ā¦āSomeone shot an RPG at us from the upper top window of the building across the road, requesting air support, overā¦ā ā¦āTheyāre setting up another RPG, overā¦ā ā¦āAh never mind, itās a minor. Weāll just hope he continues to miss usā
Not that Iām outright disagreeing with you, but in what way is he an idiot? He went to Rutgers and has been a pundit for a decade. He knows his shit when it comes to history as well.
Heās been essentially lying and scamming young gullible people for personal gain. He rants and supports a failed murderous ideology that he doesnāt even believe in while also being a hotspot for misinformation. His hypocrisy and lack of ethics make him a vile person.
Considering people under 18 children is exaggerating, 13 (or whenever you hit puberty) is about the age when people can get a job, get married, and fight in war if it werenāt for society brainwashing and labeling them as children, history is with me on this one.
In many countries minors (<18) can be in military service. In Israel and the US it is from 17 years. Why should exactly HAMAS in a population with about half children (persons under 18 years) make a difference?
I am not encouraging 13 year olds - or people of any age - to marry people outside their age group, I think thatās wrong under normal circumstances.
Edit: considering how fast people grow at the age of 13 their age group would beā¦ 14 Year olds max I guess?
Edit 2: duo to how the laws of a nation cover a very wide range of people, I think we should - for the purposes of law - go the safe route and give these rights at 16, if nations normalize 16 year olds having sex then allowing marriage should be a no brainer.
Also someone else mentioned alchohol so I have to elaborate, in my perfect country, alcohol would be banned in all its - non medical - forms regardless of age.
Edit 3 : I have no idea what would qualify as an āabnormal circumstanceā before anyone asks.
Edit 4 : I think porn should be banned in all its forms as well before anyone asks.
Edit 5 : I just googled IDF and libertarians and understood the meme, I just saw ā12 year olds are not childrenā and decided to share an opinion that I still hold.
Edit 6 : If you think about it in the context of restructuring society in the way I want it to be - which isnāt detailed in this comment - it sounds like a really good idea, but sadly society is corrupted and almost beyond repair.
So you agree with sexualising children as long as theyāre being paired together??? But only 16 at which point it should be ānormalisedā?? This whole āopinionā is disgusting.
I donāt expect many to agree, as my opinion is based on me not considering 13 and 14 Year olds children, what is really the difference between 16 - again, to be on the safe side - year olds and 18 year olds that give the latter that much more freedom?
Also I despise pre marriage sex if that adds anything to the conversation.
Adding that you want to bang children but only once a priest gives you ownership does not make it better no. Why on earth would you think it would? Gross.
Libertarians are like liberty to cherry pick lucrative bits of capitalism but same level of kick the ladder fuck you I got mine as regular Republicans.
Reminds me of the old joke āwhatās the difference between libertarians and republicans? Libertarians know the legal age of consent in all 50 statesā
This trope and this meme are lame and wrong. You people have a ridiculous idea about Libertarians that is nothing but plain prejudice.
I encourage anyone to prove me wrong by reading this Libertarian Party Platform document. Please point out anything about age of consent that is included in the Libertarian platform.
Additionally, prove me wrong by showing any example of a Libertarian party member stating support for adults abusing children in the manner alluded to in this prejudiced meme / trope.
EDIT: Downvotes donāt prove anything folks. I issued a challenge here - is nobody going to prove me wrong?
No I am offended by the prejudice behind the joke. Itās as bad as Trumptards and Qanon morons calling Democrats pedos.
Probably not a great idea to alienate the Independent type voters ahead of important elections as well. Democrats / Leftists / whatever you are should be courting the votes of those who are not-Republicans rather than driving more division.
Can you imagine being content in life and not caring what Internet nerds think about anything? No? Too bad for you. Thatās my reality.
Liberty is the most important value/concept to uphold in society and politics, therefore the Libertarian party is the best overall choice to support. Anyone who proposes to reduce liberty for the citizens of America automatically loses my support.
My ethics are clear and Iām proud of my voting record, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. Proudly supporting freedom should be applauded rather than mocked. So itās actually you who should be ashamed for attempting to suppress our freedom with your prejudiced garbage.
Absolute bullshit. You are making up your own prejudiced definition, even after I provided a link to the party platform that LITERALLY defines the political stance.
