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’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.

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?

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.

This conversation is stupid. Rape is when sexual acts are performed and one of the individuals included in those acts did not consent. Everything else is idiocy.

I want less government, not more rules and laws.

The only laws that should exist are those protecting people from things like murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud.

I would argue that you’re thinking about contracts wrong. I’m not talking about a piece of paper. The piece of paper is just a way for us to write down something that at least two consenting parties agreed with.

“Same bullshit argument like with terms of service.”

How it that a bullshit argument? I will reject a service based on its terms of service. Do you just agree to every terms of service provided to you? You’re not entitled to any services. None of them. I would go as far as to say that if a company is writing out a terms of service that’s too long, too complicated, or too one-sided, then that should be an immediate red flag that you shouldn’t be giving your money to that business.

Apple. I don’t buy Apple products because I don’t like the way that company does business. I worked consulting for years in large companies where part of what I did was consult surrounding cellular devices. I used to advise clients not to use Apple products - that’s how far I went.

You can’t control the world and chances are your vote on anything is insignificant - and so be it - but if you have principles, you should follow them. Don’t complain because of your own weakness on your own principles.

And remember: Any business committing fraud isn’t acceptable.

And another thing: One of the big problems we have with businesses in the US (and most places) is that we don’t hold the actual owners of businesses personally accountable for the actions of a business. If some company poisons a river and a little girl dies because of it, our government fines the company. What SHOULD happen is the CEO and everyone else at that business who knew the company was committed to actions of which they knew might end up taking the life of a child should be thrown in prison for life as murderers. The fact that we do not do this is a failure of our government and transforms the entire paradigm of how companies DO business in the first place.

I can tell you the issue, but it won’t be what everyone else is telling you the issue is.

The real issue is that there are votes at all. You cannot be born into a system of consent, so you cannot be born into a system where by default, some huge organization can steal your income and use it to produce things you never asked for, probably mostly don’t use, and even blatantly don’t want.

You shouldn’t need an ID to do anything that isn’t something you’ve not already consented to, and the only people you would ever need to consent to would be those who own property you wish to utilize.

Why can’t you bundle any number of things into a single contract? If my neighbor and I want to bundle 300 things into a single contract we both agree to, who are you, as a third party, to tell us we can’t?

This is the problem. You have to let adults make their own choices. There’s no such thing as the wiser of two people. To say there is implies that someone has answers about the universe that the other does not. Even human life holds no objective value. All value is relative to the subject.

If you don’t like how a contract is written out, you just don’t consent to it.

What do you mean, why? What is moral is fundamentally just what isn’t immoral and what is immoral are just those actions we shouldn’t take. The only way to know that and not have that be entirely arbitrary is to utilize logic. Logic would mandate that since you would not desire the violation of your will, you cannot choose to violate the will of another.

But all human conflict creates will violation, so this means you just need to decide which will is actually initiating the violation of the other will and then side with the individual who’s will is being violated by the other’s.

For example, let’s say you own a car. It is your will to own that car (hold exclusive authority over it) and for me not to take it from you. If it is my will to also hold exclusive authority over that car I will need to take it from you. If I try to do this, my will is such that it desires the violation of your will which already existed prior to my desire to rob you.

This is actually what murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. all are. Rape for example is only rape when there’s no consent. In order for the idea of rape to be made manifest, at least one “participant” must have not desired to be violated in such ways while another’s will must have been made manifest after the fact to do the violating. If this does not occur than the output is simply a consensual sexual act.

The same goes here. If a landlord asks you to consent to an idea where they can enter the place you rent anytime they like and watch you under any circumstances, then he isn’t violating your will because you consented to it. If the government (which is simply a third party utilizing violence) tells either party that they cannot engage in this consent then that is just the thuggery of the state telling people how they can or cannot consent.

What you’ve just said is entirely nonsensical. All you’ve said here is we can’t have roads unless we’re robbed.

There is nothing the current governments of the world provide that we cannot have sans those governments. Nothing.

Which makes the law immoral.

If your renters signed something like that they deserve no privacy.

This isn’t necessary. All you need is to protect people from fraud.

If Amazon tells you that it will sell your data you are completely free to just not use Amazon. If enough people choose not to use Amazon, Amazon will wonder why. If they do any semblance of at all good investigating they will find out it’s because those prior customers were against having their data sold and they will stop selling data.

The government only needs to come in to make sure Amazon is actually telling you it will sell your data, because not doing so is fraud, and the government should protect the innocent against fraud.

As an adult, I don’t need big daddy government telling businesses what they can sell. I only need to understand the situation I’m being presented in its entirety so that I can make my own decisions. It’s my consent, not the government’s.

Agreed that things like governments and corporations are made up ideas, but ideas need to be properly defined so we know what we’re communicating.

You asked if a government in your society doesn’t exist what is the agreed upon legal code?

