Video: Ian Arrested

[Riddler]

  Eating animal flesh is very inefficient.  In the modern world, it cuts your agricultural productivity down to about 20% of what it could

wrong-o, fag-boy

hunting wild deer, bison, moose, elk, etc.... balances the eco-system & INCREASES farm productivity.
all these animals destroy crops (we have a deer ''problem'', w/ respect to deer eating crops & apples)
maintaining a sustainable population of these animals is studied (way above your pay grade) in depth each year & is an exceptionally affordable way to provide meat to families & homeless shelters.

insert in pipe & smoke that shit

[Alex Libman]

wrong-o, fag-boy

You calling me a fag-boy is like an ant calling Godzilla "tiny"!

[...]  [wild] animals destroy crops  [...]

What are you, stuck in the 19th century American West?  A society that only eats wild land animals (including birds, excluding insects) in addition to farming would be sort of like a vegan who makes an exception for one meal every 2-3 weeks!  Wild land animals can only "deveganize" at very most 3% of the human food supply (and that's including wild animals that are not particularly tasty), and that number will shrink into nothingness as humans finish conquering this planet and spread into space.  Once all land is privatized and efficiently controlled, the only animals allowed to exist would be kept deliberately, and effectively fenced away from any agricultural areas.

[Joseffritzl]

I do believe that noone is harmed in this case, but if in a free society people were doing heroin and shooting up in public, and disturbing people, is that really appropriate?

There is no public property in a free society.  The property owner would decide what's appropriate, and other parties would have no more complaint than to advise the property owner that they will not patronize the enterprise.

No there is not, but there is the general open property that everyone will be walking about. Im sure even the most voluntaryists parents would not want to see that. It is rude and disgusting. Private property, but still rules the town must follow

[Cognitive Dissident]

I do believe that noone is harmed in this case, but if in a free society people were doing heroin and shooting up in public, and disturbing people, is that really appropriate?

There is no public property in a free society.  The property owner would decide what's appropriate, and other parties would have no more complaint than to advise the property owner that they will not patronize the enterprise.

No there is not, but there is the general open property that everyone will be walking about. Im sure even the most voluntaryists parents would not want to see that. It is rude and disgusting. Private property, but still rules the town must follow

That property is called an easement.  It will be on someone's land.  The owner will still be able to expect minimally civil behavior there.  That would probably include "no loitering."

"Rules of the town," outside of minimal necessities to keep the peace, are unnecessary, and the need for the minimal rules points to the absurdity of "public property."

Addendum:added the bit about loitering