When did you first realise that libertarians are right?

Don't like guns? Don't buy one.

All of those hurt someone else, whereas OP image only illustrates scenarios in which people hurt themselves.

>what is a victimless crime
your an literal retard

>your a literal retard
And they say Germans aren't funny

i dont support murder but i will die to defend your right to do so

-luberal

see

Just post ancap caps and be done with it.

No, when a large amount of people at a certain point and beyond start drinking their asses off or all dudes become gay or everyone starts having non-marital sex, it will end up destroying society, rape, murder, and stealing can be stopped by law enforcement already.

where were you when you finally realized that you're brown, hue?

>don't like to get shot?
>???

How does watching child porn hurt someone?

>Don't like murder, extortion, slavery etc...

False equivalence. The OP image (and idea) do not describe actions which harm another human.

The banning of rape, child molestation and the like are perfectly in line with libertarian thought.

Was a free market libertarian up until third year of Uni. Becoming more conservative with the migrant crisis. I don't even think I support gay marriage any more

Don't like Roads? don't build them
Don't like Foot paths? don't build them

Why shouldn't take other people's """""""rights""""""" if I want to?

This.

>don't support degenerate fetish leading to wide spread disease of moral people
I wonder why

This picture makes me so embarrassed to think I was a libertarian

society would become a degenerate shithole. People are dumb and need to be protected against themselves

For you, OP :^)

>when a large amount of people at a certain point and beyond start drinking their asses off or all dudes become gay or everyone starts having non-marital sex, it will end up destroying society
how exactly will legal homosexuality result in everyone dying? please DO tell

So children that watch their parents juice up and get drunk, they are ok? They all turn out to be well integrated productive members of society? Get the fuck out of here foreigner scum, this is America.
Fight me

>implying logic works against literal retards
Nice TRY

>Sex hurts your future spouse; children and yourself by destroying your ability to pairbond
>Cigarettes hurt other people by secondhand smoke
>Gay marriages hurt the community by destroy the fabric of society
>Drugs hurt other people when they chimp out
>Alcohol kills millions of people world wide by cause car accidents.
>Abortions actually KILL an other person

Fuck off

The problem is that when some druggie overdoses without insurance we the taxpayers have to cover him.

And since no one is going to vote in favor of just letting people die, we need these laws to save us money.

Laissez-faire capitalism is literally a meme.

>2016
>Not believing in mixed economics

:')

Muh:
>right to be degenerate
>right to kill babies because muh sex
>right to act like a retard
>right to put a penis in someones ass

But fuck right to defend yourself, fuck right to live in racialy unified country, fuck right to cherish your own culture.

Gay marriage destroys the fabric of society, the family unit, albeit that has been getting destroyed by cultural Marxism and false narratives of individualism and bodily autonomy. Same with abortion. All things I used to support.

I went to a gay persons party once to see what it would be like. No joke there was a couple in a threesome relationship there. If we allow gay marriage how can other people be denied it? Needs to be a line drawn somewhere

But all those sjws that want those want to take away our rights

>Don't like suicide bombings? Don't blow yourself up

>people exist in a vacuum, entirely independent of anyone or anything else

>drugs hurt people
Sure, but don't forget the root cause of widespread drug usage
>niggers consume the most illegal substances
>niggers made drinking yourself to piss and violence fashionable in the inner city during the 1920's

2edgy5me

Define degeneracy.

Libertarians are correct, the problem is libertarianism can only work in a culturally homogenous society.
We would need at least a solid decade of fascism and shitskin removal before libertarianism could be viable anywhere in the western world.

So then a theocracy is best

>niggers consume the most illegal substances

This hasn't been true for about 20 years now. At least not in the US.

Niggers GET CAUGHT with the most illegal substances but, then again, niggers are more likely to be careless.

>Don't like inflammatory language
>Don't use it

Conspicuously absent from the list.

Explain how other citizens' right to do any of those things would adversely affect your own rights.

>fuck right to defend yourself
really? self defense is illegal in poland? seriously? did you incur braindamage recently?

>fuck right to live in racialy unified country
if that were a right, then the muslim arabs living in germany have as much right to a "pure arab germany" as the white ethnic germans have to a "pure white germany".
do you see the problem here?

>fuck right to cherish your own culture.
again, are you serious? I mean, you cannot possibly be this retarded.

Probably a left-""""libertarian"""" who originally posted it.

>Don't like war? Stand around while your country is invaded.

t. a leppotarian

> no guns

>implying we have a responsibility to give fentonol to drug users

Let them die they made that choice

The only problem i see is where we can fit all the shitskin bodies to burn

By watching you are telling the people who produce it that their is a demand and so they will increase the supply

kek

Slaveowners would tell you they're not harming another human being, who are you to judge their way of life

I am The Law.

Says the brit. The brit who doesnt live here is telling us we can just dismess every measurable figure we have on the subject because he has apparantly a great deal of first hand experience and also reasons.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, but the fact remains that this is an ideal. Doctors operate first then ask insurance questions later for reasons extending beyond this. If we were to change (big if since it's widely unpopular) we'd need everyone with insurance to be in some database with multiple i.d.s like a card, fingerprints, eye scan, which still raises issues when someone is severly burned or is in a horrible car crash.

It's just a hassle to check someone's insurance before administering emergency treatment.

You won't have overdoses if drugs are legalized and normalized to the point the average junkie is at least educated enough not to stick himself with too much junk. The obese put a much heavier burden on the state but no one says we should illegalize KFC, last I checked they had the "freedom" to put themselves in that position.

Nobody lives in a vacuum. There is no such thing as victimless crime.

Case in point. I've heard it argued that all hard drugs should be legalized. Ok. So meth is legal now. A person decides to start taking meth and gets addicted. They are now a compromised human being with severely impaired agency and self control. They become a drag on society and can no longer work. However, their addiction still exists and they do anything to score a fix. So they begin breaking into homes and cars and robbing people. Now most rational people would understand that this person is compromised. They are responsible for their actions, but we know they aren't well nor functioning properly. They are compelled by the addiction and their decision making ability is heavily impaired. It's easier for us to cast blame on a sober person than an addict. Multiply this for many people and see the effects on overall crime.

So tell me, why do we even let such a substanc that will negatively impact the fabric of society? It's one thing to say people can ruin their own lives if they wish. But it never stops there. People don't live nor do they self destruct in a vacuum. There is always going to be spillover that affects others in society.

Libertarian views are for the most part myopic and self serving.

