Libertarians must be stopped

Libertarians must be stopped
twitter.com/libertarianism/status/913011139830796294

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fdJLxHK1smU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

either you can have sex with the baby or you can sell the baby for cash, take your pick

...

Good goyim, buy those asian babies

just like my libertarian hero told me to

Babies are a man's property aren't they? Shouldn't he be able to do with them as he wishes? Are you suggesting the (((state))) owns them?

>either you can have sex with the baby or you can sell the baby for cash, take your pick

It's adding payment to child adoption What's wrong with that?

At least this way you prevent low-IQ parents who can't gather the funds from adopting your kids.

certified term warranter here. me and my team are with our advertised birthing team 24/7 and can ensure that our team does not:
>drink alcohol
>do heroin
>do dindus
>???
unless you would prefer that, in that case we can ensure that it DOES happen, for a nominal fee. dont try to save money with those other firms, all our babys come with a 6 year warranty that you can trust!

if the baby can consent, it's good to go for sex

if the baby can not consent, it is a good that can be sold on the market, like slaves

>violating the baby's NAP

if the baby can't consent it has no NAP to violate

>if the baby can't consent it has no NAP to violate

Just because he doesn't, doesn't mean he can't.

I almost hate libertarians more than commies at this point. The good thing about them is that they are no threat so they don’t have to be taken serious, but they are by far the dumbest group of people. Yes even dumber than commies.

I agree though, if somebody is willing to pay for a baby why shouldn't they be able to buy it. a 3rd party could middle man to ensure the welfare of the child.

Adoptions already cost so much, why not monetize it for the mother?

Doesn't mean it won't.

Sleeping/unconscious people can't consent, but we expect them to have that ability in the future so we still treat them as individuals with (self) property rights.

If the baby cannot consent, then how can it consent to being sold?

sleeping people actively have the NAP which can be violated. Baby's do not, if you believe they cannot consent

How does a Woody doll or Buzz lightyear consent to being sold?

what the fuck man

Why do people keep mistaking Libertarianism for Ancap?

Same reason foreigners should be banned from buying property in the US. The US is it's own sovereign nation and doing so destroys our independence. If children could be sold they could be resold and tossed around which is terrible for a child's development as seen in foster children who are in and out of different homes. Monetizing it would only make it more commonplace.

Hypothetically let's say you make a baby but nobody wants it, maybe it's ugly, maybe it's a spaz, whatever. That kid's not going to have a good life, you'll probably just put it into care or something. As the agent of its creation, bringing it into a world where it will be unhappy i.e. less happy than if it didn't exist, does the creation of the baby count as an act of aggression against it and thus a violation of the NAP?

By being an inanimate object

>Baby's do not [have the NAP], if you believe they cannot consent
>sleeping people actively have the NAP which can be violated

Neither babies nor sleeping people have the ability to consent at that point in time, but they each will do eventually. Why do you make the above distinction?

>implying Ancap isn't the logical conclusion of Libertarianism
>implying Ancap is even a real thing as Capitalism requires private property and private property requires a state
>implying (((they))) aren't pushing for a return to feudalism where (((they))) are the feudal lords

>implying Ancap is even a real thing as Capitalism requires private property and private property requires a state
>private property requires a state
>I can't think of how something would work without a state therefore it can't.

Argument from ignorance. Get out of here, state shill.

What's wrong with it?

A: it encourages a trade which kidnaps/forcibly breeds newborns for the sole purpose for them to be shipped and sold as commodities.

Your reckless purchase whill save one and destroy a thousand.

Retarded as shit, there is already an adoption system and you can already sell kids on the black market. Nothing would change if you monetized the current system except abortions would drop.

What about cats or dogs?

that's like saying "ted is the CEO of this bank but since he's on vacation i can rob it"
You can shake the sleeping person to gain the consent. You don't get much if you shake a baby

> shake the sleeping person
Sounds like a NAP violation.

>yeah but, why do Hapa's hate their White roots?
>they don't hate their Asian (specifically Japanese) roots. Are Whites that detestable, despite our ability to outdo the entire planet with our ability to manifest that into reality which was previously thought to be impossible? Why does the Hapa fear being better than the best?
Comment theme: youtube.com/watch?v=fdJLxHK1smU

then yell

I think most people in support of Libertarianism really just want to drain the swamp. There's a ridiculous number of people supported by our taxes that we don't need.

Yup. Snake factories in India. Markets will pop up for things you don't want

He's deaf.

no he isnt

>assaulting my fucking ears with your mouth noise

You wait for me to wake up on my own or you reap the hurricane

violating the eardrums with ur soundwaves

>don't yell just rape me

>Good goyim, buy those asian babies
people would buy white babies