Thoughts on the libertarian perspective on children,cp and age of consent

[Polyarmory]

Prove that I have once claimed, asserted, proven, or simply stated anything of the sort.

When I asked who would determine when and where the philosophy's rules were violated, and you said the philosophy itself would do that.

My "logic" is not an air-tight syllogism, but that's because we're talking about the views and decisions of human beings, which are not readily amenable to "logical" examination in the strict sense of the word. To put it more precisely, I think it's implausible for a majority of society to hold these views so strongly that they'll act on it, and even less plausible for everyone to have the same opinions and interpretations of each situation, and in the absence of a recognized authority, such disagreements would lead to splintering and weakening of the pro-"freedom" coalition.

In a free society, there are fewer mechanisms by which people surrender their personal responsibility to other actors, meaning that they can coast by in life without ever developing virtues. In a free society without those mechanisms, there is more pressure for the average "quality" of man to go up over time.

Personal responsibility is burdensome; that's why people are so quick to surrender it. The desire to be relieved of that burden will be manifested in the free market, which will happily relieve people of it. In fact, news organizations have the reputation of credibility precisely because it's less burdensome to just believe what you're told than it is to think about it; a free market would result in the exact same lugenpresse that already exists.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

When I asked who would determine when and where the philosophy's rules were violated, and you said the philosophy itself would do that.

Why are you so obstinate?
If you ask "who would determine when and where the rules of addition and multiplication are violated" and I say "the rules of arithmetic determine that", where exactly is the issue?

My "logic" is not an air-tight syllogism, but that's because we're talking about the views and decisions of human beings, which are not readily amenable to "logical" examination in the strict sense of the word.

I don't care what category you put your logic as, I want to see it.
There is a ton of logic behind human action - which is human views and human decisions put into practice.
Denying this logic is what opens the door to retarded ideas such as communism.

I'll give you a simple example.
Scarcity is a factor in this world, human beings are not able to exist in multiple places at the same time and do multiple physically conflicting things at the same time.
Thus, human beings always have to make a choice between better or worse alternatives.
Suppose Brad has a choice of going for a swim, watching TV, or making himself some fajitas. Brad goes to watch TV.
In that moment, Brad has demonstrated his subjective preference that he values watching TV more than going for a swim or making fajitas.
It's all super logical. Or am I making another "obvious logical mistake" here?

 

[Omori Boy]

The parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate the child, as this would infringe on the parent's rights. However, the parent does not have the right to murder or abuse the child physically.

If a parent does not give food or clothing (and I can make an argument for education) to a child to a degree, that is neglect. If they starve to death, or succumb to the elements, that is on the parents. Now in a just society, the government or another organization would provide that help. But that's what I hate about Libertarians, they are fine with people dying because of some retarded view. Even worse now that the Mises Caucus has taken over 95% of Libertarianism, I don't think there is a single positive thing I can say about Libertarians from my (leftist) view.


And they are definitely pedophiles.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

In the left's case, pretty much everything to do with LGBTQIAP+∞&BEYOND, and in the case of the right, it's the groypers.

What exactly constitutes "authoritarian-right" and "groyper"? I see the left accuse guys like Michael Knowles of being authoritarian, but he espouses nothing degenerate whatsoever. If you're counting fringe lunatics who are only ostensibly right-wing then that'd make more sense. Supposedly Nick Fuentes is pretty fucked up, but he's pretty much an outcast from what I can tell, whereas the left mainstream degeneracy as their presidential platform.

A monopoly is categorically impossible in a free society, as a monopoly is a government-granted privilege so that only company X may sell or manufacture good or service Y.

A monopoly can absolutely exist in a free society and doesn't need a government-granted privilege to do so. Most monopolies are de facto monopolies, not de jure.

If a parent does not give food or clothing (and I can make an argument for education) to a child to a degree, that is neglect. If they starve to death, or succumb to the elements, that is on the parents. Now in a just society, the government or another organization would provide that help. But that's what I hate about Libertarians, they are fine with people dying because of some retarded view. Even worse now that the Mises Caucus has taken over 95% of Libertarianism, I don't think there is a single positive thing I can say about Libertarians from my (leftist) view.


And they are definitely pedophiles.

Even the tranny knows libertarianism is retarded, based.

 

[The Ugly One]

Rothbard was a childless, Jewish professor who was mainly notable for publishing papers demonstrating wild ignorance about the topic he was writing about, since he subscribed to Mises' positivism, the belief that everything you needed to know about society and its organization could be deduced from first principles.

However, while Mises' "praxeology" is crank theory, he really wasn't a consistent positivist and had valuable insights on central banking, inflation, and the credit cycle. Rothbard, by contrast, is one of those people who can be either original or insightful, but never both.

Suppose Brad has a choice of going for a swim, watching TV, or making himself some fajitas. Brad goes to watch TV.

