth defect is a defect, it’s in the name. That isn’t the same as someone having a mental feeling that they don’t feel like something they couldn’t hope to define the essence of (because it hasn’t one.)

With respect, the argument you want to make is impossible. If a 12 year old for example can consent to irreversible treatments for a feeling of “trans”, then they can consent to having battery acid poured into their eyes so they go blind because they feel like they were supposed to be born blind.

Jewel Shuping (US) was diagnosed with Body Integrity Identity Disorder where she experienced an overwhelming desire to exist with a severe physical disability so she had numbing eyedrops and drain cleaner in her eyes at age 21.

Now it’s not for me to decide that it should be illegal for Jewel to have done this. At 21 she was - at least legally - able to make this choice herself. I would argue that she clearly was not of sound mind though, so anyone who assisted her should have been convicted of a felony offense. But I digress.

I’m not here to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with themselves and their life. I am 100% in favor of anyone living the life they so choose, trans or anything else. My problem isn’t even necessarily one of my own personal opinions or feelings on the matter, but on logic and reason for logic and reason’s sake.

If you cannot consent, you should not be allowed to make decisions such as to go blind. Of course you could consent (especially with your parents/guardians) to REPAIRING eyesight, even if you were born blind, because that is a fundamentally unnatural state.

We don’t have to have a 300 page dissertation to go over what a “natural state” is. Being born blind is not the intended state of a human being. Arguments past the self-evident like that are generally deluded and attached to some level of nefarious intent.

Note that I can be completely accepting of how an adult wants to live their life but not OK with asserting that a child can consent. Both things can be true. A child also cannot consent to sex with an adult, full stop. Anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy to rational justice and morality and doesn’t need a conversation in argument.

We don’t discuss pedophiles who act upon their feelings, we imprison or kill them. No discussion is necessary there.

Now can some of these conversations hold some level of nuance? Well of course they can, but I stand with what I said. IF you’re talking about endorsing certain mannerisms, dress, or presentation, so be it. If you’re talking about consenting to cutting off body parts at 12? No, full stop. A 12 year old cannot consent to that and their parents cannot either, and anyone who does cut off body parts to a 12 year old for such things should be seen as nefarious and tried to the fullest extent of the law.

There are no such things. Rights aren’t real. The only rational morality is objective morality, which is predicated on a logical order of operations across time.

What is moral is just that in which is not immoral, and that in which is immoral are those actions of which we should not engage, and those actions of which we should not engage are predicated on a foundational premise that you cannot desire the violation of your own will, and that it is not objectively possible to quantify value.

Thus, if our wills collide, creating a conflict, the proper (moral) way of resolving said conflict is to note which of us held a will that was already initiated, and which would require some level of action of which would violate that preexisting will in order to make it manifest into the world.

Take for example, theft. Theft is, at its most fundamental level, an act of which violates the will of another as it pertains to their property. If you have $10 and I want that $10, I am the one who would need to initiate an action (theft) to have that $10 without your consent (your will), ergo, we side with you in our contest because I would need to become a thief in order to manifest my will unto the world.

This is actually the logic that produces the ideas of murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, slavery, etc. This is why in our languages we do not say someone was murdered if it was purely accidental and there was no amount of negligence (in which case, the negligence was the will violation which then lead to the result.)

It doesn’t matter what you look like, what color your skin is, how your eyes, nose, or mouth appears, what clothing you wear, how you talk, walk, or what features on a human being you find attractive - none of that has anything to do with human will (personhood.)

EVERYTHING else is nonsensical authoritarianism which is predicated entirely on arbitration.

The PROBLEM is that government exists and asserts that it can somehow “own” things. Public property is a misnomer. You cannot threaten your neighbor with violence unless they give you $500 to buy a lawn mower and then try to argue that the lawn mower is public property and thus, it isn’t theft. Ask someone if that would be OK sometime and after they say no, realize that the neighbor IS the state in this instance. Slapping a badge on something or putting someone in a uniform does not change the reality of what is or is not immoral, or even sane.

The whole world is quite brainwashed by statism because we were all indoctrinated into it from birth. The vast majority of people’s minds explode the moment you start talking about statelessness because they cannot fathom the idea that - for example - HAD the government previously been in charge of all of the food the argument would be that without government we would all starve to death - except of course the governments of the world are not in charge of all the food and we - in the US at least - have such an overabundance of food that we throw away billions of tons annually and have an obesity epidemic in the nation. That’s HOW GOOD WE DO FOOD without the state.

The problem isn’t “trans rights”, and it never was. The problem is this: If someone who claims they are “trans” wants to use my bathroom - IE: The bathroom in MY house that I own - then I consent to that. Come use my bathroom.

If you want to use a bathroom in a public building, the problem isn’t whether or not a group of wolves should be allowed to vote alongside the sheep to decide what’s for dinner. The problem is that neither the wolves nor the sheep should be allowed to manifest their wills in a manner of which is immoral, full fucking stop.

You can’t say you come from a system you were fucking BORN INTO that dictates you can vote in the oppression of your fellow man and then say that the removal of that system is too scary to fathom. That’s insane, cowardly, and sinister.

So again, the problem isn’t which rights trans individuals do or do not have or might not have in the future. The ACTUAL problem is that there is a system in place that lets some people vote in others who can make laws that can control what you can or cannot do on threat of violence that isn’t simply protecting the innocent from murder, theft, rape, enslavement, assault, and fraud.

I don’t care WHAT the law said: If a law was put in place saying the government would take my innocent child to have them put to death, I would kill every single government official that they sent my way until they physically stopped me. The bloodshed would either be very limited, or they would be calling it the new red sea. What is “legal” or not is of no consequence to good people. All that matters is what is MORAL, and law and morality have NOTHING to do with one another.

Ad hominem. Try a conversation.

I disagree with you completely.

I’m not talking about the federal government, I’m talking about government, period. Any government that exists (and by government, I simply mean that relative force monopoly) in the form in which all governments exist today are nefarious and should be out right abolished.

The ONLY thing that a force monopoly should be doing is enforcing just laws, and by just laws, I mean any laws that are not victimless crime laws. In other words, you protect people from things such as murder, theft, rape, assault, and fraud.

More or less, the non-aggression principle.

If you can give me any “problem” in the modern world today I can tell you explicitly how the government either creates the problem or exacerbates it.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that any government can provide that cannot be provided without a government. The very notion that you must be coerced and robbed in order to have a good or service is so utterly insane a thing to even say.

Removed by mod