Don't bother me and I won't bother you, is that so hard to fucking understand

Don't bother me and I won't bother you, is that so hard to fucking understand

If you fucking children then you are bothering me, so I will stop you. Deal with it faggot.

If you don't want anyone bothering you, then go live in the woods. If you want to live in a civilized society, you need to accept the social contract.

>muh social contract

Cool, now stop using my money to do your stupid shit.

>don't bother me
>after you establish my colonies for me and bankroll their defense and keep them well supplied
>but once that's over with, just leave me alone!

That violates the NAP faggot, so you can't fuck children idiot.

Your actions indirectly affect me because we live in a society.

>social contract
So where can i read the contract before i sign? Or do you expect me to sign it anyway?

Oh wait it seems that you don't have to sign the contract at all for it to take effect.

My step snek folder is empty.
Post em if you got em!

Just pay some fucking taxes for the roads.

PAY

we expect you to sign it once you're an independent adult and choose to continue living in our society
otherwise pic related

It's not hard to understand. It's very easy to reject. We live in a society, so we bother each other to make things happen. If we wouldn't, we would have to live in fucking caves - and even that wouldn't be enough. We would have to literally lie down and die not to bother someone by accident.

BUT WHAT IF

That's what the British said before they got BTFO out of America. This may surprise you, but there are times when it's justified to break the social contract; because the social contract can be corrupted and misused like anything else.

>implying someone can go live in the woods without being bothered in 2017

This isn't the fucking frontier days, user. Living in the woods gets the police called on you OR the govt takes your land away because you didn't pay extortion money to them even though you technically own the land.

Your legal guardians sign you into it when you are incapable. Since your life is given to you by society, it is legally empowered to bind you with a social contract too. You can rescind your life if you do not like the terms.

>Since your life is given to you by society

All hail society, demigod of modernity, giver of life itself. We sacrifice our autonomy at your feet, that you may be pleased and not strike us down!

The problem is you live in a democracy and those who want to bother you have a say in the matter.
>Sick of taxes? Sorry, 51% of the population, which includes 99% of the niggers, voted in favour of increasing them to get gibs
So what can we do?

>before the French pissed them off enough for them to stop caring about the colonies
ftfy
and that ordeal had nothing to do with libertarianism
the founding fathers broke a social contract and replaced it with another

>social contract
Get a job, ya' hippy.

You rescue the kid, inform the community and cut him off from doing business with any of you.
Including, but not limited to: No being able to rent a room or buy any property.

In that case, I'll gladly bother a couple people, on purpose even! If it means the benefit of myself and extensions of myself.

I may not be on the same page, politically as OP, but I still agree and await the day when the establishment commits suicide. It'll be glorious.

>So what can we do?
END DEMOCRACY!

The Brits tried taking our guns.

>The Brits tried taking our guns.
And now they turn in their knives.

if you didn't define your life by all the comforts and luxuries provided to you by civilization, you wouldn't be so averse to becoming autonomous.
you can do it at literally any time, you know that, right? there are many places in the world. but you won't, because you want what society built for you but you don't want to have to take care of it.

Lolbertarians....

The tree of humanity, indeed, provides both life and substance to every individual human. Not that worship or veneration is required.

maybe cause they knew you were about to try and skip out on paying your debts to them and wanted to make sure their colonies' security was in their hands alone?

Private property is a huge 'bother you'.

...

Sure. Good luck trying to convince the Libertarian Party though.

It will be glorious for the new establishment. Do you count to be there or on good graces with them?

Libertarians - don't step on me don't violate me and I won't violate you! Don't break the nap!

Also libertarians - excuse me while I murder this unborn child

I will just shout at them end democracy now or I take your asian qts back to Rome.
In my head I assume they have many asian girls there at least.

Considering how much desertion happened with the British, I think the British soldiers were the ones who stopped caring and britain couldn't keep them fighting in the colonies. The fact remains that the U.S. survived, the british left and that is a win condition.

