No.7703
Let's discuss some gripes we have about the general libertarian thinking.
- Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
- Some form gun control is a necessity. Kinda like in the Czech Republic where you have to take course and get a licence to own firearms, then you can carry and own whatever you want.
- We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes. Total isolationism is wrong; if someone across the street is being robbed and about to be assassinated, it is completely justifiable to intervene.
No.7704
>Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
Agreed.
>Some form gun control is a necessity. Kinda like in the Czech Republic where you have to take course and get a licence to own firearms, then you can carry and own whatever you want.
Disagreed, this isn't possible except through state intervention and hence through coercive means.
>We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes. Total isolationism is wrong; if someone across the street is being robbed and about to be assassinated, it is completely justifiable to intervene.
Same as above, plus the state has a terrible track record in these kinds of things.
No.7708
>Gun license
Wtf is this commie shit? No guns for criminals and chilluns, and that's all the gun control necessary.
>Foreign commies and their shit
Only if the dictatorship is affecting the country in some negative way.
No.7709
>Some form gun control is a necessity. Kinda like in the Czech Republic where you have to take course and get a licence to own firearms, then you can carry and own whatever you want.
I doubt they'd be easy to enforce in an age of 3D-printable firearms without internet censorship and surveillance, or attempting to restrict the use of 3D printers.
No.7711
>>7709
>You will be able to sinter a perfectly working 1911 within your own life time
No.7712
>>7711
>the sheer amount of usages and possibly illegal shit possible with 3D printers
>quantum computing
>recently discovered electrons that can move thousands of times the speed of regular electrons, could usher in a tech revolution
>cybernetics and genetic research advancing further and further
>state is growing larger by the day
WE /CYBER/ NOW
No.7713
>>7703
literally every political ideology is "I'm libertarian but. . .not for things I don't like".
get fukt neoconbois!
No.7716
>>7703
>Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
Agreed. I think you can just argue it is the parent causing harm to their child (aggression) but then, where do we draw the line
>Some form gun control is a necessity
Piss off
>We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes
It private individuals want to do this, I don't see why not. Providing they can justify it.
No.7717
>>7716
>It private individuals want to do this, I don't see why not. Providing they can justify it.
Abu Azrael for the win!
No.7719
The out right rejection of welfare.
The Rothbard/Rand Worship.
The stubborn clinging to capitalism without finding a third way like Georgism.
The conspiracy theories.
No.7720
>The silent infiltration of Identity Politics and other leftwing cancers (i.e. Belle Knox)
>The projection of many lifestyles in the libertarian ideology in order to justify them (ranging from hedonists to christian fundamentalists)
No.7722
>>7703
>- Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
Sure, that's fine.
>- Some form gun control is a necessity. Kinda like in the Czech Republic where you have to take course and get a licence to own firearms, then you can carry and own whatever you want.
Noguns detected.
>- We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes. Total isolationism is wrong; if someone across the street is being robbed and about to be assassinated, it is completely justifiable to intervene.
Right, because that's worked out so well for us in the past.
No.7723
Most libertarians want a drastically cut defense. Personally, I view heavy defense as necessary for the preservation of a free society, lest you get fucked with by foreign assholes.
No.7725
>>7719
>The out right rejection of welfare.
You talking about charity or state-mandated robbery?
>The Rothbard/Rand Worship.
Praying to them like some libertarians do is retarded, but they have been massively influential and deserve the attention they get.
>>7723
The US spends way too much on its defenses. No country on earth could stand a chance of conquering it. Its inaccessibility alone is a great defense already. Try shipping an invasion army there.
No.7728
>I'm a libertarian but I don't like X, so there should be a law against it
>I'm a libertarian but I think we need a state to do X
i.e. this whole thread
No.7733
>>7728
>i.e. this whole thread
Just jumping into this thread, but having a state is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles.
No.7734
>>7733
This, peoples mixes up libertarians and anarcho-capitalists too much.
No.7735
>>7733
>>7734
That's perfectly true but my point is the lack of followup.
If you think certain actions/behaviours justify the state, and not other actions, you better have a well defined and consistent threshold for what makes those actions specifically call for violence.
Also, you must have a well defined reason why the state is the best way to handle the problem.
Providing these reasons should be a given for ANY advocacy of a state, because the whole point of libertarianism is to make the state as small as possible. "I think there should be a law against X" and "I think the government should do X" are exactly why the US government started as the smallest state in the West, and ended up the largest.
