Lolbertarian Cringe - A place to post libertarians saying crazy shit

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Balldos

Ridiculous, but not by itself conflict-creating, therefore permissible

cocaine on 9 year old girl's hair

Invasion of the 9 year old girl's property, therefore prohibited
Rekieta is an aggressor by libertarian standards

 

[Male Idiot]

Ridiculous, but not by itself conflict-creating, therefore permissible

Invasion of the 9 year old girl's property, therefore prohibited
Rekieta is an aggressor by libertarian standards

So when does a parent's rights and a kid's rights win over each other?

In a make believe libertarian utopia, can a 3 year old be made to eat his food even if he dislikes it? Can he decide if he wants to learn homeschooled or not?

 

[Neodanthril]

So when does a parent's rights and a kid's rights win over each other?

How can a child too young to speak give consent to have their diaper changed? Surely the finest libertarian minds can devise a reasonable and consistent answer to this problem

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

So when does a parent's rights and a kid's rights win over each other?

I've opined on this fairly recently, cf. v

From an ontological ethical perspective, it's not even a complicated topic

A child is a volitional being in development, psychologically immature and not yet able to fully express their own will or act on it. Guardianship is the exclusive authority to preserve the child until they can direct their own life. It is a rivalrous right, but this is neither ownership of the child or its body, nor is it a license to mold them according to some preference
That right is homesteaded by the first to actually perform the work of guardianship, typically the mother from conception onward due to continuous proximity. The guardian's sole mandate is to maintain the child's original, unconsented bodily and mental state (the condition before they are able to agree to any change) until the child can make informed decisions. Interventions are justified only to preserve or restore that state (e.g. life-saving surgery), not to make alterations for aesthetic or speculative reasons

"Best interest" cannot be defined by a court, a culture, or a political faction. It boils down to a single standard, namely actions that prevent conflict between the child's future will and what is done to them before they can speak it. "Parental rights" exist only insofar as they serve that goal. The moment a guardian actively harms the child or obstructs others from taking over preservation, they forfeit that role.

If you see it this clearly, there is no irresolvable clash between "parental rights" and "child's best interest". They are not opposing claims, but two descriptions of the same underlying structure (the right to guard, bounded by the duty not to damage what one is guarding)

Accordingly,

can a 3 year old be made to eat his food even if he dislikes it?

If the child's refusal to eat food threatens the child's survival (not eating enough to live), then intervention is justified as preservation. An analogous situation would be shielding the child from falling off a cliff. However, if the child just dislikes food, yet remains healthy, then it is unjustified to coerce them into eating it. The guardian's right to intervene applies only where the will is underdeveloped and non-intervention would destroy or permanently impair that development.

Can he decide if he wants to learn homeschooled or not?

Safe to say that a 3-year-old's cognitive maturity is not sufficient for him to meaningfully self-direct education. Guardians decide the form of instruction only to the extent necessary for preservation and preparation toward autonomy. Accordingly, "to homeschool or not to homeschool" is not an ethical question for the child yet, just a prudential matter for the guardian. The guardian's duty is to preserve or cultivate the child's capacity for future self-ownership, not to indoctrinate or exploit.
However, it is true that government schooling is by nature indoctrination, for it's safe to assume it systematically subverts or retards the child's future capacity for rational self-direction, forcing obedience and dependency rather than reason. Accordingly, you can argue that to put the child in a public school when homeschooling is possible is a conflict-creating action against the child's developing will.

 

[Male Idiot]

How would a public school even work without a state? It would be either homeschooling or church schooling.

 

[Neodanthril]

How would a public school even work without a state? It would be either homeschooling or church schooling.

No time for schooling, straight to the mines. With a child labor force the mines can be made much smaller overall

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

How would a public school even work without a state?

Correct question. I was arguing in light of the non-libertarian status quo. For instance, homeschooling is forbidden by law in Germany, so parents there don't have much of a choice in the matter without risking life and limb, but from what I know it's possible in the USA.