Libertarianism =/= ancap

There's nothing wrong with the social contract, but to claim that the social contract is set in stone by whatever generation established it and should never be changed is fucking stupid and you all know it's stupid.The current social contract is part of what is fucking over society. The fact that you're here talking about all this makes you thought criminals in the current social contract; why would you want to keep it set in stone?

The fact of the matter is that the people have a say in the social contract, but unlike back int he days where you could go off on your own, you cant do that anymore. Borders are things. Private, surveiled property is a thing, property tax is a thing, so you can't even indefinitely live on your own land without having income.

Your solution is defacto "get in line or be harrassed and killed".

Libertarians
>We advocate for cumbayaa and the end of violence!
Also libertarians
>I will apply any cruelty to you that I want and without restraint, because you did not conform to my personal arbitrary scripture that exists in my head.

> Libertarians literally cannot refute externalities
> Libertarians literally cannot refute the free rider problem

Loving every laff

>Implying libertarians support the welfare state.

Aussies.

VERY tough, VERY badass,
everyone on this thread is very cruel, tough, mean and badass.
But none of this is how the USA works. people dont just leave because ((we)) dont like them.
but, All Sup Forumss historical education came from memes, so. fuck it.

> not knowing what the free rider problem is

Of course, I shouldn't have expected a libertarian to have taken econ101 - they wouldn't be a libertarian otherwise

ofc it's a win condition, but not one that supports what you were going for

>the current social contract
we don't have a single one that covers every facet of society. that's why there's conflict.
you're turning the convo to something unrelated

>you can't even indefinitely live on your own land without having income
cause it ain't your land in that sense. if you want sovereign territory you better get yourself an army and take some from someone.
but if you just wanna squat there's plenty of undeveloped places in the world for that.

>Your solution is defacto "get in line or be harassed and killed".
it ain't my solution, that's always been the way things are...
if you're a tough guy you draw your own line for people to get in.
just make sure it means that much to you

we can also eliminate the jews or take constantinople if you wanted, why don't you?

>people dont just leave because ((we)) dont like them
yes you do
we aren't your fuckin daycare center

>FREE
>WHITE
>PERSONS

>OF
>GOOD
>CHARACTER

Alright professor, how about you explain what it is in your own words and we can discuss it?

idk what you're saying
is this supposed to mean that taking a oneway flight to some ass-end of the world and living in the jungle is difficult?

>Fuck America, amirite?

>yes you do
>we aren't your fuckin daycare center

At this rate, the only person I see deserving of being kicked out is you, faggot. Go back to Europe; they love "strong governmental regulation" and the like.

the founding fathers loved strong governmental regulation too
federalism =/= libertarianism

>the only person I see deserving of being kicked out is you
am i talking to a jigaboo or some civnat peckerwood?

You're conflating modern terms with historical terms. A federalist was anyone who wanted a general overarching system over the states. The federal system wasn't ever meant to replace the states, nor was it meant to exercise undue control over individuals. There was an onling debate about federalism vs anti-federalism among the founding fathers. What you want is the government to come in and fix everything, completely failing to have the grey matter to realize that government is largely incompetent (regardless of where it is or who sets it up) and THEN have the temerity to say OTHERS are wanting a daycare. The founding fathers knew government was at least incompetent and, at worst, tyrannical. That's why the U.S. system was so good, until fuckers like you let people run away with it.

Go fuck yourself, buddy.

get real. youre not an eagle. ur a fucken leaf..

people who are advocating for Anarcho-Capitalism are actively trying to reverse thousands of years of innovation that could have existed only by crowd investment (of work, labor, money, time ..)

>inb4 fags replying with "The free market will create roads with fees similar to tax"
no it won't , and if it does it will be outrageously expensive as everything under neo-liberal Capitalism

Liberals die

>the founding fathers loved strong governmental regulation too
on basic human rights and fraud protection, maybe.

the founding fathers did not intend on federal regulation in education healthcare in the like, they certainly didnt intend on federal jurisdiction on the state level, and they certainly did not intend on a federal institution enslaving its populace through debt and inflation

lets not start comparing the founders to the complete abomination of the government today

>Utopian nonsense

Stfu commie. Your shitty ideology has already been BTFO'd both intellectually and historical in every instance it was attempted.

