/liberty/ - Liberty

Answer from libertarians who like them:

NAP. They'd be left alone.

Answer from libertarians who don't like them:

Businesses would be free to not do business with them, blablabla, mental illness would go down in the long run due to the marginal actions taken voluntarily by blablabla similar to Lord Molyneux' opinion on immigration there would be BLABLABLA I'M GOING TO FUCKING CONTRADICT THE WHOLE POINT OF MY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY BLABLABLA.

>>19155

what's the contradiction from libertarians who don't like them?

>>19155

The whole point of libertarianism is to support tgirls?

>>19155

found the SJW

basically, businesses could discriminate against them if they felt like it, but this would be bad for business, especially since trans-friendly customers would avoid this business.

similarly, if there were a significant market for it, a tranny could open a trans-only business, and they would be free to discriminate against cis-gendered.

overall though, most likely, the most successful businesses would not engage in discrimination, therefore trannies would probably be free to do their business like any other citizen.

as for your first point, "NAP, they'd be left alone." this is also true, but it doesn't apply to discrimination from private businesses. NAP would apply to prevention of the trannies being murdered, assaulted, or robbed due to them being trannies. refusal of service is not an act of aggression.

(i'm saying tranny instead of tgirl because this all also applies to tguys)

>>19158

>basically, businesses could discriminate against them if they felt like it, but this would be bad for business,

not if people preferred keeping traps out of sight and didn't want to do business around them.

>>19159

it would depend on the market in which you tried this. if you did it in alabama, you're right, but if you tried this in tran francisco, you'd be pretty fucked.

>>19160

>tran francisco

wtf bigot

>>19155

>>19158

The point of a libertarian society isn't CRUSH THE DEGENERATES but neither is it EVERYBODY HAS TO LOVE EVERYONE.

The real point is that if people don't want what they personally consider degenerate on their property they can get them to fuck off.

The real point is separation of people who hate each other, precisely so that they don't kill each other.

Under Ancap there'd probably be cities based around various things and covenants where people join their private property in common to exclude some people and embrace others, and over time this might develop into city "state" type deals.

You might have a tranny/gay city like San Francisco today, but even better, because all the fags could have things to themselves without fear of bigots, but equally the people who think this is disgusting bullshit wouldn't be forced to put up with it by the government, and could go off and found their own community by homesteading or buying and purchasing land.

There'd be a white nationalist city, a faggot city, a socialist city, a no meat eaters allowed city, a feminist city, an MRA city, an amish city, a no dogs allowed city etc, and also covenants where almost anything goes. The beauty is that there would be far more diversity and culture than there ever was under so called "multiculturalism", and these incompatible groups would be able to live peacefully precisely because they wouldn't be forced to live together. It would serve progressives because they could use property covenants to exclude "bigots", and it would serve nazis because they could use property covenants to exclude "degenerates".

Unfortunately, it's only because of these groups demand for universalist control that we can't have this, but in theory this serves everyone by serving no one.

>>19171

>There'd be a white nationalist city, a faggot city, a socialist city, a no meat eaters allowed city, a feminist city, an MRA city, an amish city, a no dogs allowed city etc, and also covenants where almost anything goes

yeah unfortunately in principle the strongest one with the most unbending principles invades and subjugates the others.

>>19164

>>19166

The joke was that there is 'cis' in 'francisco'

If you look carefully he italic'd the 'cis'

>>19188

The strongest city would be the collective force of them all working in unison against any city that attempts to takeover. There is more cooperation than competition in an anarchist society.

>>19154

people who want to shun them will do so

nobody is going to pay for their surgery or HIV drugs

they will probably form some degeneracy squats, maybe illegally so

(since they are not functioning members of society, they need other to pay for them)

probably/hopefully go extinct(ish) after that

really there isnt a problem if you stop subsidizing peoples degeneracy

and are allowed to shun them

nad have functional security i.e. private

>>19155

>beeing mentally retarded