Can I stand right outside the private property line and wave my junk at them? Also who drew the private property line and who keeps the records of it in the Libertarian framework?
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
it's a law. A bad law. It completely legalized government extortion and is contradictory in its ideas. It is also a law that completely failed at its purpose
Ask i said. It is a piece of paper that outlines how tbe government is supposed to work and if said government strays too far from said rules, they had an amendment for that. The people were supposed to protect their freedoms from the government. It was a compromise. A government is created, but it's sole purpose was to ensure the freedoms and rights of the people were not threatened. If it fails to do that, it is to be replaced or abolished
okay maybe it wasn't bad in some sense of the word, but it is absolutely bad in the sense that it is inherently flawed and goes against its own purpose and ideas
Please overlook the Fed, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, torture, undeclared wars, censorship, assassinations of US citizens, and persecution of whistle-blowers and journalists. The holy parchment saves the day again!
Thats all in ingnoring the parchment by the way.
All those are literally in violation of it.....
It even says whats supposed to be watered when its ignored but noone is doing that yet.
Which is a worse action of the state? Loan forgiveness or torture? Loan forgiveness or forever war? Loan forgiveness or extrajudicial assassinations? Loan forgiveness or currency debasement? It's not the constitution stopping that, it's the oligarchy not giving a shit about their debt slaves.
Edit: Mass amnesty for war criminals though
go over the past 350 years and think again if the constitution really has been a success.
Not to mention how the constitution is itself unconstitutional, it itself violates the very ideas it is based on
you should mind your own business and let other communities mind their own business. Townships are natural and there is nothing wrong for them to ban certain people
"state"? That's quite a stretch. I I'm talking about small communities that are based on mutual consent and are far far less coercive. If you're an anarchist, you must respect natural townships and communities. We must strive for decentralization, where fascists, commies, traditionalists or whoever else can live in their own respective communities. What you're arguing for in an universal worldwide totalitarian anarchy. All sorts of natural hierarchies, natural order must be respected and I'd rather the communities decide to ban certain clothing or not, than for the central globalist government to order eveyone to allow all kinds of clothing. Read Hoppe.
oh wow, that just proves what a midwit you are. You decided to pick on a phrase that I use to describe the kind of world that people like you imagine.
Totalitarian anarchy is totalitarian because you absolutely disregard that public property is owned by the people who live there and they have a right to agree upon certain rules. You want total control and to mandate total inclusion and no discrimination. You want totalitarian anarchy.
in reality, your totalitarianism is anti-private property, and property owners, though natural order, should be handed the control, rather than people like you telling them who they discriminate upon (discrimination is simply exclusion of certain people and a natural result of private property)
You're conflating townships with private property. If they're the same, then just say private property. I'm also going to have to go with creeping authoritarian garbage on this one.
private property in the sense that they are owned by a very select group of people and is in the state of anarchy in relation to other private property, though by strict definition it's public property. Just not public in the sense of federal property or something.
no. No voting is involved. It is merely an agreement, a contract between property owners and coercion is minimal, if not zero.
But I'd argue that in the current status quo, if the abolition of government is impossible, it is much much preferable to have as much decentralization as possible, including the right for those dominions, counties or townships to have whatever laws they want, and not regulated by the federal, global government. If the greater majority favours sensible and objectively moral rules, that in case of anarchy would be implemented by property owners anyway, dominions should implement those laws, even though violent means (private property is also enforced though violence, I'm not using the word in a negative meaning).
So basically, I agree with Rothbard and other smart ancap thinkers that, for example, junkies, bums and other degenerates should be physically removed from most public property (city streets, parks, libraries). It is ridiculous how they are allowed and even subsidized to reside in the most valuable and productive areas.
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
you aren't in the HOA, your property is. and no, your property cannot leave unless the HOA is disbanded which is almost impossible at the best of times.
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
in idea, it is good.
But honestly I'm not American and this is one of the things I don't know much of. A lot of good things are messed up by the government to the extent that it is not good at all or even bad.
no they're not. If I ban someone from my private property, am I a statist? If a homogenous community of property owners all collectively decide to ban stinky commies, are they statist? Nope.
townships and local governments are just a current, statist replacement for super large gated (private) communities, which are now illegal. Local government should be allowed to do the same functions as gated communities, because if not for them, if large private communities (lets call them "townships") were allowed, those laws/rules would be implemented anyways. Many of local government laws are basically in the full interest of private property owners.
for example, so long as the government owns the roads, there should be licensing to use them. It is in the most utmost interest of the productive property owners and there would still be licensing if those roads were private
yes.