>inb4 communism was never tried

You deserve a crowdfunded bullet.

>not being a Nationalist free market supporter
Buy American sell American hire American

no sir
of course a federal system wasn't meant to replace the states, the federal system IS the states (plural)

>What you want is the government to come in and fix everything
straw harder
the government is composed of people.

>undue control over individuals
which consisted of a lot fucking less than you consider "undue control" mr. loliconbertarian
these things you say about the founding fathers are lies.
if the founders thought government was incompetent they wouldn't have dedicated their entire efforts to structuring society through it.
the fact is they knew government was the most efficient route to securing our collective welfare and our RIGHT to a healthy society

they weren't libertarian
and the American system was good until civnat cucks like you decided blacks count as "people"

It's like a cult the simple fact is we all need the air and water. We cant have the greedy or the ignorant poisoning us. It sure will bug you if i shit in your wster supply, and i can do that from MUH LAND!

Can I buy an american, then sell him for a higher price and hire him?

>The federal system IS the states
>Whats good for the federal must be good for the states
>The people ARE the state
>Whats good for the federal must be good for the people

This is the line of reasoning people fall into; it's the logical conclusion of conflating these abstract distinctions. The only independently real unit of society is the individual and individuals have a say in what the social contract is. OP wanted to be left alone; the question is whether or not that is unreasonable. I don't believe it is. If someone is willing to give up the benefits of society without having to deal with the negatives of society, then so be it. Under the currentr social contract, he can't. Because the current social contract isn't about freedom or autonomy for individuals in any way; it's about domesticating people like livestock. That's what strong governments develop into.

>the government is composed of people
Yes. People. Fallible, corruptable, powerhungry people; just like you and me. Why the hell would we give them any more power than is absolutely necessary?

>if the founders thought government was incompetent they wouldn't have dedicated their entire efforts to structuring society through it.
the fact is they knew government was the most efficient route to securing our collective welfare and our RIGHT to a healthy society

No, the reason the founding fathers were so careful and dedicated their entire efforts into structuring the government in such a way was because they knew their history and they understood that governments get big and bloated and exercise undue control over their citizenry. They just finished fighting a war with a world power over a 3% tax and no representation in government. You really think they were jumping in to establish their own tyrannical system. Of fucking course not; they understood the government has it's place and it must be kept only to the vital functions that require it and nothing more.

Unless the establishment is an Individual-Anarchist World or State, then I count to be there. If it becomes too spooked over too much time, then my only wish is to further the fall of the Establishment.

Of course! If yourself and only yourself wills to claim something as property, then, by all means, claim it! Unfortunately, society and the establishment prevents that from happening.

who's conflating the distinctions, though.
you brought up the federal government because that's the go-to libertarian talking point.

the only independently real unit of society is the family.
a single person, independent and all on his lonesome, is not "of society". he's a gnat. a tick. a flea.

>the current social contract
again, no such thing exists

>Why the hell would we give them any more power than is absolutely necessary?
i don't want to do that bucky
the power i would give them is absolutely necessary
you disagree because you are not concerned with the welfare of society, only with your individual happiness. thus you have no qualms with surrendering society to those fallible corruptible powerhungry people in the form of big businesses who have zero obligations to anyone

>it must be kept only to the vital functions that require it and nothing more.
which consist of far more than anything anyone could call libertarian and be taken seriously

I am quite sure you think some people should be bothered.

the government today is jewish and not concerned with american society's welfare, only its money, of course it's an abomination

"basic human rights" included things like education and healthcare.
this modern interpretation of rights is bastardized and talks only about property, the founders were moralists

also we're not gonna get away with this sneakiness. libertarian principle isn't "government, leave me alone"
it's just "leave me alone"

wholly incompatible with the philosophy of the founders

>you brought up the federal government because that's the go-to libertarian talking point.

