A child - along with their parents - should be allowed to consent to treating a broken arm because it is fixing a state the arm did not start in, it has detrimental side effects for the child if not treated (that would not be self inflicted and are physical and not the byproduct of the psyche), and because these things are measurable and create reliable predictions.

Psychological systems very rarely create reliable predictions. Remember that psychology is not a hard science, and it has been proven that placebos can “cure” roughly 50% of depression.

You should not be allowed to consent to a treatment that is irreversible, is predicated on the psyche, and of which revolves around notions of gender, which is not real - gender is an idea, and a bad one at that. It holds no cardinal essence.

Children cannot consent. In fact, I would go further than that and say that human beings cannot provide consent until their brains are fully developed as relative to most fully-functioned people. This is why anyone on mind altering drugs cannot consent, or why people with certain major mental conditions cannot consent.

And this general brain development ends around age 25 when the prefrontal cortex finishes development, so I would argue that you cannot give fundamental consent until age 25.

A parent does not own a child, they are a steward of the child, and no choices pertaining to things requiring consent of this magnitude are appropriate for parents to make on behalf of their child.

This has nothing to do with “trans rights” - whatever that is, and everything to do with rationality and logic.

Frankly, there shouldn’t be any laws pertaining to trans individuals vs. non-trans. The notion is nonsensical. No laws should exist unless they are victim laws. Victimless laws are patently immoral.

I can easily and quickly answer all dilemmas pertaining to anyone, trans or otherwise. Do trans people get to use a given bathroom? That depends. Who owns that bathroom and what do they say? Because ownership means exclusive authority over. If you’re a good person and you are trans and you want to use my bathroom, you may.

Governments cannot own property. The notion of public property is a blatant misnomer. A government cannot own things in much the same way that a sidewalk cannot own anything. Only people can own things and you cannot own something unless you consent to ownership and you weren’t robbed, and all government funding stems from theft.

You cannot own that in which you’ve stolen and you cannot steal that in which you own.

The problem with all of these conversations is the government. Always.

The government should not be allowed to “own” property or enforce victimless laws. The problem is always the government.

No that wouldn’t be possible. A slave is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, property of another against their will. If you consent to it, it wouldn’t be slavery.

It’s like theft. If you consent to give it to me I’m not stealing from you. In such an instance, you’re selling it to me, trading it to me, gifting it to me, or maybe just giving it to me as a gift. What manifests theft as theft from a fundamental idea of the essence of the idea itself is that I would need to be violating your consent - your will, as it were.

Theft is only theft when you violate will. Rape is only sex if everyone partaking consents. Even murder no longer becomes murder if there’s consent. In fact, you can kill someone who didn’t consent to dying and it still wouldn’t always be murder because the person may have consented to a risk that just so happened to end their life. Take for example if you consent to go skydiving and you fall to your death. The skydiving company didn’t murder you because you agreed to the risks of the situation that lead to your death.

Now had someone pushed you out of the airplane before you put your parachute on - which wasn’t something you agreed to have happen - then the person who pushed you out of the plane would have murdered you.

Slavery is the same thing. You’re not a slave if you’re OK with it. Now if you consented to be someone else’s property and you also consented for you to never be able to change your mind about it, well you’re an idiot. That’d be like agreeing to give your house away to someone and then being upset when you change your mind and ask for it back and they tell you no. You would never do that, so why would your own autonomy be any different?

The point here would be freedom, and what freedom logically means is that I cannot initiate actions - initiate is the key word here - that violate your will, and neither can you to me.

If you and 50 people got together and all consented to a village of debauchery, drugs, prostitution, and drunk driving, so long as you all consented, I would allow you to live that lifestyle without interruption.

I might try to convince you that there are better ways to live your life, but I wouldn’t use force against you to get you to stop.

But don’t forget that this only applies because there’s consent. If some of you enter our town where we do not agree to you doing drugs on my land or in my store, or driving drunk on the roads that our community all agreed to share ownership over, then we are justified if we not only ask you to stop or ask you to leave, but if we use violence against you to get to you if you refuse.

So to specifically answer your question, if you want to live the way you’ve described, you would absolutely be allowed to - by us, anyway.

In fact, we could even become allies whereas we agree to defend one another if another group were to come and try to use violence to force us into their ways.

The disconnect so many others face is only about freedom and nothing more. There is no such thing as a man so wise that he can make choices for other adults without their consent. Nobody knows better for me than I do and nobody knows better for my children than I do as their father (except an equal share, their mother.)