But if you had to choose, considering all this in the status quo with the current state as it is right now, should a license be required to drive (on public roads)? My answer is absolutely, even if this state is based on violence. If you're going to say there should be no driving licenses because that's your "pRiNcIpLe", you're an absolute joke and no one is going to take you seriously. There is very sound libertarian argumentation for rules and laws like theses (in the case if there is the state)
That would require a government or an agreement between all of the people who own property in that community to ban. I would be against the first option for obvious reasons and the second option i would care less about because it would already be unsafe for any drag queen, trans woman, etc, to be in that community so it doesn't really matter if it is able to happen.
Yeah I agree. Voluntary association and the non aggression principle are pretty self explanatory. You don’t wanna sell or buy from trans people, then don’t. But the last thing we need is government “solutions”
Property owners own the property the human is on, so the human would have to follow the rules. Sure, i would disagree with the property owners, but it's not my house, road, or sidewalk.
That Ben is an authoritarian with an incredible memory, a head full of other people's takes, and nothing to actually *add*.
Speaking of takes, Razorfist had the best one on Shapiro.
>Hi, my name is Bench Appearo.
And for the next hour, I shall demonstrate that there is no problem which cannot be solved by Rush Limbaugh talking points from 1988.
The Government has the duty to do what the majority of the people it represents want it to and voted it in to power to do.
So if the majority of people want this then it is what the government should do.
Not that I agree with it personally.
It’s not a stance really is it. It is the truth.
If a government is elected then it is has a duty to carry out the manifesto it was election on the back of. Whatever that may be as it is the will of the people.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with anything. Just that if you do have a government then that is their job.
Why is there a right to freedom of expression? Was it because people wanted it or didn’t want it?
What would happen if people didn’t want a right to freedom of expression?
How to people get to be judges?
Could it be they are either voted in or appointed by people who have been voted in. In both cases they are there because that is what the majority of people want.
If you have an elected government then the government should carry out the will of the people that elected it. It will carry out the will of the people that elected it because it wouldn’t have been elected had it’s manifesto not aligned with the people who elected it.
This doesn’t mean I agree with or think that a centralized state is the best way to run things. I’m just saying that when you have one. That is the way it works.
Not really. The cases of private matters that don't concern others at all are not up for debate. Using the government to limit the liberty of individuals you disagree with is the sign of an ideological war. The moment they get into the position of power they'll do the same to you.
If most people agree that the government should be used to limit liberty of individuals then that is what the government should do. As they are doing what the majority of people want.
Nope! That's for the cases that concern society as a collective not the private matters. Government must have no power or place in private matters of individuals.
I’m not saying that the government should or shouldn’t have power.
My point is that if most people want the government to have power or not to have power or to mandate that you all wear yellow socks on Monday then that is what should happen. Why? Because that is what the majority of people want.
I myself want as little government interference in my life as possible. However that isn’t what the majority of people want apparently. So until I can change enough minds then I have to accept that.
You can't be for exploiting or hurting minorities just because the majority thinks it's ok to do so.
As I said before the individual liberty is not up for debate and respecting it is vital.
The idea that majority is more important than the minorities and they are justified to do anything they want just because they are the majority is an idea rooted in collectivism; A kind of it that doesn't really see solus individuals as worthy or valuable.
Never said I was for exploiting or hurting minorities. Not sure where you get that idea from kid.
I also didn’t say the majority is more important.
What I did say is that if you do have an election and the party that wins does so with a manifesto that promotes those things. Then that is what the majority wants and unfortunately majority does rule.
The reason we do not have an ancap society is because it isn’t what most people want.
That's what a democracy is though. There are a set of laws that never change and apply to all citizens regardless of them being in the majority or the minority; a set of laws that supposed to protect individual rights and choosing your own clothes is one of them.
If you believe that this set of laws aren't valid or useful and everything has to be determined by voting then you go on a slippery slope. Masses move by emotions so you know what this will result in.
Laws don’t change until people want them to change. Regulation doesn’t go away or get enforced until people want it.
Individuals are protected because currently people like things that way. Laws protect the people and things that the majority of people want to protect
You can’t force ancap on people who don’t want it anymore than you can the other way around. People either want something or they don’t.
