Lolbertarian Cringe - A place to post libertarians saying crazy shit

[Jason_Cruiser]

Temporary slavery is still slavery.

"Temporary slavery" to protect the continued existence of your people in the long-term isn't true slavery. You seem to forget people are not self-contained bubbles. Everyone identifies with a group, either it be their political affliction or their culture. If that comes under threat it is an expectation to protect it, even if you sacrifice some freedoms in the now.

Wrong. Rent presupposes consent and title. A threat isn't a contract.

Rent isn't consensual. People cannot function without a home. You can choose your landlord, but unless you can buy a home, you will be forced to pay rent. If you become a vagrant then you are basically fucked. Most people don't have the survival skills to make it work and companies have a stupidly low acceptance rate for hiring hobo's.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You get to live in the country if you pay taxes. You get to live in a cell if you dont.

Your "choice" between payment and punishment is identical to the mugger's "choice" between wallet and bullet. Consequences don't become moral by inevitability. "People willed it" is a euphemism for "some men used force, others submitted". Again, description and not justification. I guess the repetition will continue until your reasoning improves.

Taxation is the price you pay for civilization

That's like calling tribute "the price of not being pillaged". Civilization is the work of peaceful agents, government is a parasite.

"Temporary slavery" to protect the continued existence of your people in the long-term isn't true slavery.

"Temporary slavery" is slavery during that duration. Group identity doesn't erase individual agency. Sacrificing freedom for protection is trading away the symptom of survival for its cause.

Rent isn't consensual.

Rent involves voluntary exchange, taxation doesn't. A lack of abundance of alternatives doesn't create consent, it highlights coercion.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Rent isn't consensual. People cannot function without a home. You can choose your landlord, but unless you can buy a home, you will be forced to pay rent. If you become a vagrant then you are basically fucked. Most people don't have the survival skills to make it work and companies have a stupidly low acceptance rate for hiring hobo's.

What's funny is this retard doesn't even understand that the state is essentially a landlord, and ground rent, like taxes, is what you pay to occupy the land it controls. He just wants a right to free load off everyone else.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What's funny is this retard doesn't even understand that the state is essentially a landlord, and ground rent, like taxes, is what you pay to occupy the land it controls. He just wants to right to free load off everyone else.

Rent is payment for a scarce resource owned by someone who can refuse use. Tax is payment demanded by someone who claims ownership of everything. The difference is consent. A landlord without consent is nothing but a trespasser.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Rent is payment for a scarce resource owned by someone who can refuse use. Tax is payment demanded by someone who claims ownership of everything. The difference is consent. A landlord without consent is nothing but a trespasser.

National borders exist because land is a scarce resource, and states refuse entry to land all the time because of it. Even your definitions are retarded and incoherent. If you don't consent to this arrangement, that's your problem. Imagine thinking society ought to care about the feelings of a guy who doesn't even think cancer patients should be saved.

 

[Jason_Cruiser]

Rent involves voluntary exchange, taxation doesn't. A lack of abundance of alternatives doesn't create consent, it highlights coercion.

Taxation allows for people to have safety nets when they suffer. A world with only private renting encourages you to throw the downtrodden by the wayside. You pay tax to either protect yourself when you become poor and to help others so they can have a chance at getting back on their feet. It's a necessity for societal cohesion.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

The Yazidis, Druze and the Kurds are doing well without a state. Apparently, having an entity that protects you from others, who are powerful than you, makes you a "parasite." Lovely logic there.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

National borders exist because land is a scarce resource, and states refuse entry to land all the time because of it. Even your definitions are retarded and incoherent. If you don't consent to this arrangement, that's your problem. Imagine thinking society ought to care about the feelings of a guy who doesn't even think cancer patients should be saved.

Borders are limits of force, not proofs of ownership. Saying "we refuse entry" is power, not title. You're confusing possession with right.

Taxation allows for people to have safety nets when they suffer. A world with only private renting encourages you to throw the downtrodden by the wayside. You pay tax to either protect yourself when you become poor and to help others so they can have a chance at getting back on their feet. It's a necessity for societal cohesion.

Safety nets bought at gunpoint are containment. Mutual aid exists without taxation. It's welfare with consent instead of compulsion.