Even if you think you do, you don’t. Opinions aren’t facts, they’re opinions. Even if you THINK you have a better way of living, you don’t. The only time when you’re objectively wrong is when you’re utilizing violence for a victimless crime. Violence - legitimate, moral violence - is only for defense against things like murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud.

When other people don’t get this it’s because psychologically they’re thinking at low levels. Low level thinking tends to be very isolated to the “me”. The higher up you go the more you begin thinking that others have wants and needs just like you do, and that your wants and needs may conflict with theirs. Many people today still think in terms of, “I want this and therefore so must you, so if you are protesting, you must be wrong, or sinister”. They cannot understand that someone else might have a want that differs from theirs, and that they aren’t wrong for having it.

I would argue that there are two forms of morals - subjective and objective. Objective morals are surrounded by the NAP while subjective morals are things like, “I don’t think you should smoke cigarettes because they could reduce your lifespan and that would cause pain to others around you, plus place additional burden on those providing healthcare and insurance.”

There’s no such thing as objective value, not even for human life, so to say your life holds value and thus, you shouldn’t smoke is just an opinion.

You don’t abide by any kind of government. You can’t. Your will cannot align to be violated. This is why you believe the purpose of voting is for, so when one person does something with your money that you don’t agree with, you believe you can get another person who won’t do those things.

I would argue that it isn’t that you’re in favor of government, it’s that you’re in favor of a justice system, school for your kids, roads, and other infrastructure. But to say you need the system of coercion we have in place else we can’t have those things is just nonsense. Would you not pay to have security if the government didn’t do police? Is your argument that other people wouldn’t? Who are these “barbarians” who wouldn’t? Do you know them? I don’t. I don’t surround myself with people like that, so it always diverts back to this idea that it’s the “others”, the “outsiders”, the “barbarians” who wouldn’t do this stuff if not coersed. Never us.

And even if you wanted to argue that you wouldn’t want to pay for police then you’re just arguing for less government, aren’t you? If you wouldn’t pay for police unless forced, then you don’t want police that badly. This isn’t a difficult concept. If I want something, I go and buy it. If I don’t buy it, I didn’t want it that badly. I fundamentally decided that I value my money more than the good or service itself, so I didn’t make the trade.

I simply take it one step further and understand that you shouldn’t be able to take my money to do anything with that I don’t agree with. If I agreed to it I would give you the money without the coercion. When I want something, I buy it from the store. When I don’t want something, you have to take money from me to get it if you won’t buy it yourself.

There is no such thing as governments, mind you. There are only people. If your neighbor were to come to your home and tell you they want $500 to do something with and you disagreed and they returned with a weapon and threatened you unless you gave it to them, you would immediately admit that such a scenario would be both immoral and crazy. The thing is, the propaganda you’ve been raised with is duping you into believing that this isn’t exactly what’s going on because they slapped a badge on your neighbor and convinced you that it’s not theft and authoritarianism.

If your neighbor made a nice looking badge and pinned it to their lapel, would that make it official? What if 10 of your neighbors all agreed that it was official and legit? Does it make it official and legit? What about 20 neighbors? What about 50? 500?

If not 1, then not 1 billion. No number of people agreeing to something warrants that it is legitimate. It used to be that millions of people agreed in slavery and slavery has never been legitimate. It was thought by many as legitimate, but so what?

There isn’t anything wrong with government if that government isn’t robbing you - that’s the rub. All a government really is is a relative force monopoly. If the government vanished tomorrow and your neighbors all gathered together with you and agreed to help one another and protect each other from outsiders who might seek to do harm to you or your properties, you would be a government, albeit a small one.

And I’m not saying we could or even should do away with current governments in the world tomorrow - even if we could. We would need 50-100 years or more to slowly wittle away these systems so that free people can take their place.

So to answer your question specifically, I don’t think it has anything to do with anarchists and everything to do with logic. If it is not OK for your neighbor John to do to you what I outlined above, then it isn’t OK for Tom to do it if Tom is a representative of the “government”. There is no such thing as saying you can rape someone because a group of people got together and decided what you decide is right is legitimate and therefore, it isn’t even rape.

The mere fact that your neighbor doing what the government does would be even legally classified as theft but when the government does it it’s not called by that same word should be a gargantuan red flag. Only the politicians and political manipulate language in that way. The honest of us just call it what it actually is - theft.

If I own something and you want it and I do not want to give it to you and you take it, that is theft. It doesn’t matter who does it or what “group” they are affiliated to. You don’t get to steal and then try and say it isn’t theft because your version is “legitimate”.

Removed by mod

Gas prices should have nothing to do with governments, only markets. Gas prices being high is a byproduct of government interventions, or poor market choices, or both.