That said, to the non-libertarians and especially the anti-libertarians, I'd like to share some of my thoughts, perhaps a meaningful discussion is still possible
What I'm seeing in many "questions", especially when things like children are involved, is people who have never in their life built or used a coherent framework going out of their way to look for gotchas. Like, not asking questions to understand, but fishing for contradictions, in an attempt to justify not thinking
With children especially, it's almost like a a ritual, to me it's plain to see that it's a rhetorical or optics trick, it can be called moral outsourcing. Instead of reasoning from first principles, what happens is that they grab a case where dependency is natural and easy to see, such as an infant, a sick person, or some collective emergency, and then pretend that this justifies permanent authority over everyone. In simpler terms, "if a child needs a guardian, doesn't everyone?" To me this is very obviously the adult's plea to stay a child forever, and the consequences of this nonsense thinking can be seen in daddy government and the paternalistic state that must obviously intervene for "our" benefit and "our own good".
And what I've seen earlier in this discussion is also pretty obvious nonsense. Every instance of voluntary coordination becomes "politics", every act of preservation becomes "rule", every refusal to obey becomes "an attempt to seize power". Like, these people are seemingly genuinely incapable of imagining coexistence without command, so in their mangled worldview, freedom is treated like an obviously self-contradictory malfunction, like a glitch.
Ultimately, the core of every anti-libertarian is the conviction that, because they can't live without a master, no one else can either. Like, I'm not sure if I ever said it clearly or openly before, but it is not my job, my duty, or my intention to force slaves into freedom. If you wanna lick boots and be happy, just do it. I'm even going to leave you alone and in peace as long as your master, government, keeps his hands off me.

 

[Neodanthril]

What I'm seeing in many "questions", especially when things like children are involved, is people who have never in their life built or used a coherent framework going out of their way to look for gotchas. Like, not asking questions to understand, but fishing for contradictions, in an attempt to justify not thinking

it's plain to see that it's a rhetorical or optics trick

>REEEE STOP FINDING FLAWS IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM

I would complain that mounting a defense of lolbertarinism is off topic, but this is top lolbert cringe so it is actually on topic but only accidentally.

 

[Male Idiot]

In Germany? Have you seen European police? They never dare to interrupt a Muslim or gypsy homeschooling and just do fines.

US cops are way more hardcore than EU cops. Most eu cops would die when they encounter the methed hobo or methed nigger.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

>REEEE STOP FINDING FLAWS IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM

I would complain that mounting a defense of lolbertarinism is off topic, but this is top lolbert cringe so it is actually on topic but only accidentally.

The only flaws I'm seeing are in mongrels like you who put zero effort into understanding it and pretend that this ignorance is somehow a sign of superiority and insight
It's like watching a toddler fail to chew steak and declaring that steak sucks
A skill issue, so to speak

 

[Neodanthril]

mongrels like you

Lol mad

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

What is "the country"? It's a conceptual label for a set of individuals, relationships, and terrain. But abstractions can't be owned. The question is analogous to "what color is a promise?"

you know full well i referred to the land itself, as becomes clear by the topic, and my use of the word "land" when making the brunt of the argument

How would a public school even work without a state? It would be either homeschooling or church schooling.

or private schooling, or homeschooling with parents from different families taking turns depending on which topic they are knowledgeable in
in short, it would work better

homeschooling is forbidden by law in Germany

there are two workarounds i know of, both being unavailable if you are too poor, one is registering primary residence outside of german, the other is enrolling your kid in a private school:
he will be absent because of sickness most of the time except for exams, because homeschooling is far more efficient he will ace those exams and his grades will be fine

They never dare to interrupt a Muslim or gypsy homeschooling and just do fines.

but they will also steal the children of whites without remorse, so i suppose workaround 3 is to marry a muslim/convert?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

i referred to the land itself

Right then, that makes the problem even simpler
There is no such thing as "the land" in the singular, as there are specific scarce pieces of terrain and each can be homesteaded and traded like any other good. Legitimate ownership is established by first use and maintained by continued respect for the boundaries of others.
As for how to treat currently "publicly owned" or "government-owned" land, there's two theories which have merit in my opinion.
One notion is that, because government ownership is illegitimate and invalid, "public" land can be rightfully homesteaded at will, for it is praxeologically unowned
The other notion, more in line with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's thinking, is that "public" land is expropriated from a prior legitimate owner and thus the prior owner still has a residual ownership claim.
But in either case, it does not magically become property of an abstraction like "the volk". The moment you start speaking of "the" land as one single owned entity, it's clear that you're outside of property theory and more in theology. Like, "communal ownership" is just a euphemism for "temporary control by whoever controls the guns"