I have your DOH's own statistics. Blacks and whites are within 1% of each-other in terms of illicit drug use.

samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf

fucking this
people are too prone to degeneracy
also different cultures and peoples respond better to different forms of government, what works for one country may not work for another
e.g., Sweden (when it was actually Sweden and not a somali colony) was paradise, because Nords are completely tuned to that form of government, they've basically been practicing democratic socialism since the time of the Vikings
If you took that and tried to do it in the US it just wouldn't work, you'd see a collapse in a matter of months

>Taxpayer funded healthcare in a libertarian society

Please...

Why?

How about instead of helping stupid degenerates we lace class 1-3 substances with acetone

nice POS image

*8 false dilemmas
several include other fallacies also

and finishes with:
"rights"
subjective

>hurr durr my actions don't affect anyone else no matter what!

It's an incredibly selfish utopian ideology

based israeli, going against zionist plans

how many times have you suggested nuking the entire middle east this week just curious

It's not their "right" to do those things that affects my rights, it's their doing them that adversely affects me. A person dependent on drugs(including alcohol and cigarettes) or porn wastes that much of their energy on pursuits that are not constructive. They propagate these behaviors on their neighbors (advertising) and their children. By not improving themselves but continuing to consume and encouraging others to do the same (consciously or not), they are a net drag.

Our actions only affect others, in any meaningful sense, when the state steps in to subsidize them.

On whom?

Again, this is an ideal. People get addicted to all sorts of legal drugs nowadays and many of those have heavy restrictions. From addiction they eventually slip into OD and therein lies the problem.

I'm talking about reality, not a libertarian ideal.

Let's create a scenario where responsible adults have insurance and the druggies don't. They die off saving us millions, but what happens if some asshole crashes into your car destroying your face , and causing burns to the point where doctors have no way of quickly identifying you or your coverage? This is a rare occurrence, but definetly not unheard of.

Because the average voter hates hard drugs until they realize they probably know someone on them and then they want to help them.

Prove me wrong though. Start a movement and I'll gladly join, but I just don't see it taking off.

>victimless crime

No significant action is without consequence. Libertarianism is just another form of voluntary blindness.

You like what others might not like? Consider containing that to your fucking self without asking for attention and special treatment like fucking idiot.

>They die off saving us millions
Net positive for society. Unlikely, however, since most drug users know their limits and remain independent of the drugs (for example only 3% of crack cocaine users actually become addicted).

>but what happens if some asshole...
The fact that you have to bring up a shockingly unlikely fringe case as a counterpoint is telling but I'll humour you. In this case you would be taken to a hospital that offers emergency care without upfront charge (this is a good business practice for obvious reasons so would not be rare), once your identity became known your health insurance company could be contacted for the necessary fees (that is assuming the crony insurance system even survives in a capitalist society).

I assume you are referring to "net drag". On themselves and everyone else.

Lefty libertarians aren't. :^)

Indeed. It only gets worse when the state steps in, though.

The man smoking crack on the floor below me poses some minimal risk to my health. The cartel that murders people in the streets for the right to sell that crack to him, I think you'll agree, poses a far greater threat.

uh yeah there is such a thing as a victimless crime, if you live by yourself, have no wife or kids, but work for your own wage you can inject designer drugs into your eyelids and have a prostitute come over and fuck your brains out then go gamble the rest of your earnings away in a smoky bar basement and the only person who could possibly be considered a victim here is the prostitute, but while she was sucking off she mentioned she was using the money to pay for med school so you don't even feel bad about it oh and she's british and she brought those Cadbury Cream Eggs over to try to sell you too, in direct violation of Federal Law. No one in this scenario so much as got there feelings hurt, but please explain who the victim is? The prostitute for selling herself? The guy who is tempted by the forbidden fruit of cadbury eggs, a pleasure he has never known?

>When did you first realise that libertarians are right?

They're right on issues of individual freedom and liberty.

All the items in OP's pic are individual freedoms.

But they're wrong when they worship and fetishize capitalism. They have a huge blind spot about capitalism's weaknesses, and they refuse to admit when capitalism spins out of control and needs a leash put on it.

God tier:
* Absolute libertarianism for individuals.
* Absolute authoritarianism for large corporations.
* A balance of the two for small businesses.

The left has the right to force you to live with and serve niggers.

If you don't get to control who you live with and serve, you are not free by any stretch of the word. You are the servant and the Government is your master.

When you realize things like that, you will know how the world really works.

Libertarian is not the right strategy when the Government can simply shut you down and kill you if you resist.

You don't beat a Tyrant by begging for mercy or by playing by his rules. You win by playing your own game against the Tyrant where you decide the rules.

Police enforcement works off of positive feedback rather than negative feedback. Private corporations vying for contracts with small communities - enforcing whichever laws those communities want, be they anti-drug or anti-homosexuality or just anti-property-violation. Corporations competing would need to keep customer satisfaction rates up in order to stay competitive, which would keep their funds tight, their practices efficient, and prices low, or else newcomers to the market could outmaneuver them. This isn't the invisible hand - this is how markets work when legislation doesn't keep the oligopolies alive and well with rampant industry corruption. And it's the ultimate antithesis to the current monopoly police forces have that engenders corruption and lack of transparency.

>le second hand smoke maymay

don't like murder? don't do it.

This variety of libertarianism is cancerous. Conservative libertarianism is best libertarianism.

> sure you can be gay and get married, but the state doesn't recognize marriages, gay or straight, and yes that business can discriminate against you
> abortion is not a question of a woman's rights, it's the question of an unborn persons right. Being pro-life and libertarian are not mutually exclusive
> do all the drugs you want, but once all institutions drug test - businesses, schools etc - a person won't be able to participate in society if they can't keep their shit together and stay off drugs, and without a welfare safety net they'll work themselves out of the system

It's not a good business practice because it would take some people +10 years to make $200k so you would still be losing money.

Unless of course the procedure only costs like $20k (which it probably does) so you squeeze 90% of their shit salary for a year or two until they die. With you having made ~$10k.

I being that scenario up because it is entirely plausible and not at all fringe. Think for a moment, if doctor's only treat the insured they need some way of confirming it, but in emergency situations you tend to be disorganized and maybe unable to provide verification. For example, say they go by fingerprints and you have an industrial chemical accident that burns your hands and arms. What then?

It's also a bit troubling because it meas yet another large database with all of your medical records in it.

>On themselves
Agreed. Which is why I don't believe the state should prop them up through welfare or healthcare.

>and everyone else
Here I must disagree. It is only when the state enforces collectivist policies, such as welfare or taxpayer-funded healthcare, that these issues become a matter of public interest (barring fringe cases of drug-induced violence). This is why collectivism of any sort is inherently and necessarily authoritarian. Hayek makes the excellent example of food price fixing in his 'Road to Serfdom'; once the price of a certain commodity is fixed the state must expand to prevent smuggling and 'black market' trading, to do this effectively it must create a vast network of informants and secret police, no action of any individual remains without state scrutiny and the society quickly devolves into the nightmares that were Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or the USSR.