You’re asking the wrong question. When I say that I’m against government, what I mean is I am against the idea that I can be born into an agreement and made to suffer that system. I was born and continue to live in the US, but I did not agree to give the government tens of thousands of dollars annually, which they take without my consent. I argue that all government is, fundamentally, is a relative force monopoly. If say, the drug cartels in Mexico can simply do what they wish and the Mexican government can’t stop them, then the actual government in Mexico are the drug cartels, not the Mexican government. Saying it’s not is just not properly defining what government is.

In a government where there’s freedom for all there would be two systems in place to define what is legal. One would be logic. It’s simply immoral to murder (not kill, murder), steal, rape, defraud, or assault. You cannot do those things and free people understand that even if a relative force monopoly makes a “law” saying you can, that doesn’t legitimize it, and you are well within your right, as given by nobody at all, to seek out and use violence against those who would commit those acts, regardless of what the “law” said.

If it were legal in the US to rape, would you rape? Would you allow another to rape if you had the power to stop them? Would you stop someone who tried to rape your child? Who cares what the law says?

We already realize that law does not correlate to right and wrong.

The second aspect of law would be that in which is consented to, but that depends entirely on who owns what, and I don’t mean arbitrarily owns what, but objectively (logically) owns what.

You can logically work out what is owned and what is stolen. It isn’t difficult.

And to own a thing means you hold exclusive authority over it. If I hold exclusive authority over my house for instance, then it doesn’t matter what other people agree to, or turn into “law”, you never hold authority over my house. If you do, then you are stealing my authority over my house from me, which is theft. If you use theft, I am authorized to use violence against you to stop your theft.

So it doesn’t matter how many people you have who agree to something if it pertains to violating my consent over my property. A million people can all vote and agree to kick me out of my house, and you’ll succeed if you use violence against me, but both logically and philosophically, I would be well within my right to use even deadly force to stop any thugs you send to me to do so.

A “just” law is only one where you are protecting the will of others within a logical order of operations.

Now that being said! You CAN hold agreements between owners of property. Maybe 50 people in a region all agree to buy all of the neighboring roads, and they each agree to put fourth 5% of their income per year to do so. Maybe they all agree this will be a “law”, and they agree upon a punishment that can be enacted if someone doesn’t do this. NOW what you have is a situation where you CAN use violence against someone who goes against the agreement because we’re not talking about the group violating the consent of the individual, we’re talking about the individual engaging in an action of which violated a preexisting will of the group.

Another question you had:

“Can you guarantee everyone in your society, which you’ve argued can be over 250 people, will agree on a singular legal code without some kind of government with a legislative branch?”

You don’t need to. If everyone in my “society” want to make a rule saying you can remove Joe from his home, all you’re doing is banding together to do a sinister deed. That is a corrupt society to begin with, and an authoritarian one.

You don’t and can’t agree to do something with someone else’s property, because it isn’t yours. This is like saying that your neighbor, Tony, has some kind of right to your car because he lives next door. That’s absurd. You and only you can decide what happens to your car unless what you want to do directly violates Tony’s rights over his will. For example, I can’t drive it into his house and set it on fire because I would need to have initiated an action of which violated Tony’s will, so I can’t do that.

Now if Tony and I both got together and CONSENTED to go 50/50 on a new car, it’s up to us and us alone to set the “law” on who can make utility of that car, or who can destroy it, sell it, who gets what if we agree to sell it, who maintains it, puts gas in it, etc.

You don’t get to come along and make demands of Tony and I regarding our car. It’s ours, nor yours. Leave us alone and stop trying to dictate the choices of others.

The problem with your line of questioning - and I mean with with respect, truly - is that you’re thinking about all of this in this scope of the concept of “public property”. There is no such thing. There is property, full stop. The idea of “public property” is a blatant misnomer. Think of it like this:

Menards owns a lawn mower and they agree to sell it to me. It’s my lawn mower. It’s mine because Menards did not steal anything from anyone else to make it, my will was aligned to own it and the will of those who consented to the system that is Menards hold a will to accept selling it to me, and because what I traded for it was mine as I did not steal the money I traded for it.

But if Tony next door again comes to my home with a baseball bat and tells me I am now going to give him $500 towards a lawn mower, and it will be in the best interest of the neighborhood because 9 other people all got together and agreed it was, and thus, it isn’t theft what Tony is doing, Tony is just lying - it’s just theft.

You can’t “legitimize” theft by wearing a badge or saying you come from some official sounding group name. Other people agreeing to rape you doesn’t legitimize rape any more than other people agreeing to rob you legitimizes theft. Is this making sense?

But again, if Tony and I both consent to buy a lawn mower together, then we are both consensual property owners of that lawn mower and nobody else can tell us what to do with it.

So your other two questions here aren’t the right questions to ask either:

“How do they even go about figuring out the legal code without some organization?” - and - “If they do agree on a legal code, who are the people spending time on maintaining and updating the code and how are they paid?”

Nobody ever said there wouldn’t be organization, or even violence. There could still be police, firefighters, teachers, engineers, and everything else that governments tend to monopolize or “provide”.

