/liberty/ - Liberty

>>16146

I'm not an Ancrap. I'm a classical liberal who wants a monarchy to uphold a liberal constitution and veto democratic legislation, so that makes me pretty authoritarian for these parts. I'm still capitalist scum though.

>are seatbelt/helmet laws authoritarian?

All laws are authoritarian but some are necessary and some aren't.

Drink driving laws are necessary, seatbelt ones aren't, and helmet ones aren't. But really, all these sort of things are a subjective thing because it's really a trade off between how much death due to stupidity you are willing to accept versus how much liberty. We libertarians just happen to be willing to let people endanger themselves to a greater degree than in politics unconcerned with liberty.

>What about age restrictions on cigarettes and alcohol?

Moreso that there should be an age of adulthood, and it's kind of abitrary where you put it. I'd say 16, but then I live in a country where it's already that.

The difference is that I wouldn't prosecute parents for letting their kids drink and smoke. I would only prosecute them if they let their kids overdose and need hospitalization or die.

Kids in Spain get wine young and they turn out okay. It's just that you need to limit the intake and take responsibility for your kids like with anything.

Another thing though, with cigarettes they spread poison directly at other people, so I think that people who don't put their cigarettes out when asked to by other citizens or cops should be fined.

Seatbelt/helmet laws are authoritarian.

That being said, if you don't require your passenger to wear one, and you get into an accident killing them, you are liable because the harm was preventable.

Cigarettes are disgusting and will hopefully be replaced almost completely soon, but yes, a parent should be able to judge if smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol is right for their kid, not the state. Most liquor stores would probably choose not to sell to kids below a certain threshold anyways, and parents would be liable still if their child got alcohol poisoning in their presence.

In Colorado, it's legal to serve alcohol to a minor (in a private establishment) so long as their parent permits it. Authoritarian as fuck, but far less authoritarian than some states.

>>16149

Punish people for harming under the influence, not for driving under the influence.

I'm perfectly fine driving home after a few beers (I just stay off the main roads), govt. Doesn't think so though.

>>16161

>That being said, if you don't require your passenger to wear one, and you get into an accident killing them, you are liable because the harm was preventable.

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. How am I liable for other people's mistakes? Helmet and seatbelt laws are completely fucking immoral no matter how you slice the fucking thing.

>>16162

Well, the cops are only going to really pull you over if you are weaving all over the road, so if you are physically capable of driving while drunk, you should be able to avoid it most of the time.

>>16163

>That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. How am I liable if I voluntarily let someone into my vehicle and don't have them use the safety features built into my vehicle I personally own and invited them into?

>>16183

He made the choice to get into my vehicle, it's his responsibility whether or not he uses a seatbelt. You are halfway to a fucking socialist right now.

>>16188

Nah, pretty sure you're just trying to put the blame on everyone else like a child, brah. Being a responsible adult is not "fucking socialism" (if anything, it's pretty much the polar opposite).

>>16189

>Nah, pretty sure you're just trying to put the blame on everyone else like a child,

How the fuck is it not childlike to expect the driver to buckle in the passengers? Are you my stepkid?

>freedom ain't free bubba

>the tree of liberty gotta be littered with the blodd of passengers who decide not to wear seatbelts

>>16198

true

>>16198

Would you look at that, another leftist faggot that can't stand the thought of growing up and being responsible for his own ass.

>>16149

>liberal

>monarchy

You are not a bright one, are you?

>>16233

Point being, if you can't be a responsible enough adult to tell someone to put on their fucking seat belt in the car you own, then you are responsible for their death or injury when you get into an accident. Businesses and Individuals play by the same rules in a court of law.

>>16183

Yes.

>>16188

>You are halfway to a fucking socialist right now.

Sadly, he is not.

>>16233

>Be in court

There's your problem.

Responsibility is a spook, anyway.

>>16222

Liberal democracy is only a small part of liberalism. Liberalism came first and only limited powers for the monarch. For most of the 19th Century, the heyday of classical liberalism, franchise was limited.

For the record, under my system there would be full franchise. The only power the monarch has is to veto legislation to make sure it doesn't go against the constitution. The monarch would not be able to propose legislation. Democratic legislation, monarchic check and balance.