The monopoly on the use of force via legislative interpretation is the cancer that has allowed government to become the beast it is. Assuming we require a single organization to hold this monopoly - even if some vague notion of representation exists to appease the masses - is madness. The use of force allows backroom deals to direct the application of that force until only the most corrupt are allowed in the club at the top, and all the rest get wrecked by those with the money to pay off those with the governmental power.

That's a very stupid image.

That's like the "liberal facts" that the cucks post in jewbook

Don't like recreational bioweapons? Don't use one.
freedum n sheeit.
I'm a libertarian, yes. BUT A CONSERVATIVE ONE. I don't want freedom to the point of degeneracy.

These prices are inflated by your perception of healthcare.

It /is/ a good business practice because it, A) brings more customers into your place of business (the vast majority of whom will regain consciousness and be able to provide insurance details within hours or days, and B) fosters consumer goodwill which means repeat business and free marketing.

Don't like murder? Don't murder anyone
Don't like stealing? Don't steal

Porn, drugs, abortions, alcohol, and homosexuality are not victimless crimes. It always involve innocent third parties that has to take the negative effects from it.

Why doesn't public interest exist without a government? I agree with the rest of what you wrote but I don't see how it relates.

Regardless of if the public interest is a cause of the current government or not, it exists. People's actions have effects, that's all. If your neighbor blows up his meth lab, has drunken parties, disposes of his waste in your local waterway, etc. this will have a detrimental effect on you regardless of whether a state exists to force him to do otherwise or not because of the simple fact that you share an environment with this neighbor. Or?

wow great arguments guys, definitely got my noodle joggin' gotta say

>It only gets worse when the state steps in, though.

Stop applying grandiose principles so lazily, it may well be preferable to take the less destructive option in regard to drug use, but to ignore the issue entirely based on that conclusion is again, mere blindness.

Worse still is to use such examples as substantial proof to write off the state's potential uses in society. By all means question the power and purpose of the state, but do not ignore solutions due to their reliance on state intervention.

It is this kind of willful ignorance that renders libertarianism utterly useless when societies are met with certain threats. Islamic immigration would be a perfect example of this.

youtube.com/watch?v=5brHnPKOkbs

The only solution is to shrink the scope of government so that big players can't collectivize their investment in a single, all-powerful organization. Crush the weapon that is government, break down the barriers keeping new players from competing, and the corporations will have no recourse but to get good and clean their shitty acts up. Which markets would this clean up? Name it: telecommunications, public education, secondary education, healthcare, the automobile industry, roads, power, water sanitation, etc. Etc.

I know several people some even family members, whose lives have been ruined by cake and fried chicken, will you consider banning these too?

It's not cake and fried chicken that ruined their lives.

What would prevent a large corporation from simply re-making the "weapon that is government"? It's in their interest, as you point out.

>says the people who wants to take muh guns!
They will NEVER have MY guns!

Still a larger burden on society than fucking porn you nut.

Well I already dismissed such cases as 'fringe' but you've convinced me that my point deserves an expansion. First of all, you mention a neighbor blowing up his meth lab, it should be immediately apparent that I would not choose to live near such people and, circumstances prohibiting such a choice, I would do everything in my power to secure funding to move away. In the second instance it seems to me highly unlikely that dangerous drug labs of that kind would even survive if recreational methamphetamine were legalized since market forces would make small-scale hillbilly production unprofitable. Again, it is only through the actions of the state that such a condition is prevalent. Thirdly, the negligence required to blow up one's source of profit can be criminalized without any contradictions to libertarian philosophy of law. This point extends to all your other examples except perhaps the parties (which I might remind you are not currently illegal). In that case local noise ordinances would be necessary. Care should be taken that they fall within constitutional boundaries, are based on community consensus and are not punished excessively.

No it is not, porn leads to all the degeneracy we have seen after internet became popular. Acceptance of homosexuality and that genderqueer shit and so on and so forth. Nothing destroys society more than porn.

It has made the west weak and moist. The only people intereste

Competition. True monopolies not backed by force of law only benefit consumers. If they raise prices, a competitor can cut the margins and displace them. Actual corrupt force - the mob - is only helped by overarching monopolies on the use of force, as they are the black market alternative. When force is rightfully allowed by the community itself, corporations selling their services can easily be ousted by groups of vilified individuals.

'Open borders' wankery is not libertarian. This is a corruption of libertarian, via ancap, thought taken to illogical extremes.

These people are shiting on my tenth amendment right to live in a state that refects my values

Libertarianism is the spook-free alliance. Anything else is for limp-wristed kikes.

How does a monopoly benefit consumers? By definition there is a lack of competition. I'm not understanding.

>If they (monopoly) raises prices, a competitor
there is no competitor

Sorry to burst your bubble but we don't care about the rights of those "people".
So we'll take their rights away as much as we feel like it. If they don't like it then they can just leave

Around middle school.

Their social policy is pretty legit, but I don't agree with their platform of destroying all the roads.

It is a product of libertarianism's deep respect for the individual, and meritocracy more generally. It is a natural progression. Just like liberalism's apathy towards degeneracy and the destruction of families and cultures.

You may call it 'extreme', but it exposes just how destructive these principles are in reality.

Significant risks to babies at the very least.

>it's another "i'm going to pretend to have a sub-110 IQ and no sense of logic by using false equivalences" episode
You got me

It's not false equivalence. Unethical actions that has adverse effects on societies in general and innocent individuals in particular.

""""adverse effects"""" vary wildly in severity, cuck.

Yes, things like porn destroys whole societies. Theft and murder have smaller and less permanent effects, but it's still relevant

>I don't want freedom to the point of degeneracy.

This is a good stance to have though

The standard term refers to an industry situation in which one organization dominates the entire chain of production for a given product, from resource acquisition to manufacturing to sale. There are no demonstrable conditions that would lead to these circumstances without legislative holds being in place to enforce such a situation. For example: the diamond industry is an oft-cited example; however, there are companies that have explored the generation and production of diamonds by complex manufacturing means rather than the typical blood diamond mining production. The problem is the diamond industry lobby placing prohibitive controls on the market, not the apparent monopoly the company has. But in other examples, such as gas powered cars, investment in research for alternative fuel, for alternative energy requirements for transportation, and for changes to the industry are all blocked by preposterous current legislation (see Tesla's difficulties in creating car dealerships around the country).

TOLL ROADS
O
L
L

R
O
A
D
S

I don't see how that answers my question. Why isn't there public interest without a government?

My point is that a public interest exists because your neighbor affects you and you affect him. How you affect each other is the public interest, and this requires community consensus to make things like noise ordinances.

