Libertarian here

Try and debate me, if you dare.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

...

LibCap here. Please don't tell me you're an AnCap.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRT

The popular vote doesn't count

>digits
nice

Touche

nicer

How in the fuck

not an argument

Without the state, who will build roads

>I post a question
>OP finally posts response to entire thread
>solidifies faggotry

Didn't they fight a war against England?

still no arguments.

you guys suck at this.

How can nation states even exist with completely open borders, which libertarians approve of? Do you really think some Cyberpunk 2077 world run by Mega corporations is better for the world?

Autism.
You cannot separate the part from the whole.

Stop making these threads. Find something better to do, like fart in your didgeridoo.
Inb4 "not an argument"

It's still retarded but way better.

not an argument

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You have answered to everything with "not an argument".

Saying "not an argument" is not an argument. Faggot.

Would you fight to end slavery?

Only way to get libertarianism is to either go back before universal suffrage, or possibly (not sure if this would work) push forward your morality, punishing those who disagree with it in some effective way (like the left does).

You're never going to merely convince a majority of the population to favor things that aren't in their interest.

you are a faggot 🤡

can I join?

not an argument

LOL statists are so easy to debate

Voluntarism is morally consistent. Libertarianism is for hypocrites.

not exactly an argument, friend. Care to try again?

>MUH MORAL CONSISTENCY!!!!! :DDDDD
that's not how it works, you autist

Not an argument!

not how what works? arguments?

Not an argument.

wow someone is impressionable

Not an argument.

What makes you think that killing is allowed for any kind of agression?

If someone throws a tomato on you, you can't just kill the other person.

It has to be proportional to the agression.

Who will decide if it was proportional or not? A private court.

you're mistaken. Libertarianism is the act of maximizing people's rights regardless and doing what has to be done. It's the act of not giving a single fuck about your citizens and the media

Not an argument

Yes, it is. Theft doesn't change if someone says they're from the government, in voluntarism; it is always immoral, along with all other forms of violence.

If you claim to support freedom, yet are okay with the government demanding taxes and compliance to their will on certain issues, you're a hypocrite and a cuck.

Well, it doesn't work. Someone's gotta force someone else to pay for crimes.

You are too disconnected from humanity, friend. You probably think "they're all idiots". No, you're the idiot.

Do I even have to say it? ffs these statist "arguments" are some of the weakest ever

And the only way to do that is to demand money from persons unrelated with the threat of violence levied for noncompliance, right? So you can fund it.

You can level the criticism of impracticality, but that doesn't change what I've said. Voluntarism is the ONLY morally consistent political ideology. To pursue any other one requires hypocrisy.

It would depend whether I was owning or slaving.

...

Libertarianiam has governed no one. Name a libertarian country.

Are the strawhats pirates the most libertarian pirates on the grandline?

how is that an argument?

not an argument.

This.

Do you think I could get into One Piece? Is it mature with complex and consistent characters? I've never watched an anime before but I feel like something is... missing from my life

Not an anime.

Who cares about a "morally consistent ideology" that doesn't work?

Moral people, obviously :^)

How can you define 'working' ideologies without morality? How can a goal be meaningful without morals?

ITT: no arguments

If it doesn't work, then you're never going to experience that "morality" and you're going to have to strive instead for the most moral thing that does work, or else you have nothing.

Private owned road intersects with federal road.
What should you do?

I'm arguing that no country has successfully implemented libertarianism. Either you agree with this or argue against it. I'm guessing you're stumped, thus you will answer that this is not an argument.

Not an ampersand.

shitty bait, please die.

Your hidden assumption of universalism for all definable legal persons is what dooms your moral theory. This is why the kind of consistency you're advocating is meaningless.
Truth is: morality is not reducible to a set of logical principles. You can try to do it but you will always create aberrations. Hence, they won't work.

What is morally inconsistent with believing that the government provides the service of legal and physical protection in exchange for tax money? A monopoly of force in the form of a state is by FAR the best way to deliver justice. The alternative is extremely inefficient economically and lends itself, historically, to wild west scenarios and vigilante justice.

You have to accept one of the two evils, and government, properly constrained by a written constitution, is the lesser evil.

What is your definition of argument?

What is your definition of an argument?

They can say that you never agreed to pay for that service.

I was just joking. Carry on.

You seem to be confused, friend.

Theft, assault, and unwarranted detention are all immoral. To say "you have to be immoral to experience morality" is probably the dumbest thing I've read, even on Sup Forums.

Regardless, if we started with only well-bred whites and north Asians, the average intelligence might be high enough to sustain voluntarism.

We fundamentally disagree. There's nothing more to say.

It's morally inconsistent because it requires theft and force to fund the government... to punish other people who use theft and force.

Are you seriously going to """"argue"""" that a constitution in any way restrained the government? Look where the fuck we're at.

The issue is that your definition of "moral" presupposes the possibility that actions that lead a society to destroy itself are moral. If the ultimate goal of every being is to sustain its existence and, when it comes to humans, you cannot separate the part from the whole or the part dies, you're not doing a great job, are you?

If you have a strong government, they can prevent a lot of immoral things. If you refuse to have any government in order to be absolutely "moral" by your standard, far more immoral things will happen than merely the imposition of government.

Libertarians are autists.

how original... *sighs*

something about an argument?