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

because government ownership is illegitimate and invalid, "public" land can be rightfully homesteaded at will, for it is praxeologically unowned

in that case brown people can do lay claim onto it too, which is retarded because that land is public domain which belongs to the volk
this actually goes back to the first valid claimants being european (feather indians for burgerland) tribes, which had a mutual understanding (which constitutes a valid contract) that this land is supposed to be communally owned ("commons") under certain conditions, part of which is that the descendants of this tribal group, which in their sum constitute the Volk, are supposed to own it in the future

communal ownership

communal ownership can exist in libertarianism in the form of a contract between willing owners that give consent to predefined use-cases on their property

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

in that case brown people can do lay claim onto it too, which is retarded because that land is public domain which belongs to the volk
this actually goes back to the first valid claimants being european (feather indians for burgerland) tribes, which had a mutual understanding (which constitutes a valid contract) that this land is supposed to be communally owned ("commons") under certain conditions, part of which is that the descendants of this tribal group, which in their sum constitute the Volk, are supposed to own it in the future

communal ownership can exist in libertarianism in the form of a contract between willing owners that give consent to predefined use-cases on their property

You have to stick to what can actually be claimed. "Mutual understanding" among a tribe can ground individual or shared use of a specific resource, but what it can't do is bind people who never consented to it or extend ownership to unborn descendants. At best, those early arrangements were stewardship customs between living participants, but that certainly does not make for an eternal deed to a continent.
Like, "valid contract", think about what it means to call a tribal custom a valid contract. In doing so, you already presuppose individual consent. The moment you apply it to people who never agreed to it, you're outside of contract theory altogether.
Really, there is nothing to be gained intellectually by calling something "the property of the volk", for then the claim is about bloodlines and myth, and not actions in reality. Property passes by demonstrated non-aggressive control and not by DNA or by story.
The crux is that ownership is established through action, and abstractions like "tribal group" or "volk" are not ontic entities capable of acting.

 

[regalterry]

Lolbergs are to the right what anarchists are to the left - the special kind of retards everyone is embarrassed to be associated with.

Anarchists go "let's tear down society" and are then shocked when warlords take over.

Lolbergs go "let's create a power vacuum" and then are surprised when someone fills it.

They are both retarded stupid because they refuse to acknowledge the reality of how humans think and behave.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

or extend ownership to unborn descendants

livertarians dont believe in inheritance of assets?
libertarians dont believe in trust funds?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

livertarians dont believe in inheritance of assets?
libertarians dont believe in trust funds?

The owner designates a successor, the successor accepts. Inheritance is a voluntary transfer of an existing title.
But what you described earlier was an imposition. You're claiming that people who never agreed to anything are automatically parties to a centuries-old "valid contract" they never signed, can't refuse, and can't renegotiate. That's basically feudal theology. Documentation and acceptance, and not DNA, are the crucial aspects.
tl;dr a child can receive a gift from his parents, but he can't be born owing allegiance to their ancestors

 

[rapecel]

Why is anyone taking the Libertarian Party seriously?
It's an oxymoron, it has no reason to exist
It's like a pacifist serial killer

A party doesn't really commit or order aggression in itself. The aggressive apparatuses of the government are its three branches.

Either way, libertarianism is an ethical/legal position, and so far nobody has made any coherent refutation, yet even a rebuttal or retort that's coherent and stands up to scrutiny

True. Libertarianism simply states that property rights violations are never okay.

How does that end up working at a nation level? At that point countries would stop existing and it'd be just millions of tiny tribal nations. In the long run you are just going to end up countries again once people start forming pacts and then taking over other peoples land. The more I look at this belief system I start thinking it's just an idealized romanticization of the wild-west.

It's interesting to me how critics of Libertarians, or generally just people who aren't Libertarian but inquire into it, end up turning whatever discussion they're heaving into something purely speculative, and therefore tangential to Libertarianism.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

sorry but while the libertarian ethics model is coherent, and works out in an infinite world with unclaimed areas, it miserably fails when discussing ownership of real-worlds lands that have valid claims on them, had valid claims on them before being violently stolen, and these claims being somewhat vague - yet nevertheless real, and not documented with 100% certainty

Documentation and acceptance, and not DNA, are the crucial aspects.

so if i come to your house and burn your title deed i can claim it myself, because you have no documentation
>inb4 but thats against the nap
but you cant prove that because you have no documentation
>inb4 but it still is against the nap
yes, just like stealing land that was peacefully settled by my ancestors