Sure, works when we are talking about the price of fajitas and pool memberships.

But suppose Abdul has a choice of going for a swim, watching TV, or gathering his brothers to become martyrs for Allah by waging glorious jihad at the Christmas fair.

That's why applying libertarian economic logic to everything is stupid.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

A monopoly can absolutely exist in a free society and doesn't need a government-granted privilege to do so. Most monopolies are de facto monopolies, not de jure.

Then go ahead and explain to me in what way a supposed "monopoly in a free society" is ackshually a bad thing
It is not controversial or disagreeable that, from the point of view of consumers, monopolies are always a bad thing
I posit that this is true only for monopolies as classically defined, namely government-granted privileges

Let us assume that there is no state and, somehow, you identify a company or an actor as being a monopoly
How is that monopolist bad or objectionable?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Then go ahead and explain to me in what way a supposed "monopoly in a free society" is ackshually a bad thing
It is not controversial or disagreeable that, from the point of view of consumers, monopolies are always a bad thing
I posit that this is true only for monopolies as classically defined, namely government-granted privileges

Let us assume that there is no state and, somehow, you identify a company or an actor as being a monopoly
How is that monopolist bad or objectionable?

Because it limits competition which results in a worse product and also hinders opportunities for entrepreneurs. It benefits nobody except the greedy few. I don't care whether or not that technically constitutes a violation of NAP, it's not good for society.

What's good or bad should determine what's allowed or not, not an arbitrary, limited scope principle.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Because it limits competition which results in a worse product and also hinders opportunities for entrepreneurs. It benefits nobody except the greedy few. I don't care whether or not that technically constitutes a violation of NAP, it's not good for society.

What the hell do you mean "it limits competition"?!
Come up with an example
I am positing that "monopoly" is defined by "government limits competition", this usually means using force against innocent people, therefore violating the NAP.
A free society has no government that limits competition.
Now you come along and say that "monopoly" is possible in a free society.

How?!
What must a company or actor do to qualify as a "monopoly" in the absence of government?
How do you identify it?

 

[The Ugly One]

This whole line of arguing is strange, since over and over, outside of hand-to-mouth savages, one of the very first monopolies organized by a society without a government is a government, something all libertarians agree is bad.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

What the hell do you mean "it limits competition"?!
Come up with an example

Are you serious? That's the primary argumentation when monopolies are broken up, dude.

I am positing that "monopoly" is defined by "government limits competition", this usually means using force against innocent people, therefore violating the NAP.

How many cases of the government limiting competition are there? Unless you argue over-regulation constitutes such a thing, which I'd agree is a problem, but isn't a direct limit of competition.

What must a company or actor do to qualify as a "monopoly" in the absence of government?
How do you identify it?

Government or lack thereof doesn't change the definition of monopoly:

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

Where does the word government exist there, or where is it implied?

 

[The Ugly One]

How many cases of the government limiting competition are there? Unless you argue over-regulation constitutes such a thing, which I'd agree is a problem, but isn't a direct limit of competition.

One example of a government-enforced monopoly is property rights. Land is mostly non-fungible, and when you have a particularly desirable spot, you can just sit on it, since the state defines its boundaries and enforces your sole right to exploit it.

 

[Buck Broken Chimp]

I also don't see how a child, whom could not consent to be created, would violate the rights of the parent by needing care.

The way it was explained to me is this: hypothetically, you take a picture of someone at the grocery store. Just a picture of them standing in line. They don’t know you took the picture, and they’re not being harmed by you having it or looking at it. How, then, are you aggressing against them? How would looking at that picture violate the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

You could, of course, argue that allowing CP to be legal would lead to people wanting to abduct children to produce it and make money, which would violate the NAP. However, that is a "pre-crime" argument, which no well-read libertarian would accept.

Once again, I reject all of this simply because I am not a libertarian.

One thing I will say about anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism more broadly is that they are guilty of massively oversimplifying complex issues, solely for the purpose of making their ideology appear as a more broadly applicable solution to more problems. This is evident from my earlier statement about how Rothbard wanted to create an ethical system based solely on property rights and from the above statement by The Ugly One regarding Mises' positivism.

We’re all familiar with the famous flagpole analogy or sometimes it’s a balcony; I prefer the balcony version. The story goes like this: you live in Ancapistan, in an apartment complex. Someone pushes you off your balcony, and as you’re falling, you manage to grab onto someone else’s balcony below. You start to pull yourself up, but then the owner of that apartment appears and demands that you let go and fall to your death, claiming you’re violating their property rights.

I think most people would agree that the small violation of their property rights involved in you pulling yourself up is a preferable alternative to you dying. However, this isn’t usually the way libertarians talk about property rights.