In other words, you canāt prove me wrong, so you move the goalposts.
I brought this up yesterday, and Iām not even a libertarian. I just have working eyes and those muscles between them run decent enough too. The ideology of libertarianism is so harmful to the corporations that run this country that it had to be astroturfed into the thought terminator cliche of ālibertarian = pedoā amongst an entire new generation. They destroyed Occupy WallSt in a different but similar way, by infiltrating all the influential OWS groups and making identity politics a core tenant (if youāre white, shut up because your opinions are worthless - thought terminator cliche so āin your face obviousā that theyāre promoting exactly what theyāre supposedly fighting against, but most were taken in anyway) - hereās a video of it in action from 2011.
The corporations that run this country love youth internet addiction. Thereās never been an easier time in history to spread or destroy a movement simply by spending money. You donāt even need a puppet. Itās the ultimate power.
The problem is libertarian groups themselves donāt stand up against anarchists joining them. I remember Gary Johnson getting booed at an official libertarian party gathering for saying he believes in driverās licences.
Also we already know how libertarianism ends, with robber barons controlling everything and people living in company towns. Itās a terrible political ideal.
American libertarians are rebranded anarcho-capitalists. Outside of the US, libertarians are largely associated with anarchism and other anti-authoritarian socialist ideologies. Any left-libertarian (the kind that would identify as just anarchist, not ancap) want absolutely nothing to do with Gary Johnson. Donāt put their shit show of an ideology on us lol
Left libertarians are still opposed to a strong central government which is a core issue with libertarianism.
In your ideal government, how would child porn or slavery be addressed? Letās assume thereās a community that formed because they think itās a good thing.
Shitty people exist and always will. It would be foolish of me to say otherwise. The shitty things they do may still happen in a stateless society. Child porn and slavery are being produced in societies with central government right now and very little is being done about it. In a stateless, moneyless society there would be no incentive for slave labor and I think that would largely/entirely disappear.
Child porn is obviously a lot more complex than that and there are several factors in play. First, anarchists and adjacent movement are staunch advocates of community engagement and vigilance. We want to radically change how society functions at the most base levels. If a child is being abused or exploited, it would ideally be easier to spot and act on. There hasnāt been a lot of research into what causes pedophilia or how to treat it in a way that would reduce/eliminate people acting on those urges. Research could be conducted into practical and holistic ways to treat their condition. Poverty is strongly linked to sexual violence of all kinds and the abolition of poverty would surely have a big part to play in the reduction of many things, including child sexual abuse. A society formed around the ideals of libertarian socialism present a real opportunity to end the cycle of abuse and that would certainly play a role in reducing child sexual exploitation.
Thereās plenty more to say about this and thereās obviously a lot of detail not covered in my brief comment but there are solutions to this baked into the ideological framework of anarchism and libertarian socialism. Iām not going to say we have all the answers, of course we donāt. But a society organized from the bottom up, with a focus on equality, safety and prosperity for all would not only be incentivised to solve these problems, but would be much quicker to act due to the lack of bureaucratic red tape
Child porn and slavery are being produced in societies with central government right now and very little is being done about it.
Thereās a difference between very little and nothing. In pretty much every libertarian model I know of, if a bunch of child porn producers band together to make the child porn production center, nothing would stop them. The socialist libertarian movement relies heavily on local community action, but that falls apart quickly when the community is, say, a cult.
Centralized gov doesnāt have 100% of a solution here, obviously, but it has a lot more power to act, criminalize, and/or force treatment.
In a stateless, moneyless society there would be no incentive for slave labor and I think that would largely/entirely disappear.
I disagree. So long as thereās a need for labor, slavery is going to be a possibility. Some jobs suck and in a moneyless society figuring out a way to incentivize someone to take that job will be tough.
Thereās more than a few examples of slavery in non-capitalist societies.
There hasnāt been a lot of research into what causes pedophilia or how to treat it in a way that would reduce/eliminate people acting on those urges.
Yes, there has. Just because thereās not sure fire solutions to it doesnāt mean itās not widely researched. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the best treatments for pedophilia is talk therapy? It doesnāt eliminate the urges but it lowers the risk of injuring a child. The problem is, like other mental illnesses, we donāt have cures only long term care to reduce harm.
