I'm new to libertarianism, and I have a few questions.
Would child porn markets exist? How would it be prevented?
What kinds of law would be in place?
How would morals be made important in society where markets are eveything.
How would the environemnt be cared for when there's no immediate incentive to give a shit about them?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.is
archive.is
youtu.be
twitter.com
>Would child porn markets exist?
Yes
>How would it be prevented?
No
>What kinds of law would be in place?
No
>How would morals be made important in society where markets are everything.
No, and don't listen to anyone who says otherwise. The basic intuition behind your question is that morals != preference and that is exactly the point
>How would the environemnt be cared for when there's no immediate incentive to give a shit about them?
There is an immediate incentive. You are the environment.
>no laws
murder would be legal?
does that mean assassins would exist?
*legal hitmen
Of course, they'd do great business
ok, so what is the role of government then
how do we prevent anarchism?
>Would child porn markets exist? How would it be prevented?
Why is this bad?
Porn is proved to reduce sex crimes[1]
Also, almost all Child Porn is produced without abuses and with parent's consent.
Let me give you an example. LS Studio was an important CP producer when underage girls posed naked with the consent of their parents.[2] They got money and everyone was Ok. When it got shoutted down nobody presented charges.
Why persecute a crime less crime?
CP laws are only made to enforce a police state[3].
[1] archive.is
[2] archive.is
[3] youtu.be
>what is the NAP?
Go away misinformation shill.
nap
>what is the NAP?
An abstract concept that people will happily violate whenever it's in their self-interest to do so
what is the appropriate course of action on the violation of the nap?
if I killed a man's daughter, can the man legally kill me?
If I killed an orphan, would I be liable?
What about children, are they property of the parents?
No no, you're probably thinking about AnCap.
NAP in a Libertarian society is about protecting your life and your property AT the moment.
Of course there should be laws and jurisdictional process.
> Would child porn markets exist? How would it be prevented?
Child porn markets would most definitely exist. And no real attempt could or should be made to prevent them because the state should not impose moral values on individuals enjoying their chosen passions/hobbies/etc.
> What kinds of law would be in place?
Minimal law. There would be basic laws against the initiation of physical force, fraud, etc. Pretty much common law boiled down to its most fundamental parts.
> How would morals be made important in society where markets are eveything.
Morals? Kek. I'm not sure you're much of a libertarian if you speak in these moralistic ways. Libertarianism is about maximizing human freedom. Nothing is "good" or "bad" per se. Rather they are efficient or inefficient. We libertarians like efficient markets more than inefficient ones.
And most of us reject the retarded, backwards-looking "ethics" and "morals" based in government force and superstition. If their holy books told them to skullfuck babies, they'd do it and it would be lauded as "moral" by traditional standards.
> How would the environemnt be cared for when there's no immediate incentive to give a shit about them?
Private owners take better care of their land than governments do. Giving the huge lands gov'ts are sitting on to private owners would clear up a lot of problems.
And also, the environment is really not so important in a libertopia. If we ever see a TRUE libertarian paradise, we will have invented so many insanely advanced solutions that things like carbon taxes will seem retarded in comparison.
Basically, we're looking at the problem of environmental hazards through the lens of a retarded state-run society. Remove those problems, and you'll release the dynamic and creative energies of millions of entrepreneurs who love child porn and sell meth to children.
It will be wonderful. And also: we won't need roads. Our cars will fly and emit nicotine e-cig vapor instead of CO2.
>Would child porn markets exist?
They already do, this has nothing to do with libertarianism
>How would it be prevented?
You can't prevent some things from happening. They either happen or they don't. You can punish people for violating other people's rights though.
Research the libertarian position on victimless crime
>How would morals be made important in society where markets are eveything.
Markets are already everything. There's a market for any good or service that exists. This is true in any economic/political system, because it's a fact of nature. You can either deny it and put in place legislation and regulations to restrict it, or you can accept the reality that morality is based upon values and that only in free markets can these values be properly vetted by the people.
>How would the environemnt be cared for when there's no immediate incentive to give a shit about them?
There's always an incentive to give a shit about it. You may not see it. If that is the case, then I would say you are pretty careless and/or ignorant.
So there are two types of libertarianism.
-Minarchy (Small government)
-Anarcho-Capitalism (No Government)
Regardless the basic guiding principal is the Non-Aggression pact. You can do whatever you want as long as it does not aggress another's person/property.
There is a lot of discussion on what would be aggression but it is mostly on the details.
Pollution, however, is a case that is pretty clear. It would be aggression.
The best intro books are "For a New Liberty" - Rothbard and "Machine of Freedom" -Friedman.
Both are available free online.
