probably

not probably for sure

since those companies have incentives and want their products to be sold, they have to innovate. thus get the resources needed

they already are in some areas

in brasil for an example

just like the gov gets them

what why and how

depends

sure

actually not really

Technological advancement would matter more

to em

and since theres that profit incentive

right i thought you meant effective by their training skills etcv

largest would not matter

as much

whats the point of having an army of 5 million people who have no training skills and your company being shit technologically

they would have to allocate their resources intelligently

yes

you can#

but it would not matter as much

most of them would focus on their technological advancement and their training skiklls

what about it

no

how would it turn into that

yes

and

a country with an ancap system would follow NAP-non aggression principle

a nuclear weapon is usually used for attacking something right?

Yes the whole premise of NAP is that they would follow the rule of self defence, continue in a sec i have to go to the toilet

okay

im back

so

The whole principle of self defence is literally an answer to your question. Do not attack, and only use self defence. A nuke is not a self defence weapon. It is a weapon made for specifically attacking someone. Thus an ancap society would not need that. However, that comes into the question for me at least. I am not for that, the abolishment of the nukes. It is a hard question, but i would not abolish them. The one that is advanced the most should be able to get them.

But another question forms within that

what makse you think that those nuclear bombs won't get into the hands of evil people. And i just direct that question towards the gov. A person who is evil could get elected. AAnd get a hold of nukes Same thing.

^

Comforting? Probably. But it is the same principle. Those few people could go tyrannical just like those few companies could. However that specifically is very unlikely to happen

Tyrannical with the nukes was the better wording

where does the gov mostly get their money from

and is taxation forced upon people

Yes but that doesn't matter it is still theft. If it uses force and says, you gett this and this and this and you must pay it even if you do not need it, it is theft. For example, they waste their tax money on useless shit like planned parenthood etc

or healthcare

obamacare a prime example

a reason trump won in the first place is that people were sick of it and were betrayed

also

my point is that what you said that force does not produce anything is false

minarchism is a joke

they say the same shit we say

they say taxation is theft, that gov is dangerous etc

but then still want the gov to tax people

sure

but then comes the question of the monopoly on force

they say that it is true

however they somehow support it??

idk their party is a joke just like anarcho

what was its name

i forgot

anarcho ill something

Insurrectionary anarchist

The point of debating is not to win or point take the point of debating is to dig for truth and to defend ytour truth

"instead insurrectionary anarchist advocate informal organization and put value in attack, permanent class conflict and a refusal..."

What are you?

why tf do you have the conservative role

What are you left leaning on?

What are you left leaning on gay rights?

What do you think that conservative view of gay marriage is?

Depends how far to the right they are. Conservatives for example like myself believe that the gov needs to get out of the gay marriage issue, they should make it legal, BUT they should not force people to perform at these events. For example forcing bakers to make cakes, forcing religious people to be the popes etc

But i guess my only disagreement with your assessment is about adoption. I think it incredibly hurts the child to be adopted where they have two fathers

because it is important for achild to have a father figure just as it is important for a child to have a mother figure.

Sure but the same child whould've probably gotten adopted by a father figure and a mother figure

it hurts the child psyche since a father figure teaches you the "tough" side

yes but i dont think that the solution to that issue is to hurt the child even more

sure but by not even looking at that issue i do not think that the solution to that problem is to hurt the kids even more. Anyways, it's been really pleasant to discuss on these issues with you, i hope we talk again soon, but I'm going to go to finish the books that I've started

kk

have a good day

That is first of all offensive and outrageous. Lets talk neuro science shall we? Kids in intact heterosexual families, DO WAY BETTER ON MULTIPLE INDICIES than the kids who are a part of the same gender families. @wahx so do not go around calling people homophobic without checking their views you sanctimonious prick

You sited a site that is as ridicilous as quora

Okay

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5675322/

This is one

Im pretty sure that was the one that found "that children who have had a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship are much more likely to suffer from depression as young adults than the children who come from IBFs"

Did you even read what i said you sanctimonious prick?

The article you listed

was an opinion

It's as ridicilous as me linking quora

"For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples"

"A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”[4]"

I am insulting you because of the pure ignorance coming out of your mouth

Prick

It is not for an ignorant, delusional, in a bubble, person like you

Ask for someone's views

and do not be rude and call them names first

that's the first thing.

You wanted me to site studies while you linked a site as ridicilous as quore

so i sited actual studies

because the site you CITED

your study focused on adoption

My study focused on multiple different aspects

jesus