Putting that aside, covering a philosophical flaw with āMaybe someday research will solve thisā is sort of like saying for capitalism āMaybe someday replicators will solve thisā.
Poverty is strongly linked to sexual violence of all kinds and the abolition of poverty would surely have a big part to play in the reduction of many things, including child sexual abuse. A society formed around the ideals of libertarian socialism present a real opportunity to end the cycle of abuse and that would certainly play a role in reducing child sexual exploitation.
A doesnāt follow B. Thereās no evidence that libertarian socialism would eliminate poverty. And, in fact, Iād argue that while it may solve poverty in some regions it would exacerbate it in others. One of the benefits of a global economy is that we can take advantages of the growing season in one world region vs another. Libertarian socialism imagines a world of isolated islands which is entirely counter productive general efficiencies with the production of goods.
Think about it this way, You can grow oranges in California. You cannot grow oranges in Alaska. In a world where libertarian socialism has taken hold, how would an Alaskan community survive and thrive? On the charity of other communities? What happens when one community sees that āHey, I could send my aid to alaska, but if I send it to Florida they have some delicious gator meat and maybe theyāll be willing to send me moreāā¦ opps, just reinvented capitalism.
One of the strengths (and weaknesses) of capitalism is the global marketplace it creates. Localizing with libertarianism presents the same problems faced by rural communities in the old west. If you canāt grow it, you do without it.
There are certainly benefits to libertarian socialism, it allows for very fast actions at the local level. But thereās a major downside in that without an overarching government getting every community to play nice with one another is basically impossible. In a lib social world you couldnāt stop the an-cap dingbats from creating their feudalistic hellscape.
This comes to another fundamental issue with libertariansim of all flavors. They all envision of world where everyone has the same ideology. That world doesnāt and will never exist.
Thereās a difference between very little and nothing. In pretty much every libertarian model I know of, if a bunch of child porn producers band together to make the child porn production center, nothing would stop them. The socialist libertarian movement relies heavily on local community action, but that falls apart quickly when the community is, say, a cult.
Acknowledging that I donāt have a crystal ball and canāt say with 100% certainty that an anarchist society would be able to eliminate child porn is a weak point? There is a difference between very little and nothing, but compared to the current state of affairs, very little is extremely better.
Jeffrey Epstein, I really feel that I shouldnt have to say more than just that name but I will. Child porn producers, along with human traffickers and other associated enterprises band together RIGHT NOW to do that. There are plenty of examples out there of the people in power being the very ones that consume or participate in these practices. There is no incentive for those with the most authority in our current societies to put an end to child porn, human trafficking, or the material conditions that are known to exacerbate these things. Centralized governments are the status quo and they fail miserably at combatting this time and again. Every day that child porn gets produced and humans are trafficked is more proof that centralized governments are incapable of handling this.
If there are people who consciously decided to eliminate systems of heirarchy and domination on a national scale, then there are enough of them to act on human trafficking and child pornography. A society built on libertarian ideals would detest the institution of child pornography and act to see itās elimination. Killing child pornographers that would fight to continue producing child pornography is not a controversial or complicated idea. Identify the group, get rid of it. If they wonāt stop voluntarily, kill them. Thatās direct action and community defense. Cornerstones of libertarian ideology. Iām not going to get into the cult bit, thatās an entirely different conversation.
I disagree. So long as thereās a need for labor, slavery is going to be a possibility. Some jobs suck and in a moneyless society figuring out a way to incentivize someone to take that job will be tough.
I disagree with that. I point you to David Graeberās Bullshit Jobs for most of my point. People want meaningful work. Itās treated as a privilege in and of itself in our current society. If you cut out all the bullshit and evenly distribute the labor necessary to keep society functioning among those who are willing and able to work, people will work a lot less than they are now and theyāll be happy to do it.
Thereās more than a few examples of slavery in non-capitalist societies.
Iām not advocating for just any non-caoitalist society. Iām advocating for libertarian socialism, anarchism more specifically. It is an ideological school of thought that is opposed to heirarchy and systems of domination. Why would a society that abolished the state on those grounds seek to dominate others through slavery? We have real world examples here. The CNT-FAI, EZLN, and Rojava didnāt/donāt use slave labor.