The Yazidis, Druze and the Kurds are doing well without a state. Apparently, having an entity that protects you from others, who are powerful than you, makes you a "parasite." Lovely logic there.

Protection by monopoly is a dependency. These groups survive through voluntary organization in spite of, not because of states.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Borders are limits of force, not proofs of ownership. Saying "we refuse entry" is power, not title. You're confusing possession with right.

"Borders are not proof of ownership." Your logical reasoning is so contradictory, and self defeating, you've now abolished the concept of property rights to defend a losing argument. Jesus Christ.

Protection by monopoly is a dependency. These groups survive through voluntary organization in spite of, not because of states.

True, the Yazidis, Druze and the Kurds should just accept genocide. Clearly, autonomy must preclude existence. Worked out very well for the Melians, of course. Another brilliant display of libertarian reasoning, lol.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Your "choice" between payment and punishment is identical to the mugger's "choice" between wallet and bullet. Consequences don't become moral by inevitability. "People willed it" is a euphemism for "some men used force, others submitted". Again, description and not justification. I guess the repetition will continue until your reasoning improves

If you want to be homeless buddy and abscond taxation, go for it. That is an option. But the moment something goes wrong, an animal attacks you in the woods and another hobo steals your shit, don't be mad that you could have been in a house if you paid your taxes and acted like a functional member of society.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

"Borders are not proof of ownership." Your logical reasoning is so contradictory, and self defeating, you've now abolished the concept of property rights to defend a losing argument. Jesus Christ.

True, the Yazidis, Druze and the Kurds should just accept genocide. Clearly, autonomy must preclude existence. Worked out very well for the Melians, of course. Another brilliant display of libertarian reasoning, lol.

Ownership arises from first use and consent, not from drawing lines with armies. All you've done is replace property with conquest.

If you want to be homeless buddy and abscond taxation, go for it. That is an option. But the moment something goes wrong, an animal attacks you in the woods and another hobo steals your shit, don't be mad that you could have been in a house if you paid your taxes and acted like a functional member of society.

Threats dressed as advice remain threats. "Pay or be prey" is nothing but the warning of a mugger.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Ownership arises from first use and consent, not from drawing lines with armies. All you've done is replace property with conquest.

HA HA HA HA

Threats dressed as advice remain threats. "Pay or be prey" is nothing but the warning of a mugger.

Nigga it's the truth. Apparently you can't handle the truth. Have you even camped out for a week? Not a day, a week? Brother you will be filthy, you will have insect bites, you will shit in literal holes. And since you have given everything up to live in the woods in this situation, you have basically no cash. You will be wiping your ass with leaves. And let's not get started when winter comes. You will also have to move around to avoid the forest service, so no chance of building a simple hut. You will be in a tent smelling of shit because you refuse to pay your taxes like a grown ass man.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Ownership arises from first use and consent, not from drawing lines with armies. All you've done is replace property with conquest.

Dude, you're just throwing shit at the wall at this point and retreating to the same argument as before. Go live in the fucking woods. The fact that your beliefs led to endorsing communism, of all fucking things, just from your own framework is enough for me. I'm done.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

HA HA HA HA

Nigga it's the truth. Apparently you can't handle the truth. Have you even camped out for a week? Not a day, a week? Brother you will be filthy, you will have insect bites, you will shit in literal holes. And since you have given everything up to live in the woods in this situation, you have basically no cash. You will be wiping your ass with leaves. And let's not get started when winter comes. You will also have to move around to avoid the forest service, so no chance of building a simple hut. You will be in a tent smelling of shit because you refuse to pay your taxes like a grown ass man.

What's hard to understand about description not being the same thing as argument? "Life is hard in the woods" is a review of camping, not a defense of taxation. Legitimacy isn't created by discomfort.

Dude, you're just throwing shit at the wall at this point and retreating to the same argument as before. Go live in the fucking woods. The fact that your beliefs led to endorsing communism, of all fucking things, just from your own framework is enough for me. I'm done.

First use and consent are the basis of private property, not collectivism. If you see communism in voluntary ownership, that just lends more credence to assumptions of eyesight issues or hallucinations on your part

 

[WelperHelper99]

What's hard to understand about description not being the same thing as argument? "Life is hard in the woods" is a review of camping, not a defense of taxation. Legitimacy isn't created by discomfort.