You still don't even know if I'm a libertarian or not. I haven't explicitly stated so. You're so fixated on the label because you need a strawman to attack instead of focusing on the arguments. THAT'S the go-to identityfag talking point.

>the only independently real unit of society is the family.
Entirely false. The family does not exist without the individuals that comprise it, like all groups, it is an abstraction. It's a useful biological tool, but it is not real like individuals are. Someone may need to be born and raised, but someone doesn't need a family to exist.

>a single person, independent and all on his lonesome, is not "of society". he's a gnat. a tick. a flea.
Why should someone who considered individuals nothing more than insects have power again? What makes you different than globalists? Than Stalin? Than Clinton?

>you disagree because you are not concerned with the welfare of society, only with your individual happiness.
I am concerned with the welfare of individuals because individuals are what make up society. It's not comprised of races or interest groups ("Factions" - as the founding fathers would have called them). The welfare of a group is predicated on the welfare of the individuals that comprise that group, because the only way you can affect a group is by affecting the individuals that comprise it.

>thus you have no qualms with surrendering society to those fallible corruptible powerhungry people in the form of big businesses who have zero obligations to anyone
I am not beholden to companies like I am the government. Companies cannot legally force their way into my home and force me to take part in their services. I have more power over companies because companies are beholden to customers. The government isn't.

>which consist of far more than anything anyone could call libertarian and be taken seriously
Because you're whipped up in an ideological frenzy, you're willing to completely sell the only thing that made America good away in order to try to recapture it.

You're an idiot. I mean this is commie-tier retardation. I'm glad Spencer is subverting the NatSoc meme before it can take hold, because this trend of wanting more government is as dangerous as it is retarded.

don't need to know what you are
you're in the convo defending libertarianism, using the talking points

>like all groups, it is an abstraction
patently false. we're talking about units of society, remember. but if you want to distract from the point and turn this into philosophy, i'll gladly go through all the reasons why your concept of what "individuals" are isn't any more or less real than the social connections we form
"existing" isn't enough to be a unit of society.
you don't exist without the atoms that comprise your body. are atoms a unit of society? no sir

>Why should someone who considered individuals nothing more than insects have power again?
why have you suddenly become so dishonest?

>I am concerned with the welfare of individuals
>The welfare of a group is predicated on the welfare of the individuals that comprise that group
>the only way you can affect a group is by affecting the individuals that comprise it.
meaningless statements.
did you think healthcare and education were for anything other than people? how do you teach history to a concept, or classification?

>Companies cannot legally force their way into my home and force me to take part in their services.
>legally
in other words, because the government is there to stop them

you forgot to address the point, seems like

>this proud of being a pawn for jewish elites

the only thing Spencer's subverting is the altright which is the subversion of NatSoc
i do hope he drives it into the ground

here's a pic for your troubles

>you don't exist without the atoms that comprise your body. are atoms a unit of society? no sir
Atoms are not independently conscious. Interestingly neither are families, races or any other faction. What's the only indivisible and independently conscious unit of society? Oh yeah, the individual.

>why have you suddenly become so dishonest?
You said:
>a single person, independent and all on his lonesome, is not "of society". he's a gnat. a tick. a flea.
That is to mean that the worth of an individual comes from his place as part of a larger body. Without going along with society, an individual is nothing more than an insect. This is exactly what I was talking about when I made the point about conflating things.

>did you think healthcare and education were for anything other than people? how do you teach history to a concept, or classification?
The phrase "teach people" means to "teach a group of individuals". This is basic English.
Although, it's interesting how you've brought up education; the current state of public education being a direct result of your type of reasoning.

>The nation IS the people
>The nation needs workers!
>Force people to be workers for their own good!

That's what the modern education system is: a system for making factory workers and nothing more. No critical thinking, no philosophy, nothing of impor; it makes cattle. That's exactly what strong governments want.