No.7738
I'm libertarian but I think convicted child molesters should be executed.
No.7741
>>7704
Basically what this guy said, though I would be a little more lenient on circumcision. Maybe people under 18 can decide to have the surgery themselves, but it definitely should not be up to the parents. I don't even know where OP is coming from on this one, since every libertarian I've talked to agrees circumcision is wrong
No.7743
>The out right rejection of welfare.
Welfare actually causes more problems than it solves among the groups it's trying to help, even after the money gets to those groups (Most of it goes to the bureaucrats, not the disadvantaged). Have a book recommendation
No.7748
>>7725
I agree, but a lot of folk want Euro-level jack shit spending.
That's a bad idea in my mind.
No.7749
>>7748
There are a few countries out there with no official military, but they're pretty tiny so I don't know if it would work for something the size of the United States.
No.7751
>>7743
Yeah LBJ declared a war on poverty in the 1960s and since then we've spent 22 trillion, more than every American war combined since the American Revolution (adjusted for inflation).
I'm all for preventing starvation and homelessness, but at what point will liberals see that the problem isn't that we haven't spent enough.
No.7758
>>7751
The problem is more than that, because the existence of welfare programs means that people have what Olasky calls a "compassion deficit", that is because there is already government programs in place people become less and less likely to donate time or money to charity because they see that welfare programs already exist and are helping. On top of that, prior to the mass government spending that rolled around in the US early in the 20th century, charities would have work tests. Wood yards for chopping wood for men and knitting rooms for women, for example. In a lot of these cases, these didn't even turn a profit, but their purpose was to weed out those who legitimately needed help and were willing to work and those who were simply too lazy. They made a distinction between the worthy poor and the unworthy poor. It's a shame that society does such a good job of forgetting what worked in the past, but I'm on /liberty/ so I'm guessing everyone else here understands that just as much
No.7759
>>7758
These models you mentioned sound good, as do the underlying ideas as well as the notion that governmen welfare creates a compassion deficit, but is there empirical data of some kind to back it up? I don't find it hard to believe at all, but I'm afraid most people I would talk to wouldn't share this sentiment without hard data to back it up. Well, then they probably wouldn't believe it either, but at least they would look like idiots in the process.
No.7760
>>7743
>>7751
>>7758
Uploading this, in case you guys are interested in reading and debunking it.
No.7761
>>7760
Psych, that's the wrong document!
No.7766
>>7761
I quickly read through it, and to my mind there's not really anything to debunk. All it does is offer an overview of the way historians approach American protestant history, which I don't dispute and as far as I can tell, doesn't really contradict anything in Olasky's book. The only mention of Olasky is in the introduction, so I'll address that. Olasky's definition of compassion is much more significant than "to suffer with". Mostly his definition is an attack on what people think of as compassion in contemporary times, as if throwing ten dollars to a beggar in the street is compassion. Compassion, Olasky says, comes from getting to know the individual in question, understanding their problem on a more personal basis, and working to fix it. This is reflected in the way charities would work in the past, where charity workers would get to know individual families or people and work with them on a person to person basis. Olasky also provides plenty of examples. One of the chapters devotes a length of text to the problems of juvenile delinquency and how families would take in orphans at extreme costs to them. Not to mention the emphasis later charities would put on going in and helping the poor directly inside the ghetto as cities grew and the segregation between poor and rich became more apparent. The point these charities kept attempting to make time and time again was that you could only help people by getting to know them individually. Catch-all government schemes that lumped everyone together and just threw money at the problem were doomed to fail.
The second objection that the author points out isn't even addressed. It's simply asserted that it's poor history, then she just goes over a summary of models of thinking about American protestant history. Some of these models even conflict with each other which the author acknowledges, and she never attempts to debunk anything that Olasky has said with any of these models. Nor does she even try to debunk the main idea behind the book, that small, local charities are far better than large, federal spending programs.
>>7759
The book has long sections where numbers are thrown about, but we're not given much context, and it's hard to really compare the historical figures contextually to the modern day.
