Why do some people have such a stick up their ass about what other people do?

Death to all moralfags and authoritarians

you mean like the stick stuck in your own ass too?

Free will doesn't exist.

So?

...

>if i just let everone do as they like they'll all be nice to each other and society will work out its problems on its own
lmao what a fag

Like I thought, fascists are faggots

>Implying I'm an ancrap
also, we already have a society where people do what they want, people choose their roles due to social contraction and pressure, learn basic sociology idiot.

Ask that to the cops the next time youre speeding.

corporations already fit cars with safety measures and restrictive controls to lower the chance of accidents occuring, the government doesn't keep our behaviour in check, we do.

>Death to all moralfags
But the only acceptable ancap is a moral fag.
Read some Hoppe dude, you won't get your ancap utopia without moralfagging.

I'm not an ancap, am snek

bump!

But this guy has a point.

>Death to all moralfags
But both Communism and Fascism are more pragmatic - by far - than lolberts.

After all, what can be more moralfaggy than demanding everyone to accept a NAP and insisting it would create paradise on earth.

You're a libertarian, but you don't disagree with the moral value of freedom? GTFO

...

I'm not a pragmatist

NAP is just a law which respects formal relations with people, you won't have to analyse every action you do to be able to survive, it is just a meme that the NAP is taken that seriously, except in economic practices, where it should be.

lol the though process of that person is fascinating

*thought

smart

Ancap is definitely the least moral """"ideology"""", just read literally anything produced by the Mises institute.

Freedom isn't a moral question, it is simply what remains in the absence of authority.

>Ancap is definitely the least moral """"ideology""""
It is very far removed from traditional morality, that is true. But it extremely heavily relies on its' own autistic ethical system, instead of any sort of rational or utilitarian conclusions.

You can do whatever you like to yourself, I think it becomes an issue when your actions start affecting other people negatively.

>Free will doesn't exist.
Also this.

He should get paid to be a good person and if he doesn’t then a human is considered his property to do with what he will.

Ancaps are the absolute worse.

Inducing negativity for people isn't exploitation though, if you choose to associate with bad people, bad things will happen to you.

Because each individual affects society in myriad ways
even one individual that hurts society significantly enough will effect the lives of everyone in the society

individualism is a myth

Society is an abstract concept, most people only hang out with those they're comfortable with, not a collective.

it doesn't matter who you hang out with
when you walk down the street or go grocery shopping you are interacting with society
human beings are pack animals, it's in our nature to be with others. this is unavoidable
trying to separate yourself from society is retarded

That's the ontology of freedom, which is largely irrelevant to politics.
If freedom exists, why should it be reflected in political systems?
That's a moral question.

I am not seperating myself from society, I am building my own that I construct through my interactions with people.

>NAP is just a law which respects formal relations with people
The main contradiction in libertarianism is that a law cannot exist without a Legal body with supreme authority over society, and a Martial body with enough power to quell any dissent in society against authority.
That is why, in a purely idealistic fashion, the NAP itself becomes a law-defining concept that must exist in a head of every citizen of society for it to be acceptable by libertarian standards.

Of course, libertarians claim that NAP existing in every human's head is a human nature. But at the same time, libertarian society has never even existed in nature even at the smallest scale, and whatever tiny group of libertarians that do exist, cannot agree with each other as to what NAP actually is.

...

so you're a collectivist

I-Isn't this usually called a kidnapping?

Well most libertarians would simply say that tax is theft and so eliminating this factor of economic intervention would lead to a more natural market and consumer base, which they see as benefits to everyone. Freedom is simply an emotional tool used to compliment this idea, a spook, if you will.

It's satire, and that's the punchline.

Well I believe in limited government to protect freedoms by upholding the NAP.

Can't we just give an island (or section of land) to all the libertarians of the world where they can create their utopia?
My bet is it would turn into The Hunger Games/Rapture from Bioshock within two weeks

its because dumb people with bad morals are a weapon of mass destruction. smart people with dumb morals can still calculate the destruction they will cause to themself so they can atleast regulate themselfs

No, I outwardly define my individual expression, and others react to it, and if they participate with me, then I have granted them into my society.

How many people does it take to establish a society?

Somalia is exactly that. Unfortunately, it'll end up very boring, immediately skipping into robber barons state of formation of human society, as soon as they are left alone.

If your neighbor is masturbating to pizza in his front lawn that affects you, your family and your property's value. Laws and moral are essential to society, libertarian cancer.

But you contradict your own statement. As long as people don't use force to spread their ideas, they have a right to do so. Free ida market will fix.

...

Sure, but I don't have to listen to someone else's ideas if I don't want to.

>Well I believe in limited government to protect freedoms by upholding the NAP.
So what's so special about it, apart from a fact that it, apparently, doesn't work?

...

...

>Why do some people have such a stick up their ass about what other people do?

Are you one of those "what if the child consents" types?

morality is just an extension of the law. It sets a common theme for how to act in a society, where people must live and work together for the betterment of the whole.

It already is privatised, no communes have access to their own water springs.

and this is why you have no moral high ground

Yes

Okay commie

>smart
so what you're trying to tell me is that you're 15 and you just read atlas shrugged?

because unfortunately, all of our actions affect one another

>Yes
pedos get the rope first

sociopath is a buzzword.

Don't you mean (((morals)))?

If a child consented it would be mutually accepted by all parties involved, you're just using emotional arguments.

Hate people like this. Dogs get out once in a while. Had 3 dogs get shot from some faggot hick that couldn’t handle a tiny digression.