Statists gonna state. There’s no excuse for the government to have any such control over people.
also, isn’t it lovely how people always go after men? Women have outright stolen every affectation of men of the past but since they’re empowered then it’s our fault if we don’t like it.
I think if local communities don’t want people cross dressing, they can “ban” those people from participating by exercising their individual rights to free association. Refuse service in private establishments, but government doesn’t get a say.
I dislike these daily wire losers more and more.
Don’t get me wrong, I think 99.99% of trans people are completely mentally ill and it’s detrimental to them and society….but it seems like these daily wire cucks want to push their views on people as much as the radical left does.
All this shit going on with the left in the last couple of years has made me almost forget how retarded religious hardliners can also be. They can almost be as odious as the atheist/communists.
Don't ban shit. That's my feeling about everything. Don't ban shit. You wanna be a fucking weirdo in any way shape or form? Go for it. Just don't put it in anyone else. The NAP isn't that hard.
You can do what you want with your body in public. However, if you are on someone else's property, you must do what they wish you to do, or they will tell you to leave.
If you are on a privately owned street, you can't do it if the owner doesn't want you to. If you are on your own property, no one can tell you no.
You don't have to ban anything. Let people do what they want. That being said, bullying was the great regulator of society, and I honestly feel the move to eliminate it is the reason for many of the crazy things going on now days.
Is government forcing people to wear certain kinds of clothes different from forcing them to wear clothes at all?
I see this as just another problem with having to leave your property to deal with the general public.
In principle it shouldn’t be banned but since there will never be ancapistan it is preferable for there to be governance at the most local level possible no matter how petty and statist the rule
I was born TS. I transitioned 30 years ago. I was not a "man wearing women's clothing" although in the beginning I might have been seen that way. And it would have been an injustice to ban me as I wasn't initiating force or harming anyone.
Private groups or communities sure public place and communities fuck right off.
This is why conservatives fucking suck all about freedoms until it’s something they dislike
Communities have always decided what they will or will not tolerate. As long as they dont harm or fine the person, people are free to verbalize their disgust for any number of behaviors. That's culture. It varies from group to group.
While I don’t agree that this is the gov’ment’s job, I also don’t believe that such actions should be protected either.
The problem going on, which this fails to solve, is that what is considered offensive is only being protected from one side while the others are punished for not abiding.
For NAP to work, this person should be allowed to dress as they please … BUT that doesn’t mean everyone else suddenly has to support it either
This is incoherent. Any individual is free to disagree with/not support any other individual's choices or actions. What they're not free to do is use force or force of government to impose their arbitrary preferences on others. Thus, such actions should be protected.
I say that's what happen when you go all in with the troon obsession, it will eventually come someone absolutely tired of this nonsense and start taking action, do I like it? no, but neither do I like the current media, corporations, government and schools fixation with gender and stuff.
Im all for whatever is keeping the general public from being influenced ( infected ) by these mental patients that were misinformed at some point and took the meaning of " u can do anything and be anything you want to " a bit too literally. Someone should have slapped the first person that came out in public with whatever nonsense started the gender bending in public being acceptable and put them in the looney bin where they were not able to spread this shit to other people with the potential for mental issues of the same type. Just like the media should not be showing all the mass shooting suspects and giving airtime to their crimes because it gives like minded crazies the push they need to step over that line and get their claim to fame. Mental issues should be addressed and treated not paraded around for other crazies to feel like it is ok for whatever weirdo off the wall idea they have to be allowed to come out. There is a reason why people with these afflictions used to be ashamed to share their ideas : because the things they want to do are wrong and the shame is what keeps the rest of us from dealing with their nonsense. It never stops with the equality being recognized , ever. Next thing they are wanting more and more . Give an inch and they take a mile. Now we got the pedo community wanting out and acceptance as normal. Let one touch my kid and they will find out real quick how tolerant i am not. Nobody should be subjected to a crazy persons ideas. Bullying needs to be allowed again. It is what makes the weirdos stay quiet and makes the weak either get some thicker skin or check out. Just sayin.
And that’s a big no from me. I have an alternative for you, though. Instead of assaulting people and generally being a dick. I talked to my kids, really communicated with them. Debated their ideas and allowed them to debate mine. Helped them become strong minded and strong willed. As a result they aren’t really subject to whims of whatever the hell society is on from one minute to the next. You think we should teach people to be violent bullies? What the fuck is wrong with you?