>in other words, because the government is there to stop them
Yep. I DID say that the government had some necessary functions. I don't think extorting it's people for the things they own is one of them.

>you forgot to address the point, seems like
You point was saying "Well, I think we need to entrust government with more control than you do."

No we don't. Since there was nothing of substance in that "point", then that's all the addressing that's needed.

>Implying that we have to treat every idea the founders had as law

This may surprise you, but I don't fetishize the founding fathers as bastions of absolute truth. They gave us the ability to amend and adapt for a reason. The premise of freedom was a good one. The premise of race isn't as cut and dry as they might have thought.

No doubt this will make you consider me some cuck liberal commie jew or whatever, which isn't the case (though I am sure you will insist). We clearly have a nigger problem, but I've known enough white niggers in my time to know that the line between shit and gold is not drawn explicitly on racial lines.

In other words, I consider you on the same level as commies, which is only a step above niggers.

...

Gibe tho yt

>fighting for the right of people you hate to make terrible choices
sounds gr8

>own the land
Hahaha, all the land is owned by (((them)))

...

>What's the only indivisible and independently conscious unit of society? Oh yeah, the individual.
Highly debatable. Individuals are more often than not a product of the society that surorunds them.
In fact most values and ideas come from your so called "abstractions" such as the family, race, nation or any other kind of group the individual grows up and identifies itself in.
Humans are at the end of the day highly tribal creatures and pretending that one is a completely independent and autonomous being is misguiding. As such societies too are formed out of groups and collectiv identities and not the individual.

so you've now invented some absurd concept called "independent consciousness" and suggest that's the criteria for society's division... in other words, society should be defined by what isn't part of society. this is impressive doublethink, lieutenant

>That is to mean that the worth of an individual comes from his place as part of a larger body.
the worth of that individual to that larger body, yes.
>Without going along with society, an individual is nothing more than an insect.
your confusion here stems from your ignoring the "leave" part from before
the point of gnats and such is that they attach themselves to a larger host and do nothing for it besides use its resources and cause discomfort.
if you want to be all on your lonesome and contribute nothing to the society whilst you're living ELSEWHERE, feel free to consider yourself a beautiful butterfly. it's not really my concern.

>The phrase "teach people" means to "teach a group of individuals". This is basic English.
why were you struggling with it so much?
libertarians reject the group, and they usually don't want to do anything for the individuals either.

>current state of public education
>modern education system
for the sake of my boredom i'm not humoring this anymore

>Yep. I DID say that the government had some necessary functions. I don't think extorting it's people for the things they own is one of them.
no point of bringing it up in that context then, besides to fill your post

>No we don't. Since there was nothing of substance in that "point", then that's all the addressing that's needed.
you not having a response to something doesnt mean it's not of substance
you don't get to claim about the current state of things and then try to say government is fine at the scale it is.

Shut up and post Gadsdens

Let them make stupid descisions, doesn't affect me. I couldn't care less for stupid people being stupid, no government in this world will stop them from being stupid.

If individuals are the product of the society that surrounds them, then why do we see so much disparity in how people develop? Why do people come to different conclusions about things when they grow up in the same society?

The point is that it does not matter if the social zeitgeist (which is still only the aggregate methods and ideas of individuals who comprise society) shapes people. The zeitgeist is reliant on individuals to comprise it and there's no logical reason why one individual should inherently rule over another. This is the basic principle the U.S. was founded on.

...

...

...

...

...

ty krautbro

>implying strawmen
i don't see them as absolute truth either.
they were naive enough to entrust their doctrine to being enforced socially. if they were alive today to see what's resulted, they would enshrine its enforcement through law

>I consider you on the same level as commies
i consider you jew-like, thus i assign zero worth to your considerations of me

...

...

...

...

Why are people talking about fucking children....

OP is saying , If I do no harm , you shall do no harm. To anyone or anything....

...

...

this one is p rare

yes you must blindy accept (((my))) rules goy

& variant

if you think you're hot shit, write your own rules and see how many people want to follow them
otherwise shoo

and I'm spent