>>16233

But how would you prove that someone did or didn't tell someone to put a seatbelt on?

It seems like an unenforceable law even under the current system. Your hypothetical would never happen.

>>16246

Yeah, limit the powers to nothing. Liberalism and equality are inseparable, which means you cannot be a liberal and support a monarch.

>>16233

>>16243

>ancap

>having a gf

10/10 would kek again

>>16261

N-no u

>>16260

Historically, that's not true. Liberalism comes in sectors. Political liberalism is a development of liberalism, but is not necessary to have a liberal society per say. It is entirely possible to have a liberal dictator.

Anyway, in the society I outlined there is democracy, so the point is moot.

>>16146

Of course they are. If someone wants to stick straight poiosn in their veins, I would not stop them, so how could I about helmets or seatbelts?

Honestly, this is a rather stupid question, isn't it?

>>16161

No I'm not, you fuck. They're the dumbass who didn't put their seatbelt on. If I got into a wreck, and it was my fault, they could theoretically hold me for that, but not the seatbelt. That's retarded.

>>16233

She took the risk, when she decided not to put on her seat belt. It isn't my responsibility to force people to take precautions.

ghost post.

>>16284

>just like they could hold a company liable if an electrician didn't use proper grounding because he "didn't feel like it."

That's an entirely different lot, no, you are a moron. I guess I did need to know, at least.

Electrician failed to do a proper job. Now, if we assume the company knew about this shit, when they had said electrician install his crap, then they would be liable. Otherwise it is the electrician's fault.

Regardless, though, neither of those have anything to do with what we're talking about, you double nigger. A better example would be if that electrician were to stupidly grab a live wire while fixing some shit for your company. Now, you would, idiotically, say that the company would be liable, for not telling the electrician to put on some gloves. But, obviously, that's fucking retarded. If the guy's going to be an idiot, that's his business. You hired him to install shit, and that's it. How he fucks himself up while he does it is none of your concern.

>It is when you're the driver.

No it isn't.

>Y'all seem to be unable to tell the difference between voluntarily allowing someone to be an idiot, and allowing idiocy on your property with your consent resulting in injury.

Some dumbass jumps off my roof, because after inviting him over, he decided to climb up there, it ain't my fault. Now if he slipped due to shit roof, he could blame me, but otherwise, he ain't able to, and it would never hold up in any courtroom in this country, and I doubt it would anywhere else.

>In legal terms, the act of allowing her to ride in your vehicle without a seatbelt would make you legally liable because you gave her implied consent to not take proper common sense safety precautions.

Again, I am not responsible for her. I do not have to give her consent for any of her actions, because she is not a minor, and I am not her parent.

Shit, if I give someone my gun, and he blows off his foot, even then it isn't my fault, as he's the one who stupidly shot his own foot. Unless there's some kind of issue with the pistol that resulted in such, of course.

> legally liable when they intentionally create an unsafe work environment.

Again, you stupidly assume a connection between two entirely unrelated items.

If I being a dumbass, while working at a company, decide to stick a knife into one of their electrical sockets because nobody told me not to, I cannot sue that company for liability.

>You intentionally allowed her to be murdered by negligence.

You don't even know what murder means. Good god, man, no wonder you are so full of shit, you can't even figure out basic words. Open up a dictionary, you little shit.

>>16284

So what you're saying is that paternalism becomes a thing as soon as someone enters your property. Someone commits suicide in your apartment? Well, you better fucking wrestle the gun out of his hand or YOU have murdered him!

What you're saying MIGHT be true according to whatever funny jurisdiction you're in, but it's far from a universal legal principle, and it certainly doesn't sit well with anarchocapitalist principles. From these principles, it follows that if you personally kill someone, but with their consent, it's not murder. So directly killing someone is awwright, but allowing someone through inaction to come to harm is murder? You have to be fucking kidding me!

It's different when the person you're allowing to come to harm has no idea what he's doing. If that happens on your property, then yes, you are liable, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

>>16146

Seatbelt and helmet laws are authoritarian because the only harm that comes from not wearing them is to the individual. Drink driving harms others, or at least has the potential to, and therefore is a "valid" law. Any law regarding children does not factor into my thoughts because unlike adults they are not able to comprehend the consequences of their actions unlike adults

>are laws authoritarian?

