Yiffing

If you dont already know what "yiffing" is, dont ask, you dont want to know.

In other words, dont ask, so I dont have to tell.

It does bring up one interesting thought though. With such advanced medical abilities as to reverse ageing and potentialy catastrophic cellular damage, advanced cosmetic surgery and grafts should also be possible to a staggering degree. Even with the comparativly rudamentary (rudementary?) techniques we have today, we see some rather extreme types of piercings, tattoos, scars, inserts and what not.

How far would humans go to change their body towards what they concider to be "right". And how far would others be willing to accept them, even in as tollerant a community as ANCAP?

I can so identify with Babettes reaction. Just wait until she looks up the definition.  I remember when I first ran across the term and did an on-line search.  I still remember my reaction and the first thing that popped into my head which was a scene out of John Carpenter's 'the Thing" .  Specifically where Norris' head grows spider legs and scampers away whereupon Palmer, in spying the little beastie, says "You've got to be fucking kidding!".
That said, I guess it take all kinds...

And how far would others be willing to accept them, even in as tollerant a community as ANCAP?

What're you going to do if you don't accept? Challenge them to a duel?

Of course, compare your reactions to this now to what you might have thought 40 years ago to the line "he's gay?" or 70 years ago to "interracial".  

Interesting thought on the cosmetic surgery.  Right now we can make ears that respond to your thoughts, roughly.  http://neurowear.com/ People with an interest might easily create a market for more similar accessories, especially if we decide as a culture to allow people to express themselves.

I just can't look at body piercings.  They totally creep me out.  So I don't look.  I request their tolerance of my not looking at their piercings in exchange for my tolerance of their having them, by which I mean that, apart from the averted gaze, I will continue perfectly civil and courteous no matter what's pierced, or how, or how many.

Deal?

And how far would others be willing to accept them, even in as tollerant a community as ANCAP?

What're you going to do if you don't accept? Challenge them to a duel?

There is always refusal of service. And if enough people starts refusing service... It can become somewhat rough to survive on a mining colony. Or just about anywhere, unless you want to go wild(wo)man-ing.

And yes, there might even be a challenge or two if what you do realy torques someone of. Or even a "WTF!?!? *BANGBANGBANG*" reaction.
Yes yes, i know, ZAP should stop that. But human nature is human nature, and someone is bound to overreact to something.

And how far would others be willing to accept them, even in as tollerant a community as ANCAP?

What're you going to do if you don't accept? Challenge them to a duel?

There is always refusal of service. And if enough people starts refusing service... It can become somewhat rough to survive on a mining colony. Or just about anywhere, unless you want to go wild(wo)man-ing.

And yes, there might even be a challenge or two if what you do realy torques someone of. Or even a "WTF!?!? *BANGBANGBANG*" reaction.
Yes yes, i know, ZAP should stop that. But human nature is human nature, and someone is bound to overreact to something.

No, ZAP is perfect, ZAP is harmony, ZAP is life.  No one would violate ZAP.  ZAP is utopia; no anger, no emotion, no overreaction.
ZAP is perfection.
</sarcasm>

And how far would others be willing to accept them, even in as tollerant a community as ANCAP?

What're you going to do if you don't accept? Challenge them to a duel?

There is always refusal of service. And if enough people starts refusing service... It can become somewhat rough to survive on a mining colony. Or just about anywhere, unless you want to go wild(wo)man-ing.

And yes, there might even be a challenge or two if what you do realy torques someone of. Or even a "WTF!?!? *BANGBANGBANG*" reaction.
Yes yes, i know, ZAP should stop that. But human nature is human nature, and someone is bound to overreact to something.

No, ZAP is perfect, ZAP is harmony, ZAP is life.  No one would violate ZAP.  ZAP is utopia; no anger, no emotion, no overreaction.
ZAP is perfection.
</sarcasm>

Shoulda woulda coulda. Most systems do work wonderfully in theory, but in practise... not so much. And i doubt even  Sandy would say that AnCap or ZAP would be without fault, concidering human nature.

The problem is human nature, and that is not very likely to change in any hurry unless somethng drastic happens. Disaster, mass social revolution or technological revolution is what is most likely i think.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Most systems do work wonderfully in theory, but in practise... not so much. And i doubt even  Sandy would say that AnCap or ZAP would be without fault, concidering human nature.

You are correct, sir. Market anarchism plus ZAP are optimal solutions, not perfect ones. That's because nothing is perfect. So, since our resident commie conformist has no intellectual arrows in his quiver, he makes up straw men, whom he has a better chance of besting. So sad.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Most systems do work wonderfully in theory, but in practise... not so much. And i doubt even  Sandy would say that AnCap or ZAP would be without fault, concidering human nature.

You are correct, sir. Market anarchism plus ZAP are optimal solutions, not perfect ones. That's because nothing is perfect. So, since our resident commie conformist has no intellectual arrows in his quiver, he makes up straw men, whom he has a better chance of besting. So sad.

Obviously you missed the closing <sarcasm> tag.

Market anarchism plus ZAP are optimal solutions, not perfect ones.

Given that they're not "perfect", though, that they're better than government when it's "working right" is not clear - which makes some wonder why we want to go there for a solution, with what seem to be obvious risks of serious tragedy of the commons problems.

When is government working right?  At best, it's only a few minutes before the smiling psychopaths discover the new toy -- a new toy which helps hold the prey helpless (what happens when you fight back against, say, my sister's one-time date, the cop who bragged about the fun he had intimidating black drivers and making them kowtow?) for the  predator.

As for the "tragedy of the commons" -- when the commons existed, a man could feed his family (not well, probably, but still it was food) and keep them warm with what he could glean off the common land.  When the commons became enclosures, private land, a common-er (! that's not an accident!) became wholly dependent on the local employer for wages & therefore sustenance, regardless of how much, or how little, he was paid or how well or how badly he was treated.  With the loss of the commons, the common-er ceased to be a freeman and became a wage-serf.

Sure, the free life is, obviously, a risky one.  The governed life is risky, too.  The only difference is, having constructed something (with great effort & ingenuity) to create safety, we have a hard time accepting that it can't work, so we discount the devil we know (government) and let our imaginations run wild with the devil we (think we) don't.

Market anarchism plus ZAP are optimal solutions, not perfect ones.

Given that they're not "perfect", though, that they're better than government when it's "working right" is not clear - which makes some wonder why we want to go there for a solution, with what seem to be obvious risks of serious tragedy of the commons problems.

Government "working right" is pretty much an oxymoron. Just as the essence of humor is whose ox is being gored, so too, is it with what "working right" means. Whose definition? I am confident that the definition that government types and government cheerleaders would use is quite different then what you had in mind. To them, government is working right when it controls everything.

Tragedy of the commons? How do you figure that? Government is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Whereas in a market anarchy, there is nothing that is a true commons. Everything that is owned, is owned privately. (There are some things that are unowned, but that is not....

For an analogous common law precept, See:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/prop/prop03.htm