The primary difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism is that Libertarianism considers the state to hold a basic role as a kind of public mediator. It is the state's duty to ensure that people do not harm other people, and as such, the only laws that would be upheld or enforced would be those that prevent people from causing direct harm to other people, such as murder, theft, assault, but you are free to be a dipshit and get yourself killed by doing things that only put yourself at risk, like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, playing russian roulette, or eating at an Indian restaurant.
The issue with Libertarianism shows itself on the macro level the most, in my opinion. When you have a situation that arises in which your state must interact with another state. In these cases, it is the state's duty to act on the behalf of its citizens, but libertarianism tends to consider this to be bad, instead advocating the free market to take its course. This works when both states hold equal values, but if the other state is looking out for its own citizens interests, the citizens of the libertarian state will suffer endlessly, needlessly, and without recourse, as they are competing against the unified efforts of a nation state while their own state refuses to assist them.
Free trade cannot function under the libertarian model, and this is without getting into the tired "who builds the roads" bullshit.
Faggy ancap faggot detected
ok, so what about children
would they have rights, are they a limited property of their parents?
so, the government distributes land then
and I assume once given, they're given forever and the private companies decide whether to sell / buy, etc
>Pollution, however, is a case that is pretty clear. It would be aggression.
Yet another unfortunate outcome of globalized free trade. By sending jobs to poor nations with nonexistent environmental regulations we only allow them to perform the same tasks we would otherwise do ourselves in a less efficient and more dirty manner, causing more pollution which then harms us. Smog from China is so potent it crosses the ocean on trade winds to California, as one example.
By performing the manufacturing as locally as possible we are able to more directly see the effects of that manufacturing, and can, as a community, have a more honest and frank discussion as to how much pollution we are willing to accept as a community versus how inexpensive we want our goods to be, as well as cause demand to drive further research into more efficient and clean manufacturing methods.
so I could sex a baby, and then a chekup would be done to make sure I didn't harm the baby
There's no possible way to penetrate an infant without harming it, thought.
ok, a 3yo then
All sex isn't penetrative though.
You could do thigh rubbing or rub the underside of your shaft on her wet pussy.
Yep, user.
As long as you put the baby to sleep and don't completely destroy its rectum/etc. Basically if you rape it gently, then you're in the clear because you haven't harmed it.
But you will have to get this verified from a DRO (dispute resolution organization), which is a board of 4 or 5 Jews who decide if you broke the rules and go to future prison.
This "baby rape contingency" was addressed at length at PorcFest this past year.
Well, still too young for penetrate.
But I get your point; If the parents agree and the child accept it and does not opposes to it, I'm Ok.
I do not approve it in any way, but if all parts agree, I have no word here.
but the real question is
when do the children have full authority over themselves
My personal opinion is: Whenever the parents wants.
They know the best for him.
but there has to be an age
otherwise, shitty parents would never give freedom ot their kids and have them as slaves
If you take the idea of non-aggression seriously, then you have to grant that there is NO AGE at which a person's preferences shouldn't be respected. This results in outcomes that statists, "traditionalists", and squeamish normies don't want to entertain.
But if we are to believe in human freedom, true human freedom, then we must grant that ONLY an individual has autonomy over his/her body.
It follows, then, that a three-year-old can choose to have sex with a much older man if he clearly wants it. If the child is crawling up on the old man's lap, pawing at his penis, presenting his ass for the old man, etc. This is the child's WILL and PREFERENCE, and anyone who says it's "wrong" is really superstitious in my view.
Anyway, I'm hoping to work toward a libertarian/AnCap future where we don't shame people for perfectly natural (and freely chosen) sexual dalliances anymore. You statist Puritans disgust me.
but, aren't kids very gullible
thats the problem here
>slave
Like literally violating his freedom?
Like forced labour?
No.
I'm talking about moral authority and legal responsibility. I see no point why the state has to force parents to give his son freedom of acts and choice. It's totally a familiar/private issue.
The parents, just them are the real parents of the child, not the state.
wew I couldn't find a synonym for parents
remembur
no roads
is tangible emotional harm a violation of the nap?
by tangible I mean that it can be proven
Mexico proving they're a 3rd world country yet again.
Leaf with no arguments yet again.
Leaf pls
Come here with counterarguments or gtfo
Well, that's a nice question.
I have no answer, sorry.
But this really made me think, not in the meme sense, kek. I have to do some research on this.
Okay, I'm American now. Mexico proving they're a 3rd world country yet again.
It's not even worth my time to argue with someone who thinks CP is mutual consent.
I know you use onions and probably believe the crap they put out there.
Burger with no arguments yet again.
YOU'RE a burger with no arguments yet again.
m8 Don't try to evade the real issue, prove what I said is wrong with links and .pdf's.
You have to first post arguments to receive arguments.
The burden of arguments lies on you.
Leaf just killed the thread