This is all besides the point though, since we don't need any historical context to see that the government fares poorly compared to charity. Even if government had the wisdom to spend its money in the right place, the fact of the matter is that over two thirds of your tax money that is explicitly for welfare actually goes to the bureaucrats administering that welfare, not the recipients. (Pic related, source is:http://www.softwaremetrics.com/Economics/Private%20Charity%20versus%20Government%20Entitlements.pdf). Most people evaluate the answer in terms of money being spent, so simply in terms of raw percentages, government loses. This is also a moral hazard, because the incentive here is to keep people on welfare, because if nobody was on welfare then the people in charge of administering the welfare would lose their paycheck. Bureaucracies, as Mises points out, are self-interested and will always inflate the problem to give themselves more wealth and influence. Just listen to the way you hear governments talk about people on the dole versus charities. Governments tend to speak in terms of how many people they have currently on entitlements, and charities speak in terms of how many people they've helped no longer need charity.
As if this wasn't enough, government is also hindering charities in action too. Across the US, it is illegal to feed homeless people in many major cities. Like I said, bureaucracies are self-interested and so the tendency will be to force people to go to state-run shelters instead of charities.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/crackdown-feeding-homeless-people-arrested/story?id=26793092
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-illegal-to-feed-the-homeless-in-cities-all-over-the-united-states
No.7770
>>7766
>Mfw reading these stats
>Mfw a friend has told me that charity is ineffective compared to gvoernment welfare
Fucking statists keep talking out of their asses, but somehow, I'm the naive rebel because I'm an anarchist. Suuuuure.
Anyway, five star post. 10/10, would read again.
No.7771
>Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
replace circumcision with vaccination and what will you say when the vaccines-cause-autism guys wanna take away your self-determination over your own children??
>Some form gun control is a necessity. Kinda like in the Czech Republic where you have to take course and get a licence to own firearms, then you can carry and own whatever you want.
and who decides what 'some' is? if a liberal decides, then you will not be able to get guns for all practicality.
>We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes. Total isolationism is wrong; if someone across the street is being robbed and about to be assassinated, it is completely justifiable to intervene.
sure, go ahead if you want and jump into the shark infested water to rescue a drowning guy, but dont push somebody else in.
>stop using your freedom the way i don't like
No.7774
>>7771
>replace circumcision with vaccination and what will you say when the vaccines-cause-autism guys wanna take away your self-determination over your own children??
If it causes autism, then banning it is a necessity if you want to enforce the NAP. If it doesn't cause autism, then banning it is an aggression against the NAP. You won't get around to settling once and for all whether vaccines cause assburgers (they don't) and then trying really hard to convince Bill Maher that he's been a faggot all this time.
The solution you seem to be proposing pretty much boils down to not offering children any protection against their parents under the NAP, or at least not when it's doubtful whether they are actually being harmed. The latter could be accepted if the necessary premises to establish a chain of causation were missing, i.e. if scientists truly couldn't know whether there is a link between vaccim given the existing data, and if they had no way of gathering said data. However, the data is there; the debate on whether vaccines are harmful exists only because someone, somewhere is wrong in his reasoning. How can you say that doubt about a chain of causation is reasonable when it's literally based on a logical error? For this reason, none of the two options I just outlined are acceptable from a libertarian point of view.
No.7775
>>7774
How do you plan on enforcing your interpretation of the NAP without even bigger violations of it?
No.7776
>>7775
I'm not interpreting the NAP any differently than most libertarians, I'm just applying it correctly, and I don't see how that is a violation of it.
No.7780
>>7776
>He doesn't see how forcing vaccinations or banning circumcision doesn't require mass surveillance and a police state to enforce.
No.7782
>7774
>If it causes autism, then banning it is a necessity if you want to enforce the NAP
no it doesn't. voluntary self-harm does not violate the NAP and parents have full authority over their young children.
No.7783
>>7782
Children are property of their parents, which sounds hash but the only alternate is to make them property of the state.
No.7784
>>7780
>Implying you need to punish every single aggression against the NAP, no exception
>Implying you need to enforce the NAP even if that's physically impossible or unjustifiable
Know how many thefts are ever solved? At the top of my hat, I would say less than 10% of them, yet I don't see guys like you proclaim that this means they are not a violation of the NAP because you can only solve every single theft by establishing a police state. The same standard isn't applied to the positive law by anyone. No one would say that a legal ban on murder is an absurd idea because you can't solve every single murder that happens. I have no idea why the NAP should be held to this impossibly high standard, either.
Besides, I never said vaccinations should be forced. They shouldn't, because they can have adverse side effects. I said that banning them is a violation of the NAP, not that not forcefully administering them was.
>>7782
>no it doesn't. voluntary self-harm does not violate the NAP and parents have full authority over their young children.
