Telegram Archive - week 18, 2025, page 4
- 11 minutes read - 2209 words
You can’t fund slavery.
You can’t fund evil
Just because you have money, doesn’t give you the right to enforce your political system
Funds are necessary but not sufficient
Objectivists actually already answered the anarchists many times. You can all look that up. No point replicating things here in this chat
You do need to have the funds to create a new country. To enforce the laws , to fund the police , the military.
Voluntaryism requires a constitution and a state (as stated by Auberon Herbert)
But once the country is operational, it’s like a motor that was jump started, and keeps running
Technically, this isn’t a Constitution, because a Constitution is the fundamental Law of a given State and the document you sent denies the very concept of State
“jurisdiction of this Constitution”
I’d like to agree with you and to believe there is indeed a better system than the Jungle, but, unfortunately, I can’t /srs
Stolen concept alert
Establishing a confederal state with a timocratic form of government does not diminish its status as a state
Same goes for Makhnovia — it was a state
I’m not denying that there are things like claim clubs that can serve as a temporary alternative, but sooner or later, mini-states form once the borders are defined
Why are you not getting the point I made?
Rationalism is the hardest thing to get rid off
Using deduction isn’t always wrong
A state Constitution can grant the right of secession to its constituent units. Moreover, there’s a common belief among ancaps that sovereign private cities can exist, but nothing of the sort is truly possible. If a city is fully sovereign, then it is a city-state
I also have serious doubts about whether this could work without states:
As it stands now, the value of private arbitration awards largely depends on state enforcement capabilities.
Back to @participant-7471 claim that a man has any claim on the embryo. You have to take things into perspective. The man works very hard to convince the woman to take his seed. The woman in reluctant, and during many initial sex sessions she hopes that she won’t conceive. When she does conceive, she can claim that the man triggered a process that has polluted her body, causing it to replicate cells. The victim is the woman, not the man. So long as she wants to abort, she is the victim. Also, abortion has dire consequences to the woman’s health and future ability to conceive, which reinforces that she is the victim.
As to the claim that man contributes half the material, it’s false. The woman’s body replicates man’s material, that’s all.
Here s an analogy: a man visits someone’s yard, and throws a seed into it. The seed grows into an oak in 20 years. Then the man comes and claims co-ownership of the oak. Ridiculous
Actually, not really, if there were the other party’s consent
Consent that he throws a seed on the ground doesn’t make the oak his.
Without a proper pact between the two, the man can very well claim not half but still part of the property
The owner of the land can cut the oak at anytime, as a weed. It’s his land.
But this is meaningless, because nobody can open another human being
Only because the land owner is the main owner, but he has to give the seed-thrower that which belongs to the seed thrower
So, if the woman cuts the foetus, then the matter is settled
The seed he threw ?
It’s a co-produced entity. The only actions that count are the voluntary acts of the mind, not biological functions
This is obviously ridiculous: the point is on who’s got sovereignty over the life of the foetus, and the very fact that life is the matter of discussion makes one understand that it is not of property we’re talking about, but of an actual human life
It’s not a human life , anymore than a single human cell is a human life.
It is the product of mating of two human beings, what do you call it? A kidney? A cat?
So if i give you a startup idea over coffee, and you build it, market it, grow it into 1billion dollar idea, then I can still claim co-ownership?
If it were a mere organ, then the woman should be free of disposing of it as she pleases even when it is born
If I cut my arm, I’m still its owner: the mere fact it’s separate from me doesn’t make it not mine
It’s like a kidney, yes. A mere organ, and that’s why woman needs no one’s permission to remove it.
.
No; the thing is, 50% of the genetic material is a concrete, physical contribution
Absolutely: intellectual property
@participant-6802 also, an answer to you: if man asks woman to abort in order to free himself from responsibility of the future child raising, he won’t win this case in court. The woman risks her health when she aborts. So she may chose not to. It’s the man who polluted her body under false pretenses (misrepresenting his character , she can always claim this). So he is now on the hook for the next 19 years.