>porn destroys whole societies
Fuck off, christfag.

And you're being cheeky, but no, it isn't relevant.

It is relevant even if murder and theft is less serious, the point still stand you genderqueer faggot.

Agreed. This is why many libertarian scholars consider democracy to be little more than mob rule. It's a reminder of the importance of the rule of law (specifically, as I mentioned, constitutional law).

B-b-but muh roads!!!!

How will society function if my tax dollars arent being used to build roads and bridges 1,000 miles away from me which I'll never even drive on!?!?!?

explain the function of a libertarian government

> Don't like drugs marketed to children?

> don't have children!

You are confusing the personal and moral arguments.

Someone not liking the taste of alcohol or not wanting to get an abortion is a personal opinion. Someone thinking that alcohol damages society, or that abortion is murder is a moral argument.

Logically, it is the same as saying
>Don't like slavery? Don't keep slaves
>Don't like heroin? Don't shoot up

These statements also confuse the moral and personal arguments. People are against slavery for moral reasons, not personal reasons, same with hard drugs.

Before someone says I am making false equivalences because abortion or alcohol consumption are victimless crimes, I'd like to say that people who are morally against them at the very core of the argument refute that, as they believe foeti are killed by abortion, and that alcohol damages society.

Gay marriage
>not a right
Cigarettes
>not a right
Abortions
>again, not a right
Sex
>not even a right
Drugs
>not a right at all
Porn
>not a right
Alcohol
>not a fucking right

Dont like my rights taken away? well how about saying no to some fucking refugees for a right, you fucking filthy communist

I agree that monopolies can be aided by legislation, but I don't understand why, if that legislation is removed, the monopoly (or just some organized group of people looking to profit) wouldn't work to put this legislation back into place. How does competition prevent this?

Define 'society'... Such generalizations and lazy argumentation tend to mask nasty collectivist ideas. We don't need to be saved from ourselves. That is our own responsibility, and our own business to deal with the consequences.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

Best libertarianism reporting in.

What point? Porn destroys societies? That's bullshit and you are stupid for claiming it.

Porn is responsible for the rise in trannies and the straight men who are leaning to masturbating/fantasizing about them for example

seeing how everyone on here has no life and therefore no friends nor are they ever going to have a child, it's not a big issue desu

I was a libertarian and an athiest throughout my late teens, but then I grew up.

Now an agnostic with various right-wing and centrist values.

>Define 'society'
Culture, institutions, religion, language and so on and so forth.

>We don't need to be saved from ourselves.

All things mentioned have adverse effects on third parties. Just like murder and theft.

Shut up you gender non-conforming idiot. People like you is the result of too much porn in society.

So how do people sharing a space decide on what the law should be, if not democracy?

> lolbertarianism

I support le free market choice freedom and all SJW things plz no make fun college liberals!

> women still won't fuck him

Sluts! Whores! Gamergate! MGTOW! Beta revolt!

>thinking the porn (((industry))) isn't made up of (((people))) benefiting off the decline of Western morality.
>thinking its mere coincidence that porn viewers are finding themselves more turned on and accepting of black men fucking white women

Competition doesn't prevent legislation. Governmental reform and vast deregulation prevents legislation. There are things the government should never be allowed to legislate against on a federal level, and they should be outlined in broad and narrow terms at great length.

Competition is just the perfect venue for vetting products. Companies want long term customer satisfaction, so without help from a large government, they'd be forced to rely in their customers for profit rather than the government's zombification efforts to keep them alive and growing.

>MUH RIGHTS
>DON'T STEP ON ME XDDDDDDDDD
>YOUR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE VALUELESS
>I DO NOT CONSENT I'M A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN OF THE USA I DO NOT CONSENT
>TAXES ARE THEFT !!!!!!
Fuck libertarians

Rights do not exist. They are a gift from the State in exchange for taxes and law compliance.
Libertarians/Anarchists should not base anything in "rights".

You're making such wide, sweeping generalizations that what you're saying is meaningless. Who specifically does it harm? In what circumstances? You can't claim it hurts everyone without delineating specifics, and specifics as reflected on the global scale is impossible.

this.

the west is losing it's moral center, and that's why birthrates are declining and more and more people become parasites and slaves of the welfare states.

> Don't want to be murdered by muslims? Move somewhere where there are no muslims.
> Oh wait!!

im all for the elimination of victim-less crimes
if you want to use meth, go ahead - you'll be just one less motherfucker.

Gay people have a right to straight marriage as much as straight people do, I'm not taking away they're rights I'm just making sure they have as many rights as straight people and arent priveliged

False equivalence.

None of the listed things directly offend on your freedom and liberty like murder and rape would.

Woah, keep it friendly, you giant autistic faggot.

He was being sarcastic.
>German humor

>They are a gift from the State in exchange for taxes and law compliance
You could also argue they are relics from tribalist society, where they were instituted by all powerful despots and kings to keep their people in order, and that they must therefore be abolished.

>projecting your own failures onto pol

why do neets do this all the time, plenty here do well irl

>le happy anarchy

explain its function, or just admit you want anarchy

Lolbertarians are all atheists so they can never explain where their "rights" come from anyway.

Muh NAP muh logics.

It's like these faggots think they're captain Spock or someshit

it's the final great filter of civilization and I'm proud to see it happen. wish we'd nuke ourselves into glass

I am a theist libertarian/ancap.

They shouldn't be either abolished or enforced, just ignored in political debates. They are an afterthought, a treat, not the core of anything.

It hurts everyone involved, the people who produce it, the people who consume it, the people who have contact with people who consume and produce it. The institutions that these people affect and so on and so forth.

>None of the listed things directly offend on your freedom and liberty like murder and rape would.

Murder and rape has less effect on it, but murder and rape still have SOME effect and it's therefore not a false equivalence.

so basically
>let me come up with an artificial scenario where every self-serving action has an extremely debilitating consequence on the rest of society, no matter how many mental gymnastics it takes, or how mundane the action is, as long as I don't like it
>rinse and repeat until I can't think of anything
Wow LIBERTARIANS BTFO

abortion murders someone else
violation of the non aggression principle

out of wedlock sex causes single mothers and criminals and mental illness which effects other people

alcoholics get drunk and cause problems and kill people sometimes while driving

etc

>believing in the libfag
Never again, joke ideology.

>be retarded retard
>not understand the statement being made
people have the right to choose those things, not the right to have them granted by a govt.

>Don't like taxes?
>...

Do you mean that it hurts them spiritually? I can agree. However, the alternative is worse. Requiring a thug with a club to threaten a beating to anyone that is involved with that industry only makes the thing more desirable. And more prevalent and criminal.

Forcing morality is a self contradicting paradigm to establish.