I think you can figure that out on your own.

>since [insert supposedly bad thing here] will happen if we don't have this authoritarian bullshit, isn't the authoritarian bullshit okay? Lesser of two evils or whatever?

No.

>nb4 "but who will pick the cotton!?!"

>>16320

>So what you're saying is that paternalism becomes a thing as soon as someone enters your property. Someone commits suicide in your apartment? Well, you better fucking wrestle the gun out of his hand or YOU have murdered him!

Where the fuck are you getting this shit from? I didn't give implied consent to them committing suicide. And if I did, they committed suicide in the first place E.G. they took their own life. The fact that you can't see the difference is pretty amazing, really. I have a feeling you follow AnCap philosophy for all the wrong reasons.

>Now, if we assume the company knew about this shit, when they had said electrician install his crap, then they would be liable.

>Now, if we assume the girlfriend knew about the risk of driving without a seatbelt, when you let her not wear a seatbelt in your ford pickup on her way to work, then you would be liable.

The example you gave was comparing an accident in which proper safety procedures were not followed with an intentional case of stupidity. You admitted it yourself, anon. At this point I'm convinced the two of you are arguing for the sake of arguing responsibility because you can't see the lines of thinking involved with intentionally allowing a passenger to not wear a safety feature that's meant to save their life because X (whatever the fuck X is, it doesn't matter in 99% of situations).

>Some dumbass jumps off my roof, because after inviting him over, he decided to climb up there, it ain't my fault.

You're providing examples of intentional idiocy and comparing them with a preventable incident that you were in full control over. This would be closer to an example of giving your girlfriend permission to drive your car, and she wrecks it, killing herself.

>Again, I am not responsible for her.

You consented to her being in your vehicle without following proper safety procedures. If you were a company, again, yes you would be. Companies and individuals are held to the same standards. You can't have it both ways.

>I do not have to give her consent for any of her actions

You gave your consent to her not following safety procedures by driving her. She did not take her seatbelt off halfway through while you were paying attention to the road, she never wore it to begin with, but you drove her ass around anyways, dumbass. You allowed an easily preventable accident leading to her death by consenting to drive her, despite knowing she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. You are responsible in a court of law, faggot.

>Shit, if I give someone my gun, and he blows off his foot, even then it isn't my fault

Of course not, blowing his foot off is not part of basic protocol. Again, this is the equivalent of giving your girlfriend the keys to your car- not driving her without a seatbelt. Two completely different situations.

Are you completely braindead?

>Manslaughter is the act of killing another human being in a way that is less culpable than murder. See Homicide.

>Under both the common law and the Pennsylvania Method of differentiating degrees of murder, manslaughter was divided into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter:

>Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation.

>Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person.

This would be a clear cut case of involuntary manslaughter in any common law court. I correctly used the defining theme, I just used the word murder instead of manslaughter. Same fucking deal, you've committed involuntary manslaughter due to negligence, asshole.

>>16339

Fuck, forgot to link to >>16303

>>16321

Seems like it's easier to prosecute for the act of harm rather than for the act of risking harm.

A classical liberal who wants a monarchy and approves of seat belt laws.

These and other people who don't know what words mean on tonight's special report at ten. Back to you, Bob.

>>16345

You know that historically, not all liberals wanted the monarchy abolished, right? It's not that absurd a position.

No liberals support an absolute monarchy, but there are many scales of monarchy. Monarchy just dictates the form of government. Democracy is no more necessarily libertarian than monarchy. Mob rule is as tyrannical as a dictator who rules without rule of law, and with rule of decree instead.

In fact, the best way is to combine them, and have a libertarian veto through a constitutional monarch, and have legislation proposed democratically. Checks and balances. Best to have someone who has long term interests and loyalty to a constitution to act as the check and balance.

>>16349

The point is to be anti-authoritarian, not pro-other-kind-of-authoritarian.

>>16350

What are you even arguing about there? Having a monarch isn't any more authoritarian than other scheme.