The sperm cell is an active and decisive agent in the process
And this is absolutely fair, but it stems not from considering the foetus as property, but the woman as the owner of her body
.
That’s not how intellectual property works
You copy my idea, I sue you
Intellectual property doesn’t protect ideas
The arm is not a fully formed individual. Not an independent being. A baby , once it leaves the mother, is.
Nope, it is not a fully formed individual, because it wouldn’t go through puberty otherwise
Actually, yes: it protects one’s mental labour
Touché
The notion of intellectual property as property of ideas is Galabosianism
Which is the one I adopted, but, yeah, it actually protects the expression of ideas
BigBerni: a single skin cell in your body, is that alone a human being? A sperm cell? A sperm cell inside female egg? A group of 20 cells created from the egg? Where is the line for you when you start calling an embryo a human being ?
My friend, “Berni” not “Ferni”
Conception. We are a group of cells: (apparently,) there is no such thing as an immaterial soul
Ok, so for you a conceived egg is a human being. That’s mystical , I won’t even argue further. One can’t win an argument against faith.
Mystical? For you, the moment you see the human being get out is when the human life originates
The fact is, the fetus literally has my name written on it — in the form of DNA
The fact is, the foetus is not yours, my friend, no more than you are your parents'
Yes, but you have no claim on it. Back to startup analogy: can you prevent the founder to close the business ? You can’t.
@participant-3927, can you add in the description the link to your website?
And in the future, when there are incubators, the woman still doesn’t owe the man the growth her body produced. It’s fully hers, and as I said, it’s her who can sue the man for polluting her body, and she will win everytime.
If they put the body in an incubator, she cannot arbitrarily choose to terminate the foetus live
If they do it from day one. But if it’s in her body, she owns it.
There is undeniably something of mine in the fetus
Imagine they put the fertilized egg into a machine for which only the father pays. The woman shows up and demands the machine to be shut down. You think it’s fair? And you call me a mystic?
Yes, but you gave it up.
From day two it ain’t valid anymore?
And there is sth of your parents’ in you, why don’t they have absolute patria potestas over you?
That remains to be seen. Maybe they had agreed to have a child, and then the woman now wants to kill the unborn child
I’m saying that the woman can’t be forced to have her conceived egg extracted. It only works for IVF-type. When the egg is conceived outside of woman’s body.
If she doesn’t want it to be extracted because she wants to kill it, the claim is not legitimate: it’s an atrocity and a gratuitous murder, not “her choice”
She can change her mind. She can claim she has fallen out of love. She can claim that the man was nice , but his behaviour changed. She has million reasons not to carry the term.
The fact one can do something doesn’t mean one ought to
I hope for improvements in biobags. However, she will either have to hand over the intact fetus or provide monetary compensation.
It won’t hold up in court. The man will end up paying her damages, if anything.
@participant-3927, I think if you just write anthemism.org it becomes blue
That’s why I’ll make sure to conceive in jurisdictions that follow rules that are aligned with my interests
In any case, I think we’ve made our positions and arguments clear re abortion.
But her interests will win. She has a stronger case.
Just kidding, it didn’t. www.anthemism.org ? I’m just guessing at this point
For real, thank Reason we have the same stance on Capitalism, or else who knows when a just nation may be founded?
What if the jurisdiction is Muslim?
I am only talking about the proper ideal laissez-faire state
I was joking e.e
:)
The Twitter channel for anthemism still has only 6 followers. If you want to help with the PR effort, retweet and follow https://x.com/Anthemism_PR/status/1919145872945815751
While there are many depressing things in the world, it’s important to take notice of good things that are happening, for inspiration. And there are two people in the world of music that have made the world a better place. They are Alma Deutscher and Laufey. In the world of technology - the manufactured meat and sweet protein. (Both came from Israeli startups.) And, of course, the increased productivity with ChatGPT and Vibe coding. So, it’s not all doom and gloom. Imagine how much more will be created in a fully free society.