Yes, there has. Just because thereās not sure fire solutions to it doesnāt mean itās not widely researched. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the best treatments for pedophilia is talk therapy? It doesnāt eliminate the urges but it lowers the risk of injuring a child. The problem is, like other mental illnesses, we donāt have cures only long term care to reduce harm.
That was lazy writing on my part. Yes, there has been research done and some treatments have been developed. I was speaking more in a curative sense. Sure, pedophilia, like depression, schizophrenia, or ADHD may not be curable. But a radical change in environment and material conditions of those affected by pedophilia would go a long way to reducing the instances of people acting on those urges. Paired with further research and development of existing techniques would go even further and potentially eliminate pedophilia. Iām not a psychologist, therapist, etc. and I wonāt indulge in too much speculation about this because I donāt have the answers. But treating pedophilia like a public health risk would be a more useful framework than the one we are currently working under. This isnāt pedophile apologia either, people can and have done horrible things because of pedophilia, but our current approach is obviously insufficient.
Putting that aside, covering a philosophical flaw with āMaybe someday research will solve thisā is sort of like saying for capitalism āMaybe someday replicators will solve thisā.
I agree, but I donāt think our current model is working and I donāt have specific propositions to aid this. But I believe a libertarian society would be better equipped to handle it than our current system.
A doesnāt follow B. Thereās no evidence that libertarian socialism would eliminate poverty. And, in fact, Iād argue that while it may solve poverty in some regions it would exacerbate it in others. One of the benefits of a global economy is that we can take advantages of the growing season in one world region vs another. Libertarian socialism imagines a world of isolated islands which is entirely counter productive general efficiencies with the production of goods.
Mutual aid is another cornerstone of libertarian ideology. Utilizing planned economies, the internet and current logistical supply chains we could eliminate poverty and scarcity right now. Shifting the focus to making sure everyone is housed, fed and healthy over whatās the most profitable is all thatās needed. Libertarian socialism isnāt about isolation, it about building a self reliant community, sure. But thereās no reason to think people in a libertarian society wouldnāt help out or cooperate with their neighbors, be it down the road, or 1000 miles away. I point you to democratic confederalism and anarcho-syndicalism for ideas on large scale solutions to organization and logistics in libertarian society.
Think about it this way, You can grow oranges in California. You cannot grow oranges in Alaska. In a world where libertarian socialism has taken hold, how would an Alaskan community survive and thrive? On the charity of other communities? What happens when one community sees that āHey, I could send my aid to alaska, but if I send it to Florida they have some delicious gator meat and maybe theyāll be willing to send me moreāā¦ opps, just reinvented capitalism.
Youāre just rehashing the myth that bartering happens in lieu of currency. This has been debunked throughly from every angle and I wonāt waste my time going through something that is easily googled.
There are certainly benefits to libertarian socialism, it allows for very fast actions at the local level. But thereās a major downside in that without an overarching government getting every community to play nice with one another is basically impossible. In a lib social world you couldnāt stop the an-cap dingbats from creating their feudalistic hellscape.
Iām not saying everyone has to play nice together, or pretending that thatās what will happen. Sometimes people fight. But in a large area founded on the principles of libertarian socialism, why wouldnāt people want to cooperate? Isnāt that why they went through the whole trouble of doing a revolution for? In a libertarian socialist world, who would want to live in an ancap society? Free association and self determination are other cornerstones of the ideology. And who, seeing people trying to create and ancap hellscape, would sit idly by and allow them to dominate and oppress others? Not only is it wrong for that system to exist, itās a systemic threat to those around them.
This comes to another fundamental issue with libertariansim of all flavors. They all envision of world where everyone has the same ideology. That world doesnāt and will never exist.
Iām not envisioning a world where everyone has the same ideology. Libertarian socialists embrace the complexity and nuance of the human experience. They want a world where everyone is able to explore and exercise their personal freedoms to the greatest extent possible, so long as it doesnāt infringe on others abilities to do the same.
Killing child pornographers that would fight to continue producing child pornography is not a controversial or complicated idea. Identify the group, get rid of it. If they wonāt stop voluntarily, kill them. Thatās direct action and community defense. Cornerstones of libertarian ideology.