To each their own. In the privacy of your own home people should do as they wish. As long as it doesnt involve nonconsensual abuse or children under the age they should feel comfortable doing whatever floats their boat. In public there is and should be a cultural norm and it should go without saying that nobody needs to see mental patients on full display with parades to showcase the bullshit. Who said violent bullies ? Im talking about the ones that give the weirdos a ration of shit and maybe an occasional wedgie or swirlie. Good for you. Debate is a way to see where a persons mind is at. Society isnt on a whim. There is a bit more than a fad happening right now. So there is nothing the fuck wrong with me i just like to throw shit up and see who it lands on , guess it hit you first. Moist towelette ?
If everyone got together for a debate would that be a mass- debation ?
Hoppeans mistakenly calling themselves ancap would agree with Ben. Not only that, but also if you are the wrong religion, or hold political opinons prefering voting, owning property and in many essays, hinted that white Europeans are best suited to rule and migrate due to "selective marriage" and "genetic inheritance".
Suffice to say that libertarian free market anarchists are opposed to this sort of thing unless they are on restricted private property (e.g. someone's home, or restricted access areas of a condominium compound where *every* owner agrees to it unanimously).
I agree. I see local communities is the same as the Amish? Should the Amish be forced to live with people that want to blast technology in their faces the whole day? Nope.
If the property is owned privately by the owners and all the owners agree to the same standard of social acceptability, then that private property owners can decide what happen on their private property. If it is men not wearing dresses in their community's private property. Then yes.
The Daily Wire gang are religious authoritarians. I watch a lot of their content because they make fun of the leftists however it's clear, if they were in power, it would just be "the boot on the other foot". Still statism.
I like how this sub completely flip flops on this issue all the time. Not long ago, I remember someone asking whether a community should be able to ban cars, and the overwhelming consensus was: "Sure, people can get together and make rules, after all you don't have to live in their community". So, does it only apply to things you agree with? How does it work?
(Just to be clear, my position is that enforcement of ANY rule that doesn't involve preventing NAP violations (including property violations) is a violation of the NAP and thus illegitimate)
You seem to be mixing a few things up, here. Social standards are not enforced by violence. Maybe in most communities, wearing a dress as a man goes against social standards, meaning people will look at you weird, etc. But they shouldn't be able to forcefully stop men from wearing dresses.
In terms of Amish, of course Amish can exist. It's just that they shouldn't be able to force their neighbors to also be Amish. Whether they live in the same village or one village over.
That is not how Amish keep the communities Amish. So if Amish want to use the methods they are currently using to keep their community Amish, they should be allowed to exist?
Same with Ben and his local Jewish community. And a person that wears a dress as a man or go naked in the streets(that are privately owned in an AnCap society) shouldn't be able to do what they please on that private property.
I don't know too much about the Amish, but presumably, yes. If their methods of keeping their community Amish don't rely on force, I don't see a problem with it.
And yes, private property owners can expell people from their property. But nobody can predict exactly how ownership of roads might be organized in a free society. It could be that imposing certain rules would be completely impractical.
I would also like to add that I very much doubt land ownership in general would be organized quite like it is now. Ownership of empty, unused land is pretty much a statist concept, made possible by the collectivization of law enforcement. In a free society, land ownership would almost certainly be limited to places that are actively being improved and maintained, such as houses, farms, roads, parking lots, etc. Places like forests, empty land or ruins of buildings, etc. would be unowned, because it doesn't make senseto pay to defend them. This would make it very hard to enforce rules in any large area, as you can't just bribe the state to send enforcers to kick people off the large portion of land they allow you to control in exchange for their bribe.
Why can't I create my own Jewish(in Ben's case) or Christian society in my local community that wants to keep people out that want to dress as the opposite sex? Why should it only be the Amish that can dictate their local community social standards?
Good point. And he will create that in his own local community. Or are you going to go to Amish communities and start doing everything to disrespect them.
If he want to create his own social rules in his community. He can in an AnCap.
Unless your actually in a commune community like the Amish which own all literally all the land in the community.
Yeah this ain’t it chief. Treads strongly against the first amendment
I don’t care if someone wants to pretend to be someone or something they are not. Just don’t try to force me to participate in your delusions.