That's the hard part. Ideally the original constitution of a country should be framed in a libertarian perspective, ratified by state representatives and enforced absolutely (for the former two a finer example than the United States of America I have yet to find).

> People have a right to choose these things?

Fucking why? What's the pre-supposition behind this assumption? It would be nice and moral to have people do whatever the fuck they want?

Was a libertarian until about 2014 when I realized that libertarians are completely unable to fight organized degeneracy and subversion.

has molymeme ever pondered the enforcement of the NAP?

purely libertarian society is a fantasy just like "functional" anarchy

It's not anarchy but minarchy.

We recognize the state as necessary to prevent all that would happen with actual anarchy.

It's function would be to protect your rights and natural rights from anarchists and everyone else that would infringe on them. Mostly we support basic government, military, police, and the justice system.

but I'm all for it becasue i can wait to see humanity go down the shitter. we have the hubris to consider ourselves the apex of existence, but can't stop fighting over a rock for ten seconds. It makes me sad that WW3 is never going to happen. I really wanted to be incinerated by a nuke b/c i don't have a gun to make it quick an easy.

Okay, so I originally asked
>What would prevent a large corporation from simply re-making the "weapon that is government"?

You answered, competition. I assume that when you say the government is a weapon, you are referring to legislation aimed at "zombification efforts", or no?

But competition does not prevent legislation? Which is it?

I agree, without help from a large government, they'd be forced....etc.

But why wouldn't they form a government to help them? What's stopping them?

> Tiny government with little legitimacy

Good luck with all the niggers

>people have a right
Really? Who says?

It being a fantasy is literally not an argument.
It can be done. It won't ever be done, but there is nothing that impedes the posibility.

>be outside
>smell smoke
>find smoker
>shoot smoker in head for violating the NAP against my lungs

I can see me defending myself a lot in the libertarian utopia.

>implying libertarians buy into the (((liberal))) propaganda that religion was created by white cis males to enslave the world
try harder, fagboy.

>Requiring a thug with a club to threaten a beating to anyone that is involved with that industry only makes the thing more desirable. And more prevalent

If that was true then the porn industry would have hired people to beat themselves up. It's a business, if something can make them more desireable and more prevalent then they would have done that.

>Forcing morality is a self contradicting paradigm to establish.

Just like how laws against rape and murder makes it more desirable to rape and murder? Forcing morality is what laws do, that's the whole point of having laws at all you agenderflux demiboy faggot

Don't like AR-15s? Don't buy one.

>It's function would be to protect your rights and natural rights from anarchists and everyone else that would infringe on them. Mostly we support basic government, military, police, and the justice system.

who appoints these people and how?

'Purely libertarian' is not a thing. Libertarianism is an overarching political reform ideology that would make room for states and counties and communities to establish their own forms of legislative expression and enforcement apart from a singular, monolithic federal government breathing down their neck. Anarchominarchism? Go for it. Maoist microcommunity? Hey, if you can make it work. Failing patterns will fail swiftly, strong patterns will spread and compete, and perhaps you won't have to leave the country to live out your political stance and make real differences in politics.

this is why I'm not libertarian. It would be great if everyone in the society had a high iq or something, unfortunately most are succeptible to drug use and promiscuous sex and other hedonistic degeneracy. They need to be saved from themselves

>plenty here do well irl
>Cred Forums

You litteraly do tho. You're all Fedora fags , Molyneux Sargon the cuck, Gary Johnson all the Jews like Ayn Rand etc.

wtf I'm a fascist now

Don't like guns? Don't use them.

That is literally the definition of a false equivalence.

No reasonable person would believe someone doing harm to their own body through drug use or to the asshole of their boyfriend is the same as murder.

It's like saying that someone purposefully cutting their own arm is the same as a nuclear warhead, as they both cause some damage.

/thread

> user conflates Libertarianism with Anarchy

I guess I'm confused as to what you're asking. You're talking about a corporation attempting to create its own government? How would they exert authority? Law is subjective between different jurisdictions. What jurisdiction would it have? I guess the concept doesn't make sense to me.

>both fall under shit tier

What do you think caused the corruption from that original state to where we are now?

Libertarianism isn't about gay marriage, abortion, and porn. It's a philosophy based on the NAP. It still allows me to discriminate against niggers, kikes, and fags. It allows me to socially ostracize drug users. It's not about having porn addicts and drug dealers sharing common spaces with families. And also, open borders violate the NAP.

You missed the best one:
>AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I FREE TO GO?

As supply shrinks, demand rises. The porn industry doesn't want supply to shrink, because profits are high and the market is fast and loose. The difference would be in who is actually making the material and what they'd be willing to risk in breaking the law.

fundamentally, nothing is moral. nothing. morality is a social construct - artificially manufactured reason in a meaningless existence.
just becasue biologically humans are binary does not mean that people deteriorate into obscure states. Life only exists because it reproduces. we are here because people were born and raised straight and then fucked. ultimately, the only point to living is to reproduce - and i suppose you could say anything beyond what is necessary to facilitate fucking is immoral simply becasue it is unnecessary. however, that leads to a dull existence.

>political reform ideology

that works toward the goal of having the smallest governing force possible

name your particular flavor how you want, it's all just the whinging of people who want a smaller government, which at its basest form is impossible, because if there is ever a government that either doesn't exist or is too small, it will appear and grow

it's like the ancaps who believe there could never be a corporation that grows enough to become a governing force over others, there are no systems to oppose it, so it's an inevitability

but they think that just wishing for the freedom to be apart from that is going to keep them safe from it

o rly?

Children are not full property owners and therefor, sex with children violates the property rights of the parents.

I suppose they would be democratically elected but bound to an even strong constitution supported by a well armed populace.

It would have the same legitimacy as the current justice system, maybe more so once thought crime and victim-less crime gets removed from the mix.

The government wouldn't stop you from supporting the white race, breeding, and going through your day with a pistol on your hip encase something happens. You would be able to segregate yourself if you wanted to.

Call it unrealistic, but short of sending the black population back to Africa, you're still going to deal with them one way or another.

In the case of the US and Britain, collectivists.

I am less familiar with the USA but certainly in Britain the rise of collectivist policies during and after the Second World War is what killed Britain as a superpower and, ultimately, is what has lead to the Islamic invasions facing both our countries. There is a reason they flock to Germany, France and the UK and it has nothing to do with our rights.

Libertarianism is a form of autism that could only have originated from American Jews assorted low status white men and Freudian psychology reducing all forms of politics spirituality and identity to economic autism material desires and cummies.

That's true. I never really thought about it that way.

Still though, good luck convincing the poor that it's their fault they can die without insurance.

Hell, good luck convincing the poor anything is their fault.