First, by what authority can a libertarian society kill another? Should there be some sort of trial? Or do you propose we just ride and kill anyone we deem undesirable? And whereās the line? Certainly itās pretty easy to argue that child porn producers and slavers might qualify but what of others? How do you deal with the majority falling into fascism and deciding āYou know what, the Catholics are a plague on society and we should eliminate them.ā
Iām not going to get into the cult bit, thatās an entirely different conversation.
You should, because cults are very real things that would thrive under most libertarian models. They also show a real big problem, with unchecked power itās pretty easy to seriously abuse societies members. Even when they technically have the freedom to leave. What happens if we remove all checks to cults? Do we decide to kill them too when the decide not to continue?
The decision to kill would an act of defense. Organized sex trafficking preys on members of a community. If you see it happen, stop it. If that means killing the perpetrator, youād need to justify it to your community, but you donāt have to kill them to stop it. If youāre going to go after the organization, then the course of action would be decided by those impacted by the organization, either by vote or by consensus, whichever applies to your community. And that decision making process goes for essentially anything within a community. Again, check out democratic confederalism and anarcho-syndicalism for in depth explanations.
What youāre describing in the second bit is genocide, not fascism. Fascism wouldnāt manifest in a bottom-up society. Itās a hierarchical system. By the time a society devolves into fascism, it would have ceased being a libertarian society long before. As for how to stop genocide, just donāt do it? Itās a form of dominance, same as other things weāve discussed. Stand with with oppressed, support their liberation and directly act to fight alongside them if youāre able to.
And Iām not that knowledgeable on cults, Iām sure someone out there has thought about it but thatās not me. Again, they exist now and weāre not doing anything about them. When the state steps in, theyāve gone disastrously. Jonestown comes to mind. Attempts to bring people out of them are by and large grassroots movements and non-profits. Both of those systems would thrive in a libertarian model and they would have a lot less red tape to contend with in order to liberate the cult members.
What checks to cults do we currently have? The LDS church, Jehovahās witnesses, and scientologists are absolutely massive cults that (with the exception of the Jehovahās witnesses) have infiltrated every level of government. Why hasnāt the state eliminated cults if theyāre so capable?
The decision to kill would an act of defense. Organized sex trafficking preys on members of a community. If you see it happen, stop it. If that means killing the perpetrator, youād need to justify it to your community, but you donāt have to kill them to stop it.
The argument you use there is the same argument used for genocide āWe had to defend ourselves from X who are corrupting our society and way of life!ā. The appeal to community only works if the community doesnāt hold prejudices against others.
But further, not how sex trafficking/child porn works. Itās not this secret cabal of kidnappers stealing babies in the night. Sex trafficking is almost always perpetrated by a trusted individual. Where this gets real bad is cults like the Oneida cult which pushed for free love of children. And this gets back to my original point, how does the community address a problem when the community IS the problem?
Both of those systems would thrive in a libertarian model and they would have a lot less red tape to contend with in order to liberate the cult members.
Red tape is not what stops people from addressing cults. Itās actually funny you mention Jonestown and mormons because both movements famously relocated their members to escape government control and interference. So you are saying that a libertarian model with even less government control would somehow end cults faster? I really suggest you read up on how cults function and move because quiet literally they are hoping and looking for libertarian areas to setup shop. Cults LOVE to pick and take over small remote locations precisely to escape the pesky government red tape and oversight. (see: Rajneeshpuram as an example).
What checks to cults do we currently have?
Not enough, but more than youād expect. You can leave a cult, sue it if they start tracking you. Cults that abuse children (such as the FLDS) can be dismantled and their leaders arrested. Cults that physically harm or imprison their members can be subjected to legal actions (which is why scientologists put their member prison in international waters). Certainly the current system isnāt perfect, slow evolution is the nature of centralized governments. However, that slow evolution also (usually) prevents overreaction.
Why hasnāt the state eliminated cults if theyāre so capable?
Itās not a question of elimination. You canāt eliminate cults anymore than you could eliminate religion itself. (and, in fact, itās likely easier to eliminate religion as there are non-religious cults). The question is one of harm reduction to citizens. One of checks and balances to make sure the state isnāt overreaching while simultaneously penalizing organizations that do. Itās a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. The issue is these are things only fixed by regulation. Take away all the regulation and you are basically just saying āWell, hopefully that cult will sort itself outā.