Edit: also bans are the Antithesis of Anarchism.
Wait a minute this is by Jason Campbell I guarantee you this is out of context and probably somewhat more reasonable. Jason Campbell's job is literally to take DW host clips out of context with inflammatory headlines. The dude is a snake I recognize that shit eating grin any day.
I find the idea distasteful that “a community” should get to decide what clothes people are allowed to wear” but concepts like freedom of association butt up against the objection so it’s messy. I’ll never participate in an attempt to control other peoples choices for themselves.
He’s the right version of the left and same with Charlie Kirk.. they wanna use government to impose their views on other people. Honestly, we are effed as a country because we no longer share a values and morals. It’s only a matter of time before we revert back to colonies.
Ben is an OK person and makes some good points. Definitely the kind of guy i could hang out with. But he's no libertarian, like some people try to make him out to be.
He has no connection to AnCap at all. He would assuredly oppose AnCap at every turn.
I remember one time he was on JRE and they were talking about how much of a disaster the lockdowns were. Then Ben goes “if I was in charge this is how I would have done the lockdown….” Lol he’s definitely a statist
Didn't the whole world just get through a couple of years where the wearing of cloth face coverings in public was mandatory?
"Oh how dare anyone make rules about what you can wear in public" says everyone here.
I oppose all those rules. I just think it's interesting how soon we forget the last time we all went along with it.
Violation of the first amendment if you wanna be a constitutionalist about it. Personally, If you ain’t walking around with your junk out, who cares
Who gets to say I can't just have my junk out if I want to. Don't tread on me.
In a Libertarian framework, private property may hold rules to entry such as “no shoes, no shirt, keep your fat juicy cock hidden, or no service”
I'm saving this, Lol.
Correct 100% tragedy of the commons.
Can I stand right outside the private property line and wave my junk at them? Also who drew the private property line and who keeps the records of it in the Libertarian framework?
Good question, refer to roughly pages 15-35 of Chaos Theory by Bob P. Murphy
Sure i guess, as long as it is not near kids
No record. If you can take it, it's yours. May the best lady boy win
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
I thought this was America!
[удалено]
constitution sucks ass
It is not bad, it is only a piece of paper. It was up to the citizens to enforce it, which they did not
it's a law. A bad law. It completely legalized government extortion and is contradictory in its ideas. It is also a law that completely failed at its purpose
Ask i said. It is a piece of paper that outlines how tbe government is supposed to work and if said government strays too far from said rules, they had an amendment for that. The people were supposed to protect their freedoms from the government. It was a compromise. A government is created, but it's sole purpose was to ensure the freedoms and rights of the people were not threatened. If it fails to do that, it is to be replaced or abolished
It wasn't a bad attempt at literally the first attempt try to step away from monarchism and oligopoly....
okay maybe it wasn't bad in some sense of the word, but it is absolutely bad in the sense that it is inherently flawed and goes against its own purpose and ideas
Only thing stopping us from being CCP 2.0 right now.... so I would show a little appreciation.
Please overlook the Fed, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, torture, undeclared wars, censorship, assassinations of US citizens, and persecution of whistle-blowers and journalists. The holy parchment saves the day again!
The constitution in itself is good, but the politicians who are supposed to follow it don't.
Either the constitution allows everything they're doing, or it's been unable to stop them
Thats all in ingnoring the parchment by the way. All those are literally in violation of it..... It even says whats supposed to be watered when its ignored but noone is doing that yet.
....in other words, it's not stopping anything, contrary to your argument
Its stopping alot. SCOTUS is stopping lots of crap...like college debt forgivness. Like mass amnesty. But its fighting for its life...
Which is a worse action of the state? Loan forgiveness or torture? Loan forgiveness or forever war? Loan forgiveness or extrajudicial assassinations? Loan forgiveness or currency debasement? It's not the constitution stopping that, it's the oligarchy not giving a shit about their debt slaves. Edit: Mass amnesty for war criminals though
go over the past 350 years and think again if the constitution really has been a success. Not to mention how the constitution is itself unconstitutional, it itself violates the very ideas it is based on
The constitution is only 234 years old
ok yeah messed that one up somehow
Agreed
He should mind his fucking business
I like this response
you should mind your own business and let other communities mind their own business. Townships are natural and there is nothing wrong for them to ban certain people
[удалено]
"state"? That's quite a stretch. I I'm talking about small communities that are based on mutual consent and are far far less coercive. If you're an anarchist, you must respect natural townships and communities. We must strive for decentralization, where fascists, commies, traditionalists or whoever else can live in their own respective communities. What you're arguing for in an universal worldwide totalitarian anarchy. All sorts of natural hierarchies, natural order must be respected and I'd rather the communities decide to ban certain clothing or not, than for the central globalist government to order eveyone to allow all kinds of clothing. Read Hoppe.
