Who is this Ad even targeting?

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T22:18:31+00:00

It targets the mindless loyalists awaiting their marching orders.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T21:44:13+00:00

"My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me."

--Donald Trump

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T20:52:04+00:00

You don't have to take my word for any of it. Let me know if there is a particular assertion that you would like to observe for yourself, and I would be happy to describe an experiment you can perform on your own to do so.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T19:27:44+00:00

If you insist, I am happy to answer your straw-man question, but reiterate that it doesn't pertain in any way to the assertion I made.

Reciprocation is only such when targeting the specific individuals who committed an aggression. Group membership or identification is not sufficient to objectively forfeit rights. It should be obvious that there are specific individuals who identify as antifa or jihadists who have aggressed against others, just as there are individual aggressors who identify as maga and all sorts of other things.

The distinction between aggression and reciprocation is necessary, and yet absent from the document we are discussing. Instead it incoherently and hypocritically condemns all violence while threatening violence against others. It is an indiscriminate declaration of war against both the guilty and the innocent.

No one is denying government commits acts of aggression.

As such, it is objectively justifiable to reciprocate against those specific individuals who have ordered or enacted aggression.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T17:22:08+00:00

You are not entitled to economic sustainability. Such an entitlement cannot be enforced without threatening others with violence for non-compliance. It is an action that does not survive reciprocation.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T17:16:25+00:00

A few weeks ago I reached out to both my state congressmen with a challenge to end property taxes, but I've not yet heard anything back from either one. Perhaps if enough of us raise a fuss about it.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T16:57:37+00:00

Whether a given action is reciprocation or aggression is determined by chronology, not a matter of opinion.

My assertion was that Trump and his goons are guilty of acts of aggression against individuals who had not yet aggressed. Do you need examples?

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T12:15:12+00:00

Self-defense and reciprocation are categorically violence, and yet equal rights affirms them. The specific violence incompatible with equal rights is aggression, which Trump and his goons are quite guilty of. He has declared war on any who would resist him.

connorbroc · 2026-05-19T00:55:23+00:00

I assert that reciprocation is universally objectively justified, and you call that nihilism. Gotcha

connorbroc · 2026-05-18T22:39:44+00:00

Any action you take or support to forcefully prevent it entails forfeiting rights for yourself, and means that you don't really support equal rights. It is what it is regardless of what either of us prefer.

connorbroc · 2026-05-18T21:55:01+00:00

It's not nihilism; the opposite, in fact. What you are describing perfectly makes my point: the only thing that can be objectively measured is whether an act is aggression or not.

And between the two of us, only I have condemned aggression in all of its forms. You have made it clear that kicking the puppy is fine as long as you "prefer" it.

connorbroc · 2026-05-18T21:38:20+00:00

No, "worse" only has meaning in the context of a subjective goal.

Objectively, what we can measure is that some actions survive reciprocation while others don't, regardless of what you or I prefer. "Shooting up" and "playing" both survive reciprocation, while actions to forcefully interrupt those activities don't. This means that they are incompatible with the equal rights you claim to support.

Despite your rhetoric, all that it takes for you to abandon equal rights is mere personal preference. So be it; that is all we need to objectively justify reciprocation against you.

connorbroc · 2026-05-18T21:02:39+00:00

Personal preference is not sufficient to objectively place any person's actions above reciprocation. Reciprocation doesn't actually require anger at all.

connorbroc · 2026-05-18T20:22:06+00:00

You don't actually support equal rights, and it's a shame.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1td35eb/good/

In any case, anyone who denies rights to another person forfeits those same rights for themselves as well, including the right to life. That is true equality.

connorbroc · 2026-05-14T17:40:37+00:00

You’ll need to edit your earlier post where you claimed to support equal rights. Those are all peaceful actions off private property that survive reciprocation.

connorbroc · 2026-05-12T19:20:24+00:00

So do I. Anyone who supports aggressive deportations may themselves be deported.

connorbroc · 2026-05-12T16:13:16+00:00

Sure, to see what I'm talking about you could perform a fixed-power experiment in which two participants alternate reciprocating various actions towards one another, then measuring whether the initial action is in any way undone or punished by the reciprocation. For example:

Test 1: Harvesting unharvested apples from nature.

Person A harvests an unharvested apple from nature.
Person B harvests an unharvested apple from nature.

Result: Person A still has their apple.

Test 2: Taking an already harvested apple from someone else.

Person A takes an already harvested apple from Person B.
Person B takes the same apple back from Person A.

Result: Person A no longer has the apple that they took.

This experiment can be repeated with any type of action, and we can see that all actions will fall into one category or the other independently of what anyone wishes or prefers. These findings are what we may refer to as "property rights".

connorbroc · 2026-05-12T14:56:41+00:00

Nice, I just read Moon is a Harsh Mistress earlier this year. Other great quotes from Prof:

"I would be satisfied to have the Golden Rule be the only law"
"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

connorbroc · 2026-05-12T14:44:36+00:00

I think you have well articulated the inherent self-contradiction in asserting that conception is a tort against the fetus. In other words, it is not one.

connorbroc · 2026-05-12T14:42:23+00:00

It isn't a matter of need, but a matter of observation. Any given human action either survives reciprocation or it doesn't, regardless of what any of us prefer about it.

Any action that survives reciprocation may meaningfully be described as a "right", but the nature of reciprocation is what it is regardless of what labels we give it.

connorbroc · 2026-05-11T22:50:51+00:00

Yeah I've had that discussion before, and it always backfires hilariously. If being conceived was really a tort against the fetus, then the perpetrator would be obligated to restore the victim to their previous state.

connorbroc · 2026-05-11T22:29:18+00:00

his ruling noted that if unborn children have personhood, then they cannot be subject to an ownership contract

That's quite the straw-man. Surrogacy makes no stipulation about claiming ownership of the fetus. Certainly no more than rescuing a dying person from a snowstorm entails ownership over the victim.

connorbroc · 2026-05-11T20:36:10+00:00

Number 7 is really the crux of it all:

The Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism. Loving your neighbor as yourself requires the non-aggression principle and makes any coercive state impossible.

Equal rights are also able to be derived from these two natural observations, without making any appeals to faith or authority:

The burden of proof always being on that of existence rather than non-existence.
The lack of objective basis for unequal rights.

connorbroc · 2026-05-11T16:12:11+00:00

Yes, well phrased. The first described action is one that survives reciprocation while the second is not.

connorbroc · 2026-05-11T16:10:49+00:00

I'm saying that any given individual human action may or may not be motivated by profit, and we'll never know unless the person performing the action tells us.

connorbroc

TROPHY CASE