>As supply shrinks, demand rises.

Nonsense, your econ101 "analysis" forget that people in general don't want to go to the effort. People view porn today because it's easy to access and free. Most people in the 80s did not go to porn shops. The supply was way less then.

Just because the supply is less does not mean that the demand is more.

>Murdering innocent people is a right

Too true.

in case*
stronger*

Whoops.

Why do systems need to spring up to oppose such forces? What about boycotts and community militias? Grassroots organization of that type is only kept down by large government's and the people that support them on a national scale.

Thanks for telling me what I am and am not allowed to believe in because of a guy who has a YouTube channel.

Thats definitely a libertarian value. Believing in the separation of church and state means we want to remove the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly.

Please tell me more about what libertarians believe since you're not a libertarian and are definitely not making hasty generalizations.

In a libertarian social order, George Zimmerman would be a model police officer.

Maybe youll grow out of your libertarian phase when you turn 18

Most people didn't go to porn shops? Really? There were porn sections in every video rental shop just about, and the only thing stopping porn mag sales from being close to current porn sales was the less free flow of information. The pipes got bigger.

are you mentally retarded?

plenty of governments. they have constitutions which outline rights they grant their respective citizens. however:
>ultimately there are no rights
>universally, no one has rights to do anything - not even breathe
>society is a complex fabrication of expectation and social norms backed by the threat of physical punishment
>your allowed to exist simply becasue you are inconsequential, or produce some benefit to other people.
>by simply using the internet you are benefiting society because you are unwittingly fulfilling an expectation

Yeah it's only the basis for western civilization and the framework which allowed us to be spared from tyranny until the second half of the 20th century.

Do you read and write or was this spoken through your microphone?

Fascism I believe is the one if people want to progress and grow seriously.if you want fantasy, hardly grow or what we have now bicker over it then.

When I received severe brain damae making me unable to understand externalities, incentives, compassion, economis of scale and scope, supply chains and power relations.

I'm just saying that I see all these librarians scream about their rights being infringed but then when asked about the source of these right they are not God given they are not privileges granted by the state they are nice things we should all have because they are nice things and therefore they are a right

those groups are government

they use force to uphold laws

"big" government keeps those types of groups down now because they're redundant and threatening

The point is they're both antithetial to Communism. If you want to bring statism into it you're literally helping the enemy.

Yeah you smoke your cigarettes if you're going to take your damn smoke with you. Fuck off if you're going to do that shit in front of me, I enjoy not having cancer.

Boycotts are not government and neither are some militias. The state keeps those groups down because they are a threat to the state.

>lots of big words

Government had the acceptance of the people through the vague proxy of representation and is only kept alive by taxation and other confiscation.

This would only be the case given a reputable market and the distributor tracking downloads and/or sales. Mere consumption or possession does neither of these things.

This

The problem with libertarianism is that it's a political approach to anarchy with the idea that to effectively run government is to weaken it as much as possible and sell what's left to the highest bidder. We already understand theffects of unmitigated greed and the inequality that spreads.

So op, when did you come to realize that libertarians are just republicans by going by a shiny new name?

>how would they exert authority
Like the ones we have; with guns and a criminal code.
>what jurisdiction
As much as it can control.

Let's say I have a pasture with 5 farms. They live off the land, don't bother each other, w/e. Let's say that one or two decide they don't want to do as much work - they would rather take the work of the other farms and eat from their harvests. Let's say these two farms create a seed bank, where they accumulate this necessary thing (seeds) and give it out with the requirement that it be repaid with interest. If it's not repaid correctly, they feel justified in going and taking enough of the other farms' harvests to repay it. The other farms agree that this is ok, because the seed bank helps them during drought or when they want to expand their farm, w/e. The bank grows, eventually being able to pay farmers to spend their time preventing other banks from forming, or preventing farmers from doing whatever to undermine the bank. In my opinion, this is what a government does, and why a corporation would pursue the creation of one.

You don't understand what they mean by rights. They're not talking about legal rights, but natural rights.

It's based on the thought that you should be able to do whatever you want unless it infringes on the freedom and liberty of another person.

The source for these rights is only based on that common understanding but supported by violence to those who refuse to recognize them.

Once violence comes into play, they are equal to legal rights as they are also only supported through violence by the state.

How can one man be this full of spooks?

Classical liberalism has nothing to do with lolbertarianism look at any classical thinker during the enlightenment even Adam Smith supported a government sponsored universal education system police and central government authority, also this is a system developed for white people only and those who could understand it.

At the time he was writing the world was ruled by absolute Monarchs and nobility and a massive peasant class who had no rights to advance in society. What he proposed was extremely progressive a society based on meritocracy and competition where everyone could advance to the top and make a fortune. They were also attacking the Church which had supreme authority over what the peasant class thought and believed, today at king the Church is like pissing on a dead man so you got rid of the Church and replaced it with rampant faggotry consumerism and nihilism wow well played

People are bad so we need a government made up of people.
People are stupid so we need a government made up of people

What do you mean by collectivists?

The New Testament says "to the Jew first". By this Christian standard, all non-Jews should be considered second class citizens in comparison to the Jews.

Don't like roads? Don't use them.

...

The kind of people that think the individual has no value beyond what he can provide to the state.

The free market doesn't spread "greed." It allows people to help others and benefit from it. There are no win-loose scenarios, somebody sees an iPad as being more valuable than their money and vice-a-versa.

Inequality is just another word for "natural order." Capitalism doesn't spread inequality, biology does.

...

>gay marriage
>libertarian

They already did this autism in the 17th Century. In the absence of God and moral authority you are In a state of nature? you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want in a state of nature and that is only checked by the fear of death which is the real NAP.

In the absence of a social contract to surrender some " rights"for protection you always get someone with a bigger dick who will kill you and take your shit because that is his natural right but he will also be subject to fear and death so that's why humans formed governments in the first place to stop the madness

>Dont like baking gay cakes? Bake the cake, faggot.

...

>don't like living around niggers? Too bad, we're moving them into your neighborhood anyways

Good on paper, extremely complex in practice. They would make enemies in neighboring communities that would work to counteract their practices. But I find the idea that they would make enough money to bribe and cover costs while remaining competitive a bit ludicrous.

Force has a bad rep if used in markets not backed by government. Vilification and anti marketing campaigns swiftly cut companies down. Voluntary exchange and shady deals don't work together where people develop long lasting relationships.

However, if the local industry leader established employee housing and their own private security, you could say they're making a government. I couldn't see a nation wide monopoly on force occurring though.

bait must be always aromatic and delicious to lure the fish in

Someone killing me, however big his dick is, would infringe on my freedom.