>what if the child consented to having their organs harvested after I spent two hours convincing them its a game and they are going to heaven

are you implying the reich wouldn't have executed you for killing the neighbor's dog?
I didn't use any arguments, I just said you're disgusting and can't wait to neck you

Community died a long time ago. We now all live in our fenced off houses, sitting on our computers and celebrating "individuality". In reality, we have become isolated and depressed.

The child should have had appropriate supervision, murderers gonna murder.

I will be waiting.

To Ancaps that is completely valid.

They are sociopaths.

Sexual relationship, as much as any others, are relations of power. If society fully withdraws, what remains is the naked contest of power of two individuals, in which a child always loses. This means that a child - a creature without ability to survive on his own - is left to survive on his own.

>you're just using emotional arguments.
No, you're just using idealistic arguments: deconstructing everything to your arbitrary and hermetic system of "rights" and "wrongs", and without any reference to real life experiences or consequences.

>theft
>benefits to everyone

These are moral issues. A libertarian argument cannot exist outside of morality.
An argument against moral value is an argument for subjectivism, which is the death of society.

If anybody can just do as they please, then why is slavery wrong? Why should a society exist at all?

>Not understanding the difference between libertarianism and anarchism in 2017.

Libertarians still believe in a social contract, and the rule of law, which requires a legal and martial body.
Libertarians just want to apply the non-aggression principle as liberally as possible for a functioning society.
Also, look for the early post revolution U.S. as an example of a 'libertarian' society. Though it wasn't called that back in the day, it was just called liberalism.

>Death to all moralfags and authoritarians
So f somebody kneels during an anthem, you don't have a faux moral outrage aneurysm? Me neither.

>a creature without ability to survive on his own - is left to survive on his own.
that's how the world currently works, people abandon their kids all the time.

best joke I've seen on Sup Forums

nah he did right

a dog that doesn't do as its told and stay where it's supposed to is a failed dog. what were you using it for? filming zoo porn? a human substitute so you could live without friends?

get a new puppy and train it right for next time

No it would not have, especially not in the countryside where other farm animals like chickens or perhaps rabbits are around. The neighboor would be pissed but if you let your dog run on someone elses land without the consent of the landowner, he might cause serious harm, giving you the right to defend your belongings.

...

Slavery is merely protected from happening because of the social contract of the NAP, there is nothing objectively wrong about it.

>that's how the world currently works, people abandon their kids all the time.
Kids are protected and cared for most of the time. The better they are protected and cared for - the better society works. The better it works - the more powerful it becomes. It then subjugates other societies through any means, not to mention a crowd of libertarian savages running through a jungle.

*giving him the right to defend his belongings by shooting your dog. In our community the local forester shot 3 or 4 dogs of a local farmer because he lets them run around in the woods. Dogs are carnivores after all.

Except your type of "liberty" will always be controlled by people with money, so it's probably even worse than having an authoritarian leader who at least cares for his country.

Yeah and that shit made a weak nation that was constantly begging for money and ultimately couldn’t defend its own borders.

Because what people do, effects society. I live in society. Are you telling me that rampant degeneracy and decay of morals is just something we should watch happen? What about the consequences?

Fuck you OP for being such an egocentric hedonistic piece of shit

Your morals are simply inferior, that's why they're dying.

>Your morals are simply inferior, that's why they're dying.
They aren't dying. They are folding. Folding to the libertarians? Of course not. There are just three major contenders: Neoliberals, Socialists and Religious Traditionalists. Libertarians aren't even in the little league on the free market of ideas.

So presumably if the social contract were to exclude the NAP, that would be fine?
Then on what grounds is a libertarian society better than any other? Why should is exist as opposed to NatSoc, or Communism?

If its not better than those, then you literally cannot have an argument with Nazis or Commies and win.

Could you specifically point out what was more "libertarian" in the early US? If anything, it was more removed from its' principles than even the modern one. Of course, it was a nation in process of colonising: mostly consisting of empty lands devoid of civilisation, law and establishment. But that alone just means that libertarians are infatuated with primitivism and opportunism.

>extreme individualism/hedonism are superior morals

lol get a load of this fuckstain

Because I think it would benefit humnity more to be able to indulge in their desires, also I feel like the free market is a good tool of assigning value to labour as opposed to the communists or fascists.

You actually have a very strong moral position, but you're not admitting it.

Is this why libertarians are perceived as a joke?

Of course they are, they are at least more objective than superstitions.

it only doesn't matter if you live in an isolated black box. society has huge effects on you, you can't escape that unless you isolate as i said.

...

>you are a pack animal.

i been fine on my own thank you very much. If you wanna live like cattle normie then live like a cow but im no goddamn cow

I don't have morals by which I live by, I am nihilistic.

>i been fine on my own thank you very much. If you wanna live like cattle normie then live like a cow but im no goddamn cow
That's right, you're a monkey.

Well said

Kekistan and Libertarian alliance?

That is literally ethical hedonism. It's a shit tier moral system, but it's still a moral system.

So slavery would be totally fine with you if it allowed people to indulge their desires? So you're not really a libertarian at all.

Nah human desires are mostly degenerate. Time and time again when left to themselves humans devolve into societies based around resource exploitation, gambling, drug abuse, and prostitution.

The free market is a meme. Never existed and yet people still believe it’s got some magical power that a regulated market doesn’t have. Sorry bud but you can’t get rich brainwashing tweens to get peanutbutter licked off their assholes at your canine rimjob clinic.

>Nihilist
>Libertarian

Pick one ffs.