And relies on reciprocity

It is significantly different from Hoppeanism

which immoral acts?

Although I think it is a step in the right direction, it is still not complete. Nevertheless, it is much better than the current mainstream theories.

also, why can't those just be supplemented to the NAP via contract?

Yeah, i was just going back up to look at that

most of those are either already violations of the NAP, or something which could easily be covered via contract law

I also recently came across this system, so still learning about it

Religion specifically is kind of a sticky point. I think I know what it's getting at, but there's a lot of ambiguity. And I'm not sure what it means by "privitization"

since people often use it different ways in different contexts

Most of these things should be discouraged, even if they're not argued to be covered by the NAP.

Free-riding, for instance.

I came across this here for the first time

https://youtu.be/GbKbEtN_VyM

Skip to 53:40

But then, it's been explained before how free riding can be discouraged without arguing for specific enforcement to occur against it. For instance, the Lighthouse example. A ship benefits from the lighthouse being operational, even if it doesn't pay for it, and they can't risk shutting it down, because another ship might be in proximity that has paid their dues. However, there's no absolute guarantee that there will *never* be a situation in which there isn't at least on ship in proximity which has paid these dues. And that's the risk that any free riders take. And that risk increases the more free riders their are.

Vaccination is actually an interesting example, because I've heard some libertarians actually argue in favor of mandatory vaccination due to externalities. But many of those externalities are really created because of other, already extant violations of property rights, such as mandatory schooling, public commons, and anti-discrimination laws.

It goes till 57:02

If a person has the right to not vaccinate their children, but another person has the right to not allow them in their establishment because of this, this is generally moot.

Then there also comes the problem of asymmetric knowledge

Yes.

But then, even with symmetric knowledge, there's asymmetric priorities.

Yeah. But then, even with a wall, illegals overstay their visas

That's why you don't let them in to begin with.

Until you have the reasonable ability to actually remove illegals in a timely fashion should they overstay their visas, you just shouldn't let them in, as a general rule.

I agree with that, I was making an analogy

The only reason why this is tolerated, is because the people trusted with managing this system benefit more from its violation, and those who should be holding them accountable are not.

In other words, even if a second problem exists, doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to address the first problem

I made that statement before reading the graphic you linked.

https://youtu.be/EFagvNq6-QM

This is also a great debate

I'm somewhat familiar with Radical Capitalist

He argues for a standard Rothbardian ancap in this debate, just with pragmatic leanings in the current era

In other words, he would argue for closed borders etc. until sufficient conditions for full privatization are reached

Spencer argues for Statism

Just checked his website, and saw a bunch of pro-christianity articles in a row, yech.

Christianity has, to an extent, be pretty decent on maintaining and encouraging moral and responsible behavior in the masses, but it has a pretty spotty record on actually protecting whites

This debate is from July 2018, many things might've changed since then

I don't think Christianity was argued in this debate though