Libertarians support the basic form of government to suppress violence, or as you said, "madness". I'm not sure if you're equating us with anarchists because you misunderstand the principles, or your posts justs reads incoherent.

You talk of libertarianism removing the effective form of government when it simply retains it and does away with the rest.

>God and moral authority

Also, God isn't the basis for any moral authority. The majority of people in prison believe in religion and yet have gone on to commit the worst crimes.

You, and you alone, decide your morality. Absence of god doesn't make anyone become an animal. Absence of food does, however.

Even murders fear death and commit murder anyway. That doesn't stop anything nor is it the real NAP.

If homosexual marriage becomes the majority of marriages, there will be far less offspring to continue building society. Also, homosexuals are far more likely to be sexual deviants, and more likely to carry all the problems of being one.

No that fag but undeniably libertarian is my arose out of conservative reaction to the new deal. Yes it is anarchistic at the very core because it seeks to strip power away from the government and sell it to private industry. Social and environmental issues would explode as a bunch of greedy fucks compete using the power of imminent domain to build toll roads through your house.

Goddamn you faggots always come in various stripes it's like talking to a Marxist whose a Trotskyist but not a Lenninist. So you support statism to contain chaos. You just want the state to do the things you like and not the things you don't like you don't like paying taxes you don't like paying for nigger welfare you don't like the state taking muh guns away, so how is this shit any different from Ted Cruz Glenn Beck tier faggotry?

You want to roll back liberalism to a more perfect state when it worked better for your interests in a liberal democratic system. Niggers Hispanics and leftist cucks have their own ideas on how liberalism should work and there's more of them anyway

>However, if the local industry leader established employee housing and their own private security, you could say they're making a government. I couldn't see a nation wide monopoly on force occurring though.

Well, every national monopoly on force started small, right? It might have taken a thousand years (or twenty thousands) to get here, but the point is that it's possible. Corporations today already take both steps of employee housing and private security (google coca cola paramilitaries).

I really hope communities will resist in the future.

American monopoly on force started as an organization that oversaw contractual agreements between states. Nationwide scale. Single organization. I don't know of a situation in which a single organization providing a limited collection of goods and or services were able to have the mass granted legitimacy or wielded force on such a scale that they could be considered a government.

Granted, it could be possible. But what about those that prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola?

This cuck faggotry is nice when you live in a white civilization with police, social services and high paying jobs. Live in a fucking slum in the third world and all these "principles" fly out the window.

>assuming all libertarians are pro abortion

Libertarians are only half-right. Deviant marriage harms all of us, as a society. Now cuck newspapers are promoting even more degenerate behaviors, like pedophilia. If we allow some of Sodom, the rest of it will follow.

How do they feel about the right to keep and bear arms?

Thanks to 'aid' feeding the sharks from the outside and bolstering detrimental conditions. Third world countries would be ripe for economic booms if it weren't for corrupt power influences in their respective governments or regime building machinations from outside.

Isn't that throwing away of principles and reducing ourselves to the third world level exactly what the libertarian argues for?

>as long as I'm rich and white I got no problems!

>Plyining gay fags

It's not anarchistic at the core, it would be mini-anarchistic. We obviously hate being put into the same boat as actual anarchists when we retain most of the original function of government.

>Social and environmental issues would explode as a bunch of greedy fucks compete using the power of imminent domain to build toll roads through your house.

Someone polluting my air or water isn't their right. It has a direct affect on my health and therefore would be actionable civilly or through the criminal system. It would be up to the courts to balances the right to have clean air and water versus the right to say, heat your home with a wood stove.

I hate the road argument. I support all public land remaining public. You wouldn't be able to operate a toll road on public land. Voluntary road associations could repair public roads. Funding would come from people who actually use the road and want to see it improved. I actually live on a private road and have seen this work.

In fact, where I live the average taxpayer pays less than $100 dollars per year in building and maintaining the infrastructure.

>don't want to live in a moral Christian Society?
Go live in the middle east :^)

Niggers just cannot compete in a global free trade regime, they just fucking can't the Weat will always exploit the few resources it has with far greater efficiency and quality and use the surplus to buy the resources from the niggers

You mean Somalia, do you even statist?

> the wheat

The West*

don't like rape? Don't get raped!

> how is this shit any different from Ted Cruz Glenn Beck tier faggotry?

It depends. We view tax, at best, as a necessary evil and thusly and only makes sense to limit that evil. Essentially, we would create a skeleton crew of a government which would take a fraction of the tax payer funding to run.

I don't even support tax being acquired through force, although I would have to go over just how many dollars a year per taxpayer the government would need to sustain itself to see if people would voluntary pay their taxes like they would with charity.

>Niggers Hispanics and leftist cucks have their own ideas on how liberalism should work and there's more of them anyway

Yes, finally a coherent thought from you. What's to stop the left from reverting any new government?

Where I live we are at least 95% white. I don't suggest libertarianism for the third world.

That seems pretty rosy, but in practice, how do weakened state and federal government maintain property rights for public services I.e. roads? How do you prosecute Exxon or DuPont for falsifying information or dumping harmful waste in public waterways and drinking supply?

The modern libertarian party does not believe in that, they're just therapy for burned Sanders rejects.

Well I mean there you are, the single organization that provides the single service of overseeing contracts. It makes sense that my hypothetical corporation that wants to make a government requires a lot of work/a pre-existing structure to take advantage of though.

I can see now how deregulation could be beneficial(thank you), but I think it would require a regulator (even if it's the community at large) to enforce it, which has the potential to be eventually corrupted and so on, leading back to where we are. Maybe we are doomed to go on and on in this cycle? How could the regulating entity be decentralized?

Ikr, Johnson is the only real Democrat running this year.

And cruzfags

>this entire abhorrent post

One word. CHILDREN. You and all your friends are fucking stupid as shit.

>abortion doesn't hurt the child
>cigarette smoke doesn't cause second hand damage
>people on the effects of drugs and alcohol don't harm others

come on m8

Mass degeneracy hurts everyone and it's been the sole reason empires have fallen since forever, why not try and stop the cycle?

Hey don't lump us into that mess

and the guy that gets high on pcp and attacks you naked with a knife or the drunk that gets behind a wheel and runs you over?

drugs and alcohol are dangerous and causes millions of deaths a year not to the users, but to the people around them

> what's to stop the left

Gee I dunno right wing death squads and black helicopters certainly come to mind.

So you use the democratic system to get a Ron Paul elected who then has eight years to completely wreck the liberal democratic system millions and millions of niggers and women become unemployed during this time you destroyed the police and border security so now there are shitskin riots and SJW campus revolts daily property values plummet small business have no security crime runs rampant corporations and business move to a few pockets of stability or get the fuck out of the country entirely and the mob starts to demand a Joseph Stalin to clean the shit up.