You say that smugly now. If you actually believed what you argued, you'd already be in the woods, but you aren't.

First use and consent are the basis of private property, not collectivism. If you see communism in voluntary ownership, that just lends more credence to assumptions of eyesight issues or hallucinations on your part

To the Victor goes the spoils nigger. You describe Injun giving. Nah. I enforce my borders. You can try to move them with your army. Otherwise fuck off. The land is owned by the state that occupies it and conquered it.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You say that smugly now. If you actually believed what you argued, you'd already be in the woods, but you aren't.

To the Victor goes the spoils nigger. You describe Injun giving. Nah. I enforce my borders. You can try to move them with your army. Otherwise fuck off. The land is owned by the state that occupies it and conquered it.

Good on you for dropping the mask completely. Ownership by conquest, morality by survival. Leaving the realm of ethics and joined the wildlife

 

[WelperHelper99]

Good on you for dropping the mask completely. Ownership by conquest, morality by survival. Leaving the realm of ethics and joined the wildlife

I hate to be the one to inform you, but for ALL of human history, man has conquered each other. Land has been traded in countless battles, countless times. In no time in history, has your libertine ideals ever won out. This is reality. I live in reality. Your esoteric ethics don't fucking matter when it's you verses a group. They will take your shit and run you over. Your only way to avoid this is to participate in society so you do not get run over. Only as a group does man have a chance at surviving to the next day.

And yes. Everything is ownership by conquest. If i beat you, if i win, i get to do anything i want. While you have screamed about YOUR ethics, you fail to understand mine. I'm traditional nigger. A Republican in all aspects. I am anti slavery, anti communism, and pro putting a boot in the ass of external threats to the American people. Abraham Lincoln was the most based man in the last 160 years.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I hate to be the one to inform you, but for ALL of human history, man has conquered each other. Land has been traded in countless battles, countless times. In no time in history, has your libertine ideals ever won out. This is reality. I live in reality. Your esoteric ethics don't fucking matter when it's you verses a group. They will take your shit and run you over. Your only way to avoid this is to participate in society so you do not get run over. Only as a group does man have a chance at surviving to the next day.

And yes. Everything is ownership by conquest. If i beat you, if i win, i get to do anything i want. While you have screamed about YOUR ethics, you fail to understand mine. I'm traditional nigger. A Republican in all aspects. I am anti slavery, anti communism, and pro putting a boot in the ass of external threats to the American people. Abraham Lincoln was the most based man in the last 160 years.

The notion of "might makes right" invalidates every moral claim you make, including your anti-slavery posturing. History is not a license or justification for theft, murder, or perpetual insecurity. Conquest creates permanent instability, predation, and poverty, not civilization. The same history you point at shows that societies that secure property rights and voluntary exchange create lasting wealth and stability, while armies create ruins and resentment. To praise Lincoln while claiming that the spoils go to the victor is blatantly incoherent. Lincoln fought to end conquest as a norm, not to celebrate it. All you're defending is barbarism and paperwork.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The notion of "might makes right" invalidates every moral claim you make, including your anti-slavery posturing. History is not a license or justification for theft, murder, or perpetual insecurity. Conquest creates permanent instability, predation, and poverty, not civilization.

Conquest IS civilization. Mankind has not evolved past it and never will.

The same history you point at shows that societies that secure property rights and voluntary exchange create lasting wealth and stability, while armies create ruins and resentment.

Armies secure all those things.

To praise Lincoln while claiming that the spoils go to the victor is blatantly incoherent. Lincoln fought to end conquest as a norm, not to celebrate it. All you're defending is barbarism and paperwork.

Lincoln conquered tyrants like you. Who enslaved people like cattle. Who made people nothing more than 1s and 0s on a spreadsheet. He burned the south to the ground to make a point. That a nation divided cannot stand. That Federalism was the winning argument. He won the battle of wills.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Conquest IS civilization

is a concession that your standard is victory and not right. An erasure of ethics.
Armies are instruments, they can defend rights or violate them. They don't create the rights they claim to secure. Civilization is the taming of conquest by property, contract, and consent. Where force is the rule, stability and wealth collapse into tribute.
Invoking Lincoln to sanctify conquest is mistaking the principle for the outcome. No justification, only history as a scoreboard.