They should be free to leave. We simply can not have more than one government occupying the same stretch of land, and in the USA, we have decided that that government is the US government.

you are like a little baby
watch this

On which point, exactly? This is very unsatisfying lol

Niggers ruin everything

How can you justify forcing anyone to leave their own property for your government?

IF you start from the premise that "theft is wrong under ANY circumstances" and "blah is wrong under ANY circumstances", then yes. However, we have been presenting the case that in this case, what can technically be construed as "theft" and "murder" and "extortion" are actually good things for society and individuals.

not an A.

How do you reconcile the issue with libertarian tolerance of illiberalism and authoritarianism? Basically, if you reject all forms of force, aggression or violence, you have no tools against people who do use force, aggression or violence.

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

/thread

>If you have a strong government, they can prevent a lot of immoral things.

Literally every government to ever exist has become corrupt and failed.

>If you refuse to have any government in order to be absolutely "moral" by your standard, far more immoral things will happen than merely the imposition of government.
There is literally nothing supporting this statement other your own assumptions. I do agree that voluntarism would require a very high average intelligence to sustain, but there's no reason to assume this would lead to MORE immorality.

>However, we have been presenting the case that in this case, what can technically be construed as "theft" and "murder" and "extortion" are actually good things for society and individuals.
With no evidence even to your own hypocritical definition. Regardless, any net 'benefit' from those things doesn't matter if it's at the cost of morality. It's like saying "Well, I got offered a million dollars to kill this guy. I mean yeah, killing is horrible, but it was better for me and it stimulated the economy."

I know, it is not in accordance with your autistic views.

Why would they want to leave? There is a very small percentage of the population that is autistic about categorical imperatives like you who would be willing to uproot themselves from their community and move to a different country just because I force them to pay 10% of their incomes every year in exchange for safety and security and a legal system and a fire department and so on.

>Literally every government to ever exist has become corrupt and failed.
An imperfect government can prevent other, far more evil governments from forming.

>There is literally nothing supporting this statement other your own assumptions. I do agree that voluntarism would require a very high average intelligence to sustain, but there's no reason to assume this would lead to MORE immorality.
It is not rational to suggest that it is in someone's interest to always allow others to do their thing. If you have no punishments, it is perfectly rational to create a gang and take the fruits of someone else's hard work.

I'm for libertarianism, I just don't think you can pass it off as perfectly moral. (unless you consider the best workable option "perfectly moral).

Honest question. In a libertarian utopia, would I be able to own, create, and distribute child pornography? Do I own my children? May I sell them or buy new ones? At what age does an individual stop being my property and do they have to pay me for their upbringing?

>Pinochet

>If you have no punishments,
Wait, you thought voluntarism didn't punish the unwarranted use of force?

Does a right to associate imply a right to disassociate? (E.g. discriminate)

If libertarian is someone who is passive on how the state respects the autonomy of the individual then how does the party confront issues where that autonomy indirectly effects other's autonomy?

How?

I'm not trying to argue, i'm just asking what would happen if a federal road intersects with a private road on private land. The federal road is a highway connecting all the country fyi.

Are you seriously so brainwashed that you think people can ONLY be punished by the state? Like, you literally can't conceive of privatized punishments?

This is exactly like the "muh roads" and "muh fire department" memes, holy shit.

ha. violence get results. that is fact. that will always be a fact. trying to pretend you can live happily forever without violence is retarded. You are claiming Libertarian because you want to seem """""MORALLY SUPERIOR""""". What you're doing is shitting on those that allow you to live comfortably by condemning their hard work in the military.

Fuck you you pacifist cuck.

Explain how it works to this uncultured peasant.

Butthurt veteran who unironically thinks he's "defending the country" detected.

Fuck off, John.

>With no evidence even
Oh please. Do you honestly want me to copy and paste?
>A monopoly of force in the form of a state is by FAR the best way to deliver justice. The alternative is extremely inefficient economically and lends itself, historically, to wild west scenarios and vigilante justice.

>You haven't provided any evidence
Neither of us have posted any links m8.

>Regardless, any net 'benefit' from those things doesn't matter if it's at the cost of morality.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Humans shouldn't suffer just to satisfy "muh morality!"

not an argument

>Have fought no wars
>Flag in picture is literally from their first war

Wtf, my id changed.

>ITT

Would imposing borders and tariffs count as violating the NAP?

You aren't really saying anything there. Do you or do you not think you can live comfortably without military power?

So you mean to say that the ultimate goal is the prevention of suffering -- or rather, what you perceive to be suffering, since freedom is apparently not given a real thought in your eyes.

Prevention of the kind of suffering you're talking about requires MORE control of the populace. Progressively more, in fact. You literally want to create a hugbox of boring, unfulfilled, but safe people.

not an argument

well next time try to make an argument ok?

arguments, anyone?

...

I consider myself a moderate libertarian, which necessarily means I must reject the NAP. I believe limited, accountable government is ideal, but there must be enough government to enforce the three basic responsibilities of government.

One of these is to maintain international security.

That libertarianism is permissive of authoritarianism is every the argument, even Molyneux claimed that left wing academic libertarianism is extremely permissive of authoritarianism.

Again, if you reject all aggression even in the face of aggression, you necessarily become permissive of aggression through the result of inaction. If it's your responsibility to limit aggression, you must be willing to use a reasonable, rational level of aggression. If you can't find this moderate middle point, you should not be put in a position of responsibility.

This thread makes me mad and I don't know why