Jonestown is a really good example of why just leaving them alone is a bad idea. Jonestown happened because the leader of that movement became so paranoid that when a senator visited the community, that was enough to have him push for mass suicide.
Just for your future arguments, ruby ridge is a much better example of centralized government absolutely doing the wrong thing.
Iām honestly not that interested in making further arguments in defense of libertarian socialism. You seem to be more interested in pedantic nit picking about highly speculative models for an ideal society. A lot of this is relying on the idea that society is structured in a similar way, that material conditions that lead to the formation of these things will exist in their current form and that people inherently have ill intentions. You think people will more or less be the same post revolution, or even decades down the line.
Iām not sure what ideology you personally hold, but Iād encourage you to ask the same questions and turn that critical lens inward. You wonāt like the answers. You may even find some of those base deficiencies indefensible. You have seemingly thought about libertarian socialism a fair bit, but youāre clearly lacking in theory and the ability to think within the framework. Your criticism falls flat because of that. If youād like all the theory and no filler without reading a bunch of books Iāll link Anarkās A Modern Anarchism series on YouTube. Itās a synthesis of many libertarian schoolsof thought into an ideological framework that takes into account many developments over the decade. Youāre so convinced that you know whatās right for the world, why not hear the other sides reasoning?
Fwiw I donāt think youāre a dick or anything, perhaps a little frustrating but thatās not necessarily a bad thing. Iāve enjoyed this but I just donāt have the energy for it anymore. I hope you have a good rest of your day and that you give those videos a listen, itās.good stuff. If you donāt mind me asking, where are you coming from and do you have any suggestions for theory that would allow me to better understand where youāre coming from? Books, videos, podcasts, whatever. Iām always looking to better understand other peopleās world view
Iām a libertarian and Iām not opposed to a strong central government. I think government only works when it has the power to militarily dominate any competing force.
I just think government should be simple, to minimize the number of ways it can break down and end up becoming a tool of the powerful to oppress the weak.
We currently have a set of laws thatās like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.
Thatās a lot of complexity for malicious code to hide in. A lot of places for petty tyrants to set up shop and spend their life hurting little people under a government seal of authority.
We currently have a set of laws thatās like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.
Turns out, life is complex. Itās either this or you end up having ārules for me but not for theeā.
But to this point, what would you have your central government in charge of? Iām certainly for axing parts of the central gov and expanding others (For example, Iād nationalize healthcare and drug production and abolish ICE and the DEA). That is, Iād push for a government more concerned with taking care of citizens and less concerned with penalizing inconsequential things like not being born here.
The reason for the miles long laws is because when you donāt have them, a capitalist society will work around them. A recent behind the bastards episode on the hawks nest tunnel ( podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ā¦/id1373812661?i=10ā¦ ) is a perfect example of how these sorts of regulations get created and grow.
Whatās wrong with anarchists? Iāve never seen anarchists defending pedophilia. Anarchism doesnāt mean you just freely cause harm to others; quite the contrary.
Oh most anarchists I know are nice people, they just completely fail to understand that not everyone else is. They donāt want to oppress, steal, rape, or murder, and so systems to prevent those things arenāt necessary.
You misunderstand when you say āsystems to prevent those things arenāt necessary.ā These things are absolutely addressed by anarchists. Weāre not foolish enough to rely on the goodness of human nature to carry us through. There is no state, there are no hierarchies, but people causing harm absolutely can experience consequences under anarchism. Diffuse sanctions, for example. At worst, they can be removed from the community or group entirely.
But more than anything else, itās important to recognize that mutual aid is just as much a part of human nature as things like rape and murder, and the rate at which rape and murder occur are greatly exacerbated by hierarchies. For example, things like masculinity have to go, and we need to stop putting people in positions of power over others and creating such hierarchies.
And this brings me back to the topic at hand. I cannot conceive of an anarchist who would in any way approve of sexually abusing someone young enough to be considered a minor. Above all, anarchists aim to remove hierarchies, and having a grown adult in a relationship with a young teenager ā this would create such a power differential that I canāt imagine any anarchist approving of it or hand-waving it away. The anarchists I know very strongly disapprove of such a thing.