You're getting confused because you are acting as if all monarchies are absolute monarchies with a divine right to rule and the King's word as law. This is equivalent to claiming that all democracy is socialist democracy in which everyone has a direct vote to control the whole economy in a totalitarian fashion as a mass collective of workers.

Monarchy can be less authoritarian than a democracy depending on the scheme involved.

In any case, I will reiterate; in my scheme the monarch cannot propose legislation.

>>16351

"edit post"

>Having a monarch isn't any more authoritarian than other scheme.

Any other scheme involving a state. I mean, you're probably Ancap and don't understand why liberalism or statist libertarianism is necessary.

>>16339

Nice false equivalency, you fucking retard.

The company is the one being sued, the girlfriend was the one suing. Not compatible at all, you gookfucker.

>The example you gave was comparing an accident in which proper safety procedures were not followed with an intentional case of stupidity.

The accident could've been avoided if he wore gloves, just like how the chick's troubles could've been fine if she wore her seatbelt.

>You consented to her being in your vehicle without following proper safety procedures. If you were a company, again, yes you would be. Companies and individuals are held to the same standards. You can't have it both ways.

First off, no, I wouldn't in any single state in America, and I highly doubt that I would in even the most assbackward of countries. Thank god.

Even in the instance of a company, for example a bus service, if a passenger decides not to put on their seatbelt, said bus service isn't getting sued.

You can't just make up legal shit.

>You gave your consent to her not following safety procedures by driving her.

I didn't give her consent to do anything, because I am not her parent. She does what she wants. I offered a ride, she chose to take it. She chose to not put on her seatbelt because she's a retard.

> You are responsible in a court of law, faggot.

Again, not in any state here, you fucktard.

>Of course not, blowing his foot off is not part of basic protocol.

Not knowing how to handle a firearm safely resulting in your foot getting blown of is exactly the same as being a retard what failed to secure themselves safely in a vehicle.

>This would be a clear cut case of involuntary manslaughter in any common law court.

Again, no it wouldn't, you can't just make shit up.

You know why? Because it isn't the result of my negligence, it is the result of her negligence. She's the one who didn't put on her seatbelt. I am not in charge of other people. I just gave her a ride, how she secured herself during that ride is not my business.

>are seatbelt/helmet laws authoritarian? What about age restrictions on cigarettes and alcohol?

Yes and yes. What kind of communist would want to forcefully impose these?

>>16358

All of them?

>>16146

>>16198

Why do these retards from /leftypol/ always ask retarded questions then get snarky when they get an answer? If you just wanna be a snarky cunt, do so on your own board.

>>16403

they just try and make hemselves have faith that their system works.

Hence the repeated "lol BTFO!!!!!" posts and snarky comments. Never seen a capitalist do such things, only dirty commies.

protip: all colectivists are commies.

>>16410

>protip: all colectivists are commies.

kek, well memed

>>16420

He's right you know. Nazis and commies had more in common with each other than they had with America for instance.

>>16420

>implying the result of anything like fascism, socialism or any other collective "-ism" doesn't lead to communism

pls

>>16431

Don't say that, you'll upset the neonazis.

>>16425

Yes, they were both portrayed as evil in American propaganda.

>>16431

Every system leads to communism as communism is the end of history

>>16436

>american

>propaganda

doesn't even cross the line into propaganda, kid.

>>16437

>he thinks the world always ends, whatever you might do

>he is a defeatist

>he does not understand lasseiz-faire capitalism does not lead to communism

>>>/leftypol/

and stay there

>>16436

>muh propaganda!

No, they were both authoritarian shitholes that used phoney and faulty moral justifications to rob people and were commanded by dipshits that thought they could outsmart the market. They also both failed at everything they set out to do in every way and died ignominous and well deserved deaths.

Collectivism is garbage. It's a system evangelized by human garbage for human garbage. Not a single person of worth in the entirety of human history has ever been a collectivist because collectivism is an ideology for weaklings and parasites.

>>16233

>"Why the fuck didn't you tell her to put on her seatbelt, anon?"

Are you suggesting I order my girlfriend around in Current Year? That she isn't a strong independent woman who can make up your own mind?

>>16449

> lasseiz-faire capitalism does not lead to communism

It does, though.