According to this logic, parents have the right to outright kill their children. Not even Rothbard drew this retarded conclusion, and the guy is not exactly known for not raising eyebrows with his ethics on children.
>>7783
You can also regard the relationship between the child and the parent a legal relationship sui generis. Regarding them as property is pretty meaningless when you constantly have to make exceptions to the rule that you can do with your property whatever you want in regards to them.
No.7785
>>>7784
>parents have the right to outright kill their children.
sure
but children also have the right to, at any time, become independent of the parents, at which point the parents will violate the NAP to kill their children.
also the fact that parents generally do not like to kill their children. but if they would, then, well, natural selection will weed them out pretty soon.
No.7791
>>7783
At what exact age do you think they should have legal autonomy?
No.7796
>>7738
Ehh, not exactly sure if I can disagree with that actually.
No.7799
>>7738
Wouldn't the logical proportionate punishment be to rape the molester? You probably won't need someone in charge of raping criminals, you could probably make a machine that repeatedly forces an uncomfortably large piston up their ass to simulate it.
No.7801
>>7796
"convicted" does not mean they actually performed the act
No.7803
>>7799
>you could probably make a machine that repeatedly forces an uncomfortably large piston up their ass to simulate it.
>probably
You've never been to xvideos, it seems, but you would fit in there perfectly fine.
No.7817
>>7799
>you could probably make a machine that repeatedly forces an uncomfortably large piston up their ass to simulate it
What if they enjoy it though?
No.7818
We need a minimum wage, at least in this current economic state, because if we didn't then the wage gap would be even bigger than it already is. The idea that lowering minimum wage would increase the amount of jobs is also bullshit because muh sheckles goyim
We need certain public things that the government handles like firefighters and public roads because toll roads are overpriced bullshit and its retarded to demand that poor people be either forced to not use roads or use the shitty "free to play" road that is plastered with flashing advertisements and constant un-closable messages to upgrade to the premium membership without ads.
You shouldn't have the right to do anything you want with your children. A lot of people legitimately should not be parents and I know quite a few people that would be dead in a ditch right now if they didn't have a teacher or whoever intervene in their life and tell them they didn't have to be like their parents.
Richard Stallman is an annoying prick and he puts more people off of installing GNU/Linux than he does encourage
>>7743
>>7751
>>7758
>>7759
I'm a libertarian studying in the field of Mental Health, so as someone who's a little bit more knowledgeable on the subject than most (not claiming to be an expert here) I'd like to chime in on my thoughts.
In the past we've had two schools of thought when it comes to welfare and the less fortunate: the "republican" ideology and the "democrat" ideology. The Republican ideology basically says that people would just make their lives better if they actually wanted to and that its all a matter of willpower which is bullshit when a lot of people don't have the resources, both mental and tangible, to escape their situation and nobody other than drifting hipsters actually likes being homeless. The democrat ideology is to just throw money at the problem until it goes away, which also doesn't work because then they become too reliant on welfare and never get the encouragement to better themselves when they could just live the easy life by becoming NEET. The modern-day approach I see a lot of places shifting towards is to give very LIMITED assistance while educating the clients on how to better themselves in a low-cost manner (how to find a job, GED, financial literacy, etc.). The only thing about this is now the niggers and white trash are complaining because they can't be leeches anymore.
On that note, I actually like the idea of welfare and wish we could get one that works like the UK, but that really couldn't work here in the USA without turning down the jew factor in our healthcare system by at least 800%. Daily reminder that the #1 cause for bankruptcy claims in the USA are health related issues.
No.7819
>>7818
>because if we didn't then the wage gap would be even bigger than it already
There is nothing wrong with the wage gap.
No.7821
>>7818
ebin b8, had me going there for a bit.
No.7823
No.7824
File: 1438538374318.png (145.19 KB, 465x315, 31:21, this is no longer respecti….png)
>>7818
>I want welfare
>I want a minimum wage
>I want public roads
>I want public services in general
>I'm a libertarian
No.7829
Fuck the government unless it's lending me books.
No.7833
>>7818
>works
>like the UK
pick one
No.7838
>>7733
A state is not consistent with libertarian principles if it claims the right to tax regardless of consent, and also if the state claims to own all the land.
1. The state is a just an idea, so "the state" can not possibly homestead (and therefore have a legitimate claim to) all the land in a geographic region they call a country.
