Lolbertarian ((strong dislike)) thread

why do libertarians always go on about their "rights" but rarely about the responsibilities that come with these rights? or what about in cases where rights come into conflict into each other (ex. right to free speech vs. right to privacy)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/hg-speeches/progress-and-poverty-condensed.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>why do libertarians always go on about their "rights" but rarely about the responsibilities that come with these rights?

examples please?

also, how do you feel about white boys that travel to your country just to fuck your women's tight little holes?

You can only say our ideology is flawed because it hinges on people being responsible.
It's still better then figuring in your commie or fascist Utopia nobody would be corrupt or abuse power.

>AM I BEING DETAINED?

RIGHT HAND RED!

Anti libertarians responded to the totalitarianism of their parents by wanting more totalitarianism. Their mentality is FREEDOM BAD OPPRESSION GOOD.

He shouldn't have violated their NAP

trigger-happy ancaps.
greedy corporate executives.

>also, how do you feel about white boys that travel to your country just to fuck your women's tight little holes?
nneh those losers just go to our country because they either have yellow fever or they can't get a woman in their home country
the girls they pick aren't even that pretty too. like short, stocky, bad skin.
sometimes even prostitutes or trans women.
i don't really understand why they'd willingly choose that over white women honestly. y'all are weird

libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism for pussies.

>It's still better then figuring in your commie or fascist Utopia nobody would be corrupt or abuse power.
A libertarian society is just legalized corruption and abuse of power at the hand of property owners.

Libertarians believe parents selling their infant children to pedophiles is totally okay.

I'm an ancap but usually just tell people libertarian because it's a lot easier to swallow the libertarian pill than the ancap pill. baby steps.

>Nice strawman
No libertarian, claims this. Whats being sold isn't the child its Guardianship.

How can you say that authoritarianism>libertarianism? Have you no concept of history?
>what is the entire 20th century
Monarchy doesn't work (anymore), centralized power doesn't and never has worked, Nazi Germany didn't work

That's the same, besides (((Rothbard))) clearly says a parent owns the child and that they can then sell it if they want. He was a funny guy.

>Guardianship is the same as Ownership

Also Rothbard isn't the only Ancap, there's plenty of disagreement among the ideology. Rothbard wasn't infallible.

We all know now that libertarians believe in heroin addicted parents selling their drug babies to pedophiles.

It's the infant abuse inherent in the ideology that I find repulsive.

You're just getting disparate at this point.

Who ever said this?

It's simple consequences of the libertarian ideology.

not all libertarians are rothbardian idiots

check out some Albert Jay Nock and look into geolibertarians

>We are libertarians who make the classical liberal distinction between land, labor and capital.

>We believe in the private possession of land without interference from the state, but in the community collection of land rent to prevent monopolization of land.

>We believe that all government activities should at least be limited to those which increase the value of land by more than what the government collects, and that government should be funded entirely from the land value increases it creates.

>We oppose direct state monopolization of land as well as state-sanctioned private monopolization of land, and advocate that state and federally held land pay land rent to the communities the same as private land.

>We advocate that government be allowed to spend only what is authorized by voter referendum or similar device and that it take for itself the minimum it is authorized to spend. Those who advocate collection of the full rent stipulate that the proceeds be divided among community members on a per-capita or similar basis, for the land, and the rent, belong to the people, not the state.

>We condemn the taxation of property improvements, and of all activities, productive, consumptive, or recreational, as invasions by the state into the private affairs of free individuals.

Just because you're free doesn't mean you're free to abuse others.

Your rights stop when the other man begins. Same goes for children, you don't get to abuse your child because you gave birth to them. They're people, and they hold the same right as you do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
>Geolibertarianism is a political and economic ideology particularly committed to tax reform
Imagine being this fucking autistic.
Clearly (((Rothbard))) disagreed. This however doesn't go against selling babies to pedophiles, plus who gets to decide what is abuse and so forth.

>Imagine being this fucking autistic.

So what is your problem with it exactly?

>having an ideology which is primarily about tax reform
>not autistic

How many books on libertarian political theory have you read? What about books in the natural law tradition? What about books on Austrian economics, or hell, even Chicago/Neoclassical economics?

Its not though; im sure you havnt heard much about it. Ill give you some time to google and come up with a decent argument.

>schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/hg-speeches/progress-and-poverty-condensed.html

this would be a good starting point for you unless you are just here to troll

>This however doesn't go against selling babies to pedophiles,
You don't get to sell people, unless its consensual and babies can't consent.

>plus who gets to decide what is abuse and so forth.
No one does, its a principle.

>caring this much about property and materialism
>not at all caring about rivers of niggers, heroin or pedophile baby markets
>somehow not powerful autism
>How many books on marxist political theory have you read? What about books in the historical materialist tradition?
>What about books on post-colonialism, or hell, even feminist/intersectional marxism?

OP makes the claim that libertarians always talk about rights, and rarely talk about responsibilities and so-called conflicting rights. I'd like to know what has led him to believe that.

>Some corperations are using the government as puppets and are being evil!
>If we had more government, things would get better!
You can only pick one

The Constitution
and leave me the fuck alone

>property owners

Doesn't even imagine the day where he can own property. His highest aspiration in life is to have the state give him bread rations and a commie block room in which to live.

Hay and a barn for two legged cattle is all collectivism promises and it delivers even less. You cretins that crave this are hopeless.

Fucking leaf.

First of all, you fucking moron, not all libertarians are anarchists. Therefore, you could still have government regulating adoption to some degree. However, under our current system, there are way more families out there looking to adopt then there are children for them to adopt. Allowing for some kind of pricing system could help rectify this imbalance. As for anarchists saying you should be able to sell your child to a pedophile, it could be argued that selling your child to pedophile, knowing they would get abused, makes you an accessory to a criminal act when they do get abused.

Second of all, as long as you have government, you can have an ethnostate and nothing about libertarianism precludes an ethnostate or the separation of races. Libertarianism and racial segregation are completely compatible. Even in the theoretical ancapistan, all property owners would be able to discriminate who they let on their property and who they would voluntarily associate with.

Libertarianism is neckbeard bullshit. The way corporate hierarchies are set up is very similar to authoritarian governments. There is no liberty in capitalism. Only wage slavery. That image is more accurate than you think.

Why is there such a strong and concerted effort to smear some stupid assed, perpetually irrelevant third party that barely has an online presence to begin with? Who gives a fuck? Why are these people seen as such a threat?