Who sets the laws for the roads? Well, which roads? Who owns the roads? Do I own the road leading to my home? Do Tony and I own it? Did all 50 of us who live in that area get together and consent to all go in and buy the roads? Then the owners of those roads set the laws for those roads.

Maybe Tony and I own a little piece of road and the only law is we don’t want you to go more than 40MPH while driving on it. Well there you go! And if you don’t like our ruling about our property, key words there, OUR PROPERTY, then you don’t need to use it.

I make the laws in my own home. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave. In fact, if I asked you to leave and you flat out refused, I would just be warranted to use violence against you. If I couldn’t get you to leave with violence even, then deadly force would be warranted. And yes, that would be warranted if it got to that serious of a situation.

But that’s already how governments generally work today. If you come into my home and I ask you to leave and you refuse, I call the police and the police will use violence against you. What on earth do you think they do if you resist that violence? Play nice?

Your next question:

“How do you adjudicate this issue in your society? There’s no judicial branch of government.”

However the property owners who have been faulted want. Maybe in my area we’ve set up a system for this. What is most likely is as a “formal”, current government waned, this would open up avenues in the free market for people to offer these kinds of services. In fact, many judicial systems are already handled by courts not run by the government. Many kinds of issues even in the US are resolved by these kinds of courts because it’s better than utilizing the government to do so, as governments tend to be more corrupt, very slow, and very poor quality in basically everything they do.

Maybe you have Amazon Justice, Microsoft Courts, and Elon Musk’s Justice-X to choose from, and maybe the people in your area all consent to use a specific one so they agree to all go in and pay for those services. Maybe those small groups of people also get together with other small groups of people and form larger organizations who also agree on certain things. You can still have society without authoritarianism. The notion of, “whatever would we do if we don’t let other people rob us and our neighbors to do things” is so absurd it makes my head spin.

I’m not saying no organization. I’m not saying no schools, no security, no military, no roads, etc. I’m saying NO MORE AUTHORITARIANISM. No more theft on a grand scale. No more telling me when I turned 18 that I had to sign up for a draft where if some old man decided I had to die oversees then I either did so or I’d be locked away. No more forcing me to days of being a juror without my consent, where the state would pay me pennies a day and I lost precious time with my family, my job, and my entire life.

There is no such thing as a social contract - not within the constrains of what it’s depicted at as of current. That’s all just authoritarian propaganda.

But you don’t need government in its current form in order to protect people from groups who mean to poison. I don’t need a cop to protect me from a home invader, for example. In fact, the cop isn’t going to get there until the invader has done whatever they sought out to do, so maybe just to try to find them after myself and my entire family are murdered.

OR I can protect my family myself.

The act of poisoning someone is in itself objectively immoral. No good people who accept responsibility for the innocent in this world should be made to suffer the will of those who seek to do that kind of harm. In fact I would argue that the government likely was deficient in what they SHOULD have done to combat the poisoning done at that time.

In my view, if 5 people are producing food (simplifying things here) and they choose to poison that food and I and some of my goodly companions find out about it, we are completely within our right to use immediate and, if necessary, deadly force against those individuals. The idea should be simple: If you want to attempt to kill people, we will find and kill you.

The good must not suffer the evil to exist, and I say that as both an staunch atheist and someone not even in favor of the death penalty (but only because I do not want even a single person killed who wasn’t guilty.)

And you talk of businesses as if they are real people, and they’re not. A business is just this made-up human idea, and an extremely broad one at that, where we’re explaining swaths of people all working together to produce some kind of goods/services under the idea of generating wealth for everyone. The idea that a company can own property for example is nonsensical. A company can own property like my car can own property, or like a sidewalk can owe me money.

When a business I work for does something nefarious, I guarantee you that I didn’t lift a finger to see that come to fruition. I was duped by others who made those choices who defrauded me by not detailing what was going on. THOSE people who did those things are criminals and should be dealt with. The notion that a company for example can do something that say, results in the murder of 10 kids isn’t an “oopsies” where the state fines that business. The mere fact that this is how we deal with these things “collectively” is seriously messed up. The people responsible for making choices they knew were risky for people’s health that then resulted in the death of those kids should be tried and convicted of murder and locked away forever, and I don’t need a huge, overarching government that I didn’t consent to in order to make that happen.

And I agree with you - governments like what we have here in the US are a hell of a lot better than they’ve been in the past. I’m not saying I want to live in Stalin’s Russia, or under the iron fist of Genghis Khan here. What I’m saying is both logically and philosophically, the next direction we as human beings should be guiding the world to is a place where there is no such thing as victimless crimes; where everyone can live their lives the way they choose and where the only time a relative force monopoly flexes its power is to prevent things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud.

You build a coalition who needs some money from me and will protect me better than police and I’ll gladly pay for that, but do you know what that would be? A business, not a government. You could argue that it’d be a government if it were a force monopoly, but so what? So long as it’s consensual and works, I’m all for it.

When I say I’m anti-government what I’m talking about is being against people using violence against us against our will and not in defense of the innocent.