>>16513

>muh statement without justification #736648

Protip:You're completely wrong.

>>16513

Howso?

>>16568

>Howso?

Different anon. But consider the lasseiz-faire capitalism in the American West in the late 19th century. Wealthy corporations would buy up entire towns and all the surrounding land (often backed by violence), hire the sheriffs and the police force and all the judges (who worked for the corporation), shot workers who "agitated" for higher pay or were otherwise dissidents, and paid their employees in "scrip" that was only good at the company stores. By the way, the corporation owned all the businesses and would not allow any to exist that were not owned by the corporation. If you were caught trying to sell food or items on the "black market" (not approved by the corporation) they would just kill you.

This was a thing that actually happened. Substitute the corporation for the party and basically you have Stalinism.

>>16572

Have sources? I know about the corporate towns, but not that they were basically gulags and that workers were simply shot dead for demanding higher wages. And buying up entire towns? Never heard that one, either. I thought corporate towns were build up from scratch.

>>16568

How can a christian be against taxes?

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars

>>16572

that wasn't ideal because the governement did fuckall.

A gubmint is necessary to uphold property and individual rights in a societyy wih lasseiz-faire capitalism

>>16592

Jesus was ideologically a libertarian and arguably an anarchist.

The joke of that statement (and its very clever wording) was that Caesar didn't really own anything, but people should pay their debts.

>>16624

My phone keeps removing my name.

>>16572

This right here is why distributism is necessary.

Anarcho-capitalism is rule by a business oligopoly.

Anarcho-communism is rule by a federation of mobs that have a monopoly on all property.

Only Anarcho-Distributism can save the other two and restore liberty by decentralizing property ownership. Because property is liberty, each person without private property lacks liberty. Those without property lack liberty because they lack the means to provide subsistence for themselves on their own terms. A society without widespread property ownership is a less libertarian society.

Anarcho-distributism is the answer. The NAP cannot be the highest good, because eventually when too few people own private property it becomes identical to state socialist regimes, and central planning and involuntary quotas rule. As more generations are born into a scheme they never chose, they lack the ability to choose an alternative, and so must revolt against the oligopoly or even monopoly owners.

Revolution is not a bad thing. Socialism is bad because it sets out to fight capitalist monopoly by directly creating a monopoly. A revolution that seeks to make sure that private property doesn't turn into private government AKA monarchy or aristocracy is a very good thing.

Isn't it true that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants every now and then? If not anarcho-distributism, then at least distributist libertarianism/distributarianism.

>>16637

>each person without private property lacks liberty

no.

Just like abstaining from sex doesn't make you sterile .

>>16642

It's different.

If you lack property, you can only sell your own labor, because you can't use your capital to trade, or hire anyone, and you can't even engage in subsistence agriculture to feed yourself.

This means that you have to depend on others to survive, and you have no capacity to act out your own plans. Beggars can't be choosers, so you have to do what others tell you to do in order to eat.

If you don't have capital and/or land, you have no capacity for agency, and liberty doesn't exist without agency.

>>16637

>The NAP cannot be the highest good, because eventually when too few people own private property

That's the monopoly-question all over again.

>>16654

that's all commie - level bs about equal and "fair" money

go kill yourself

>>16654

In a modern society, you're always dependent on others for your survival, unless you own your own little farm and can raise everything you need to survive. Incidentally, owning this little farm and not being bothered by anyone else is only possible when property rights are respected. If you have only your labor to sell, you're dependent on people hiring you and paying you a salary. If you have capital and can produce shit they need, you're also dependent on them buying shit from you and not someone else. Sure, you can exchange your capital for other kinds of capital and then end up owning a pig farm or some shit, but you can also save up your salary and acquire capital if you have to sell your labor I hate using this leftist terminology. My point being, the difference in autonomy between a laborer and a capitalist is a quantitative one at best, if we assume that autonomy can somehow be quantified.

Ancap here. Those are all private matters.

Seatbelts, helmets and other nanny state regulations telling people how to take care of themselves only exist because of socialised medicine, which should not exist in the first place. Your health insurance company would tell you to use them, though.

Exposing children to cigarettes and alcohol is arguably a form of child abuse, so there may be grounds for intervention.