2. The individuals within a region have the right of self-defense, they do not have the right to tax, so they can not grant another individual a right they do not have (I can't grant the IRS or Congress the right to tax since I do not have that right as an individual, just like I can't grant them the right to murder, I don't have that right as an individual either.)
3. If you have a "state" that does not initiate force/threaten force to collect taxes, and it does not claim ownership over land it has not homesteaded or acquired through legitimate title transfer, then it's not really a state. But I'd be fine with whatever that is.
No.7839
>>7818
>We need a minimum wage, at least in this current economic state, because if we didn't then the wage gap would be even bigger than it already is. The idea that lowering minimum wage would increase the amount of jobs is also bullshit because muh sheckles goyim
You idiot. You're not a libertarian and you don't understand economics.
1. What determines an employees wage? Charitably, or is it greed? Neither, the wage of an employee approximates his productivity, this is an unavoidable economic reality in any field with competition (and fields that employ unskilled workers are generally extremely competitive, like fast-food.) What this means is how much you are paid is dependent upon how much value you produce for your employer. If you produce $7 of value an hour and the minimum wage is $8.50 no rational employer would hire you. Now, if you produce $15, why doesn't the employer just pay you $15 an hour? Because revenue (bringing money in) AND profits (bringing in more money than you spend) are important to maintaining and expanding business, respectively. Without basic revenue (which might lower your wage to $10 an hour) a business could not afford the day to day operations like electricity, water, and it could not afford to replace its stock of food. It then needs additional profits to reinvest in the business; contrary to the leftist narrative you'll get from the media, businesses reinvest the vast majority of their profits. What does this mean in simple terms? If a textile factory makes a million dollars in profits it's going to invest maybe $750,000 in additional floorspace, or additional tools and machines to improve productivity. Profits allow for the accumulation of capital goods which is what creates prosperity, capital goods being all the tools and machines we use to create the luxuries we enjoy today. What's more important to prosperity, a minimum wage or the accumulation of capital goods? A simple thought experiment: All our computers, cars, and manufacturing equipment are beamed up by Martians, no matter how high the minimum wage is raised people will not be able to enjoy the prosperity they did beforehand.
>BUT MUH COLLUSION IS KEEPING DOWN WAGES
There are over 50 major companies in fast food. If a small group colludes, it will not be an effective group, as the group expands the likelihood of a leak expands exponentially as well, so any large group colluding on explicit terms is impossible. If you believe that all these businesses are underpaying these workers and it's a form of implicit collusion (there's no agreement, they all just silently agree to be greedy as fuck) then you can open a business and pay those employees $1-$2 extra per hour, if you're as efficient as McDonalds in other aspects you should be able to steal their mistreated employees on the basis of you being the only charitable businessman on the planet.
No.7841
>>7703
>Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
I somewhat agree with this, just not sure how you'd enforce it. I'm sure the DROs could figure out a non-totalitarian enforcement method.
>Some form gun control is a necessity
You have no argument as to why. But I'm an an-cap so this is just statist horseshit to me. If you want to live in a community with gun-control that'd be possible within an an-cap community, you'd also be disproportionately targeted by criminals who don't want to be shot but that wouldn't bother me considering I have no problem with firearms :). But your dislike of firearms doesn't give you the right to initiate force against people within a 2000 mile radius around you so you can feel safe.
>We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes. Total isolationism is wrong; if someone across the street is being robbed and about to be assassinated, it is completely justifiable to intervene.
You're free to support what you want to support WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING MONEY. Keep your little rat claws off of everyone else's.
No.7843
>>7841
>just not sure how you'd enforce it
I don't think there is anyway really, although doctors who are found doing it could be boycotted by patients and insurers.
On prinicple is obviously something that shouldn't be allowed, in practice…
No.7845
>>7843
I'm the guy you replied to.
On second thought, not that hard to enforce. Pediatrician makes a deal with DRO (follow this rule for a 5% reduced whatever, some kind of bonus). The rule being, you tell us which kids have mutilated dicks. If the DRO found out you mutilated your son's dick you get a 50% horrible parent tax hike or whatever. Opt out of the DRO? Suddenly no one sells you groceries, moving to somewhere where they do approve of chopping off the end of kids' dicks, at that point maybe there'd be some form of CPS? Not sure.
No.7850
>>7843
>>7845
Circumcision is a crime, under libertarian principles. You wouldn't need the doctor to give any form of consent to being punished for it, just as a murderer doesn't have to give his consent to being punished for his crime.