The people we colloquially call ālibertariansā(1) on the other hand still seem to support the state as well as hierarchies such as those created under capitalism. In fact, most self-described libertarians I know want to do nothing to address the things you mentioned, as well as nothing to address other harmful things such as the social and systemic discrimination against groups like LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others.
(1)yes, a bit of a misnomer since it would make more sense to call anarchists ālibertarians,ā though no one does, unless we append it with ālibertarian left,ā though even this seems like a silly term for anarchism
Perhaps some facets of libertarianism are really fucked up?
Slavery and child porn are debated by libertarians because the only way to address both is centralized government. However, since most (though not all) libertarians are opposed to any central government, they end up justifying with āwell if you want to sell yourself as a slave, why should anyone stop you?ā.
But yeah, obviously itās us that are aware of this who are the fucked up ones.
āassassinationā is the crime against humanity, although pretty sure itās āonly justā a war crime. Although when not carried out by a govt agent, since weāre talking a hypothetical libertarian society and solution, IDK if 8t can be called that.
Those mentions are of systemic state-run murder. That doesnāt make every murder a crime against humanity, especially vigilante justice against literal slavers.
Iām curious what the downvotes are forā¦ Are they saying thereās no helping them or even the thought of helping them is bad?
Of literally all the kinds of people in the world with all the kinds of mental issues they could have, Iāve never seen more vicious hatred of a group than pedophiles. Not to defend them, but it could be as simple as having a sexual attraction but literally never acting on it, yet still I see ākill them, drag them by their genitals, let dogs eat them alive and pee on themā etcā¦ that kind of absolute dehumanizing hatred. Even the sociopaths that are literally destroying the world get by with less violent hatred.
Again, not defending pedophiles, I just think that if itās an issue of mental help then they should be helped, not hunted.
The implication of sexual attraction being a mental health issue is fraught.
Before you let someone drag you down that slope itās important include consent. Someone underage canāt consent to you dipping your balls in their mouth. Same for peanut butter and your pet.
Folks like to conflate pedo and by extension homo and trans as a mental health issue. Then they try to make an argument about how a trans teen canāt consent to gender care because theyāre underage. As if fucking a kid is the same as a kid saying they need help.
The āpedo and mental healthā comment smells like this kind of bait. It doesnāt look exactly like a Nazi, but it kinda smells like one.
I definitely understand what youāre saying, but there have to be people who find children attractive but donāt act on it so consent isnāt really the issue there, but we still have the problem of how society sees those people and the possibility of the mental anguish those people must feel. I canāt imagine what it must feel like to be āthe worst human trash in the history of the worldā while also not behaving in that way. :(
I guess itās more of a āthemā problem as they arenāt acting on their attractions, maybe society shouldnāt be involved in that one? I donāt knowā¦ It just bothers me when I see that kind of hatred when thereās no way 100% of pedophiles actually act on their attractions.
No definitely not shit posting lol sorry if it seemed that way.
I didnāt want to really reveal anything, but this is a personal thing as I know someone who is in this situation. And no Iām not reporting them, thatās not only a literal death sentence for them but Iāve known this person long enough to know theyād never hurt anyone. They opened up about seeing pictures when we were drunk a long time ago and so it bothers me when I see the hatred because I think of my friend so Iām just getting a feel for what people think.
Then this sounds like an actual mental health thing and not a dog whistle. I donāt actually have any answers. Just years of experience reading useless internet comments.
Seek a professional if you can. I donāt even know if youāre in a nation where just looking for help wouldnāt get you or your friend killed. Good luck.
Thanks! Thatās kind of how I feel too, itās a really difficult topic because of what was mentioned before as far as connecting mental health to attraction, but there definitely seems to be some forms of attraction that are problematic.
From what I remember at the time, I believe he said he canāt go get help because they have a duty to report him if he were to bring it up. Anyway, thanks for the time!
Instead of reasoning that X is true or false based on evidence that itās true or false, one reasons that X must be false because if it were true it might encourage thinking Y, where Y is unacceptable.
Literally the definition of ideologically-motivated reasoning.
I like that weāre getting into debate and philosophy in a shitpost.
Thereās this idea that valuable discourse only belongs at universities and in lofty state office. I say itās here in the shit that weāre shaping tomorrowās culture.