 

[Free the Pedos]

Nobody cares if some 25 year old guys bangs a 16 or 17 year old girl. A 19 year old guy shouldn't be arrested because he has sex with his 16 year old girl friend. The problem is the bitches get upset and they run off to their parents. The parents get the law involved. Then some 19 year old guy or whatever has to go around and introduce himself to his neighbors as a sex offender and the first thing that pops into their heads is "OMG he molested a child". In reality all he did was get pussy from his under age girlfriend. The parents that take legal action never stop and think what were we doing at that age. I bet the mother wasn't interested in guys her own age. I bet the father was screwing under age girls when he was younger

Nobody is being labeled a pedo for having sex with a reasonably aged partner thanks to Romeo and Juliet laws.
I challenge your assertion that no one cares if a 25 year old has sex with a 16 year old, because anyone who lives in reality knows that’s not a relationship of equals. It’s also how every episode of 16 & Pregnant starts.

 

[BradeRunna]

Nobody is being labeled a pedo for having sex with a reasonably aged partner thanks to Romeo and Juliet laws.
I challenge your assertion that no one cares if a 25 year old has sex with a 16 year old, because anyone who lives in reality knows that’s not a relationship of equals. It’s also how every episode of 16 & Pregnant starts.

Yeah, well tell that to the 18 year old that was arrested and put on a sex offender list because he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Are you serious? That's the primary argumentation when monopolies are broken up, dude.

"Monopolies being broken up" is literally arbitrary
In fact, most of the "monopolies" being broken up aren't even monopolies
For instance, there are alternatives to YouTube and Google Chrome

Also, I am deadly serious.

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

Where does the word government exist there, or where is it implied?

I have the exclusive possession or control of the supply of my own signature.
Is this bad for consumers? Is this a monopoly that needs to be broken up?
Assume I invent the Snarf-Buckle 3000 and have just finished manufacturing the first working example, I am in exclusive possession or control of the supply of all Snarf-Buckle 3000s in the observable universe.
Is this bad for consumers? Is this a monopoly that needs to be broken up?

 

[biglurker]

The way it was explained to me is this: hypothetically, you take a picture of someone at the grocery store. Just a picture of them standing in line. They don’t know you took the picture, and they’re not being harmed by you having it or looking at it. How, then, are you aggressing against them? How would looking at that picture violate the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

If you were to photograph someone naked without their consent, or someone with out the ability to consent, you are violating their rights. These are all bad arguments made by people to discredit lolbergs because they are literally too stupid to properly address their ideology.

 

[Free the Pedos]

Yeah, well tell that to the 18 year old that was arrested and put on a sex offender list because he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

Do you think an 18 year old and a 15 year old have the same brain power?

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Rothbards

I've read all of his books he had this issue in most of his life of sticking his foot in his mouth when he makes actually very good points his solutions are just mentally slow though libertarians will point out all the flaws in government systems and then those suggestions sound like something some would come up with after smoking at least 5 grams of meth

 

[Fount of BadSpeak]

The topic is too emotional for people for it to happen in the current climate in the West. I think there's a discussion to be had about age of consent/age of majority, and when somebody is officially an adult and can make their own decisions, but most people are fundamentally incapable of that. On one side are the pedo hysterics who have purity spiraled to the point that they will claim an adult woman with an adult man is pedophilia, or "creepy" or some nonsense, and on the other side are dudes who want to "have a conversation" so they can push things until they pretend that toddlers are capable of consenting to sex.

One group is motivated by virtue signaling, and the other by degenerate lust, and it makes it impossible to reasonably examine the topic. Doubly so because faggots and trannies absolutely are targeting children, right now, and quite publicly at that, so any rational discussion will understandably be assumed to further their predatory, demonic behavior, rather than examining the rationale as to why 17 years, 11 months, and 364 days is somehow any better or worse than 18.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The topic is too emotional for people for it to happen in the current climate in the West. I think there's a discussion to be had about age of consent/age of majority, and when somebody is officially an adult and can make their own decisions, but most people are fundamentally incapable of that. On one side are the pedo hysterics who have purity spiraled to the point that they will claim an adult woman with an adult man is pedophilia, or "creepy" or some nonsense, and on the other side are dudes who want to "have a conversation" so they can push things until they pretend that toddlers are capable of consenting to sex.

One group is motivated by virtue signaling, and the other by degenerate lust, and it makes it impossible to reasonably examine the topic. Doubly so because faggots and trannies absolutely are targeting children, right now, and quite publicly at that, so any rational discussion will understandably be assumed to further their predatory, demonic behavior, rather than examining the rationale as to why 17 years, 11 months, and 364 days is somehow any better or worse than 18.

Maybe so, but I just don't think we need to have the conversation to begin with. Even if there is technically a more nuanced angle to discuss it's just not necessary. The existing age of consent laws are sufficient.