The problems I see are a) how to solve this crime and b) what to make of the fact that children are not yet capable of making an informed decision on whether their attackers should be punished or not. Issue a is a general one when it comes to child abuse, it can be mitigated by society being watchful and through DRO deals. Concerning issue b, I'd say you would suspend punishment until the victim is old enough to make an informed decision on whether the punishment should be enforced or not. That opens up a variety of other problems, but these are hardly unbearable and it's still the most sensible solution I can think of.
No.7874
Just about anything involving parents and children is a messy issue. Responsibility to raise them, circumcision, vaccination, education, and god knows what else. At what point does a child get to refuse his parents' orders and fully seize his or her rights as an individual? I think it's one of the biggest minefields between here and a free society. Either way you go you piss someone off.
No.15431
>>7709
restrict the sale of bullets
>Ill 3D print them!
you are going to 3D print gunpowder?
No.16906
>>15431
Smuggling ammo is a lot easier than smuggling firearms, and no one goes looking for a few bullets that went missing at a shooting range.
No.17037
>>7818
Americans spend too much and save too little
They should learn from other countries
No.17040
I support tariffs on Chinese and other third world slave labor goods, demand intense immigration control and don't see anything wrong with using your military offensively as long as it benefits your own nation.
No.17064
No.17068
>>17064
Not for me. I detest socialism, authoritarianism and mindless cruelty.
No.17069
>>17068
>detest socialism, authoritarianism and mindless cruelty
>No problem with using military offensively if it benefits your own nation
You realize this is kind of backwards, right? Chinese and "third world slave labor goods" benefit the nation by supplying them with cheap products that would otherwise by ten times as expensive if they were produced domestically. You support using the military against other countries if it benefits your home country but support tariffs that damage your home country. By your own logic buying products on the cheap from less developed countries is wrong, but invading them and simply taking the products would be perfectly fine
No.17071
>>17069
That's the thing, I don't consider buying domestic industry obliterating slave labor goods 'helping' my country anymore than you try and help someone with depression by giving them crack. As for the other I was trying to express what is a more complex idea in concise terms. I'm not a hundred percent on the idea of rolling up, smashing fools and installing consuls to collect tax. But if strategic deployment of US armed forces can delay the global economic apocalypse at all, or in a measurable way ease life for Americans domestically, I support that.
No.17657
> Circumcision should be outright banned.
You mean worldwide? I agree it can be seen as a form of child abuse, but most victims don't seem to mind it as adults, so I wouldn't go out of my way to fight it.
> gun control
You can have a gun-free gated community if you want.
> We should support foreign revolts against dictatorships and communists regimes.
It's a complex issue. World peace is maintained by mutual respect of national sovereignity. It's not the only moral or practical criterion, but it's a very important one. Ancaps tend to be sympathetic to secessionist movements, but not to "democratic" takeovers.
No.17658
>>17071
>But if strategic deployment of US armed forces can delay the global economic apocalypse at all, or in a measurable way ease life for Americans domestically, I support that.
The way you phrased it sounded like you cynically support taking over peaceful foreign countries. Do you?
No.17664
>>17657
>You mean worldwide? I agree it can be seen as a form of child abuse, but most victims don't seem to mind it as adults, so I wouldn't go out of my way to fight it.
Rothbard said you shouldn't force justice on the victim. I agree with him. If the victim decides to forgive the perpetrator, then don't enforce a sentence. This way, you create an incentive for parents to treat their children right without going all anti-authoritarianism.
No.17668
>>7709
>I doubt they'd be easy to enforce in an age of 3D-printable firearms without internet censorship and surveillance,
I think most ideologies either implicitly or explicitly require or will lead to a 1984 surveillance state.
No.18139
I've always had a problem with abortion tbh.
No.18274
>>17071
>we can't have free sunlight cause it decimates our candle industry
>BAN THE SUN :^)
Also if you do a rational cost/benefit analysis it's very clear US has benefitted from trade. And the benefit > cost gap will continue to widen as time goes by
No.18477
I think some public spending can be good if it's low cost and high results (national parks, the post office, and until recently NASA)
>inb NASA is expensive
Its actually pretty minute compared to the welfare state.
That and I'm against open borders. I guess im a constitutionalist, not an Ancap.
No.18712
>>7703
>Circumcision should be outright banned. Not even allowed for religious people, people can do it themselves at 18.
Social pressure not to circumcise should be enough. I don't think we need need to ban it, just educate people on it.