Iām classifing pedophilia as a mental illness yes but transexuality and homosexuality is of course not. When I stated pedophillia I meant the sole attraction to children alone not actions thatās immoral and a crime. I want pedophiles to be able to address this early on and be able to seek treatment.
Also, what does my comment have to do with nazism at all? I am lib-left. āSmells like oneā? For suggesting pedophiles should get mental help? Forgive me but is this a serious accusation or a joke that went past my head entirely?
Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong, given the lack of liberty that slaves have. And the fact you can use a government to ensure nobody gets enslaved demonstrates the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
The maximum amount of personal liberty does not come from zero government. It comes from having enough government to prevent people from enslaving other people.
Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong
Libertarians are VERY individualistic (shocker) which means no 2 libertarians define libertarianism the same way.
HOWEVER, you literally just have to search for āslavery libertarianā in the google box to find all sorts of fairly high profile libertarians arguing about how slavery can actually be a good thing that we should allow.
You didnāt read the article you linked. In it Walter Block states that slavery violates the non-aggression-principle and is not permissible under libertarianism.
Let us now double down. Previously (Block 2005; 2013) wrote that slavery, in the absence of violence, compulsion, NAP violation was ānot so bad.ā That was a poor choice of words. It was an inaccurate understatement. The truth of the matter is that under these conditions āslaveryā would be a positive good. There, I said it. I will say it again: āSlaveryā would be a positive good, under these conditions. Make of that what you will, New York Times and other enemies of freedom and logic. But note that when I assert that āslaveryā would be a benefit, two things occurred. First, I placed quote marks (āā) around the word āslaveryā and second I mentioned that under these conditions it would be beneficial. I did not say, and I entirely reject the notion that slavery as actually practiced was anything other than a disgrace, a stark horrid evil. It is my view that the movies āDjango Unchained,ā āTwelve Years a Slave,ā and the television series āRootsā are roughly accurate depictions of this monstrous practice
The only slavery I can think of without compulsion would be some kind of BDSM relationship, so heās technically correct itās no problem in that scenario.
Aside from any kind of roleplay, slavery involves compulsion. Slavery without compulsion is like an apple without fruit.
This is not at all a debate in libertarianism. Libertarians recognize the role of a limited small government to protect individual rights. Like please pull up one example of this debate going on in a libertarian space.
Libertarians donāt believe murder should be legal and crazy shit like that. Libertarians believe in a guaranteed freedoms like freedom of speech, economic liberalism and are often social progressives who believe in gay marriage and drug legalization.
The bill of rights was brought to you by libertarians.
I mean, if libertarians didnāt openly discuss the age of consent and the differences between pedophilia and ephebephilia, maybe people wouldnāt think theyāre all a bunch of pedos.
Any legislator can introduce a bill, so āblueā and āredā donāt really indicate much. You have to look at who is sponsoring the bill. In Minnesota, that is Republicans and itās going nowhere. In New Jersey, thatās Democrats and it got into law.
Youāre replying to a hexbear user. When they use the label āLiberalsā it includes the folks you immediately think of but it also includes conservatives., as in economic liberalism.
Yes theyāre all liberals. Thatās what I said. The guy was like āwhere blue states I thought you said libralā and so I had to clarify that in this context the word applies to both not just blue.
Youāre right, ultimately both sects are fundamentally rooted in liberal ideology. I just wanted to clarify that I was talking about the blue liberals specifically in my reply.
This happens in red and blue states. Additionally, conservative ideology is based in liberalism, with added brushes with fascism as compared to blue states.
Only one? Iām stuck between the US court system and Mormons looking for a wife but I guess Republican Congressmenās Dating Pool is also a possibility.
Libertarians are morons in their own right but the core philosophy of libertarianism (in the political compass sense) is the opposite of authoritarianism, which is where fascism stems from. A group that doesnāt want centralized government canāt also want a centralized government that enforces sociopolitical ideology.
The more you throw around the word āfascistā to mean āanything right of me that I donāt likeā the more the word loses meaning and becomes like the ācommunistā rallying cry of the boomers.
True, but are they actual libertarians, then? Wouldnāt they just be conservatives? You can call yourself whatever you want, actions are what define you.