It's a tough question, but let me remind you that hundreds of years of big government has done effectively nothing to prevent Exxon from dumping millions of gallons of oil onto a flock of seabirds. In fact, lobbyists and corporate law have made it so that they are barely held civilly responsible, let alone criminally responsible.

The state would still have the power to charge and convict irresponsible environmental damage, with a broader power for those harmed to sue through civil court.

Honestly, stricter fines and removing the idea of a corporation would do much more to prevent this than just simple regulation. I'm not saying that it couldn't become corruptible, like the current system, but I don't see why a libertarian society would support the owners of a company not being held personally responsible for the actions of the company.

Sorry m8, Paulfags
Ftfy

as someone with asthma, you can go fuck yourself

>Promoting degenerate lifestyles
>Second-hand smoke hurts others
>Abortion is killing a child
>Spread of disease from sex, unwanted children
>Nobody wants to be victim to the actions of people under the influence of drugs
>Porn is exploitative and creates unrealistic expectations
>Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every single year

Are libertarians even trying? It's one thing to have rights, it's another thing to force citizens to trust their fellowman to do the right thing when they can't be trusted to do so.

>Implying the actions of others don't affect you.

son, stop taking drugs
youre ruining this family

But I actually do like having my rights taken away

White people are what, 12% of the world population? You violently murder the minority population in the United States and you have six billion non-whites that have witnessed what you've done and are developing the ability to use nuclear weapons.

Good luck with that. The military couldn't even win in Iraq, are you suggesting they spread into nearly every other nation on earth to suppress them from rising up and murdering them? Or just sit back and have no ability to do anything as the other nations surround them?

> you destroyed the police and border security

Again, you don't understand the libertarians of Cred Forums. I've already stated in this thread that I am a night watchmen libertarian. Police and border security would still remain a function of government.

>Are libertarians even trying?
last time i checked there was some almost naked fat dude on a stage at a libertarian convention

Don't like Islam? Don't be a WHITE MALE.

>Neopuritanism

>the actions of others affect you

only if you're a child or a tumblr-tier crybaby

About middle school, when I stopped listening to my parents, and realized I don't like far left or right parties

I don't claim to know how this would be done exactly but a quick and radical solution would be something like this:

Why would you kill all the niggers? When a dindu revolt happens you just use the police state to declare martial law and arrest all the nigger and SJW protest ring leaders calling for the destruction of private property and the disruption of peace. Send in militarized police to arrest all perpetrators of dindu crime in the inner cities and militarize the border defund left wing programmes in public education and impose protectionist trade barriers default on the debt disband congress until order is restored. There really is no simple solution here to preserve the white system secession would probably be another option.

>You violently murder the minority population in the United States and you have six billion non-whites that have witnessed what you've done and are developing the ability to use nuclear weapons.

Maybe it's time to clean house and kill those too.

Never.

Promote virtue and weed out degeneracy.

Until they had no respect for boarders and sovereignty of nations.

Having sex with a kid isn't right, and recording it and watching it makes you degenerate I don't care if it's illegal

>marriage
>widespread

You have to be trolling. What, a reasonable conversation on Cred Forums! Wow I've been away for some time but this is good!

I have a couple ideas , but I don't think you're going to like them...

First elections can only be funded by public money - yes, taxes. Any money received outside public system (i.e. corporate or private donation) will be treated as a bribe and prosecuted thoroughly.

Second - (we probably agree on this point) corporate person-hood be dismantled, money as free speech too. Money is money = fiat of value. Corporations and private businesses is private business and should not be allowed (other than paying taxes) be allowed to put money into the system (i.e. lobbies).

Third - policy must be drafted and enacted to make more and stronger unions. If the execs are taking record breaking bonuses, the workers at every level should also be well compensated and cared for.

>"There is power in a union!"
-Billy Bragg

The only way to set a strong foundation for these ideas, imho we need a strong central government.

By subsidizing it through collectivist (authoritarian) policies. Yeah!

The problem isn't that those things are legal; it's that they are becoming commonplace and independent of moderation. Homosexuality in species that cannot readily reproduce asexually is maladaptive. Indulging too much in porn or sex or alcohol or tobacco or other psychoactive drugs is harmful to the mind and the body that houses it. Even if you're not harming anybody else by doing something, if you're harming yourself, you contribute to the degeneration of a society by subtracting a properly functioning individual from it. A society is only as good as the people populating it.

Centrists on average have a lower IQ than either side, m8

>Second-hand smoke hurts other

Deliberately walking into an area where someone is smoking and crying wolf is kind of like walking into the course where someone is drone racing and being surprised when one flies into your head. There is an argument to be made on if you should be able to walk by a non-smoker while smoking but mostly I support smoking on private property being held up to the property owner and smoking in public being a who got there first matter.

>Abortion is killing a child
No, it's killing someone using you as a parasitic leech. Tumors are also living things, cut it out if you don't want it.

>Spread of disease from sex, unwanted children

None of this actually affects you unless you're sleeping with women who don't believe in the same things that you do or you're fostering unwanted children.

>Nobody wants to be victim to the actions of people under the influence of drugs

If you deliberately take an item you know to have terrible side effects and hurt someone else or their property, you should be punished as if you willing did it.
Why do you care what someone puts into their own body unless it effects you?

>Porn is exploitative and creates unrealistic expectations
That's actually a feminist talking point. Just because you cannot deal with watching two people fucking without crying foul and using it to blame your virginity on it, doesn't give you the right to ban it for all the rest of us.

>>Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every single year
Again, see the drug argument. Drunk driving isn't inherently bad. You think someone who has had a few beers and is driving home completely fine and runs into a check point is the same as a person who has drunk ten and has mowed down a few kids? Deal with the actual damage, not your thought crime.

>don't like to get spooked? Sorry but thtere's a skeleton inside your face

Enjoy the right to be degenerate, you pathetic worms. Pic related is your future.

The only thing stopping regulation is legislation explicitly preventing government infringement. Regulating entities? You mean like third party, internationally respected standards organizations like ANSI? Or organizations built on market critiques - pc gaming reviews, automobile reviews, consumer reports, etc. Etc. Etc. hand in hand with such organizations? I only see the government sloppily attempting to regulate markets after either the offending company has been vilified by the public - and would have been boycotted out of existence anyway - or attempting to regulate a market and drum up discontent on behalf of an industry leader that doesn't like competition.

...but they haven't done the bit where all other Americans don't pay for the consequences of these actions. When people get desperate after not taking good advice they will simply vote themselves others money to solve it.

Also the Left are taking away others rights.
And corporate monopolies are doing this as well.

Sort out all this other shit and get people to run/work for independent businesses then talk about this petty shit.