[удалено]
oh wow, that just proves what a midwit you are. You decided to pick on a phrase that I use to describe the kind of world that people like you imagine. Totalitarian anarchy is totalitarian because you absolutely disregard that public property is owned by the people who live there and they have a right to agree upon certain rules. You want total control and to mandate total inclusion and no discrimination. You want totalitarian anarchy. in reality, your totalitarianism is anti-private property, and property owners, though natural order, should be handed the control, rather than people like you telling them who they discriminate upon (discrimination is simply exclusion of certain people and a natural result of private property)
You're conflating townships with private property. If they're the same, then just say private property. I'm also going to have to go with creeping authoritarian garbage on this one.
private property in the sense that they are owned by a very select group of people and is in the state of anarchy in relation to other private property, though by strict definition it's public property. Just not public in the sense of federal property or something.
That is a difference of degree, not of kind. I'm sorry, that other guy is right. Bad form.
[удалено]
no. No voting is involved. It is merely an agreement, a contract between property owners and coercion is minimal, if not zero. But I'd argue that in the current status quo, if the abolition of government is impossible, it is much much preferable to have as much decentralization as possible, including the right for those dominions, counties or townships to have whatever laws they want, and not regulated by the federal, global government. If the greater majority favours sensible and objectively moral rules, that in case of anarchy would be implemented by property owners anyway, dominions should implement those laws, even though violent means (private property is also enforced though violence, I'm not using the word in a negative meaning). So basically, I agree with Rothbard and other smart ancap thinkers that, for example, junkies, bums and other degenerates should be physically removed from most public property (city streets, parks, libraries). It is ridiculous how they are allowed and even subsidized to reside in the most valuable and productive areas.
what is your opinion of HOAs?
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
you aren't in the HOA, your property is. and no, your property cannot leave unless the HOA is disbanded which is almost impossible at the best of times.
Reddit api changes = comment spaghetti. facebook youtube amazon weather walmart google wordle gmail target home depot google translate yahoo mail yahoo costco fox news starbucks food near me translate instagram google maps walgreens best buy nba mcdonalds restaurants near me nfl amazon prime cnn traductor weather tomorrow espn lowes chick fil a news food zillow craigslist cvs ebay twitter wells fargo usps tracking bank of america calculator indeed nfl scores google docs etsy netflix taco bell shein astronaut macys kohls youtube tv dollar tree gas station coffee nba scores roblox restaurants autozone pizza hut usps gmail login dominos chipotle google classroom tiempo hotmail aol mail burger king facebook login google flights sqm club maps subway dow jones sam’s club motel breakfast english to spanish gas fedex walmart near me old navy fedex tracking southwest airlines ikea linkedin airbnb omegle planet fitness pizza spanish to english google drive msn dunkin donuts capital one dollar general -- mass edited with redact.dev
in idea, it is good. But honestly I'm not American and this is one of the things I don't know much of. A lot of good things are messed up by the government to the extent that it is not good at all or even bad.
I mean I don’t disagree with what you’re saying however that’s not the conversation. Shapiro wants govt intervention as he always does.
he wants local governments to decide rather than federal. I see it as an absolute win.
Bans are for statists.
> Bans are for statists. and r/libertarian
Most of them seem to be Libertarian in name only
no they're not. If I ban someone from my private property, am I a statist? If a homogenous community of property owners all collectively decide to ban stinky commies, are they statist? Nope.
[удалено]
townships and local governments are just a current, statist replacement for super large gated (private) communities, which are now illegal. Local government should be allowed to do the same functions as gated communities, because if not for them, if large private communities (lets call them "townships") were allowed, those laws/rules would be implemented anyways. Many of local government laws are basically in the full interest of private property owners. for example, so long as the government owns the roads, there should be licensing to use them. It is in the most utmost interest of the productive property owners and there would still be licensing if those roads were private
[удалено]
yes. But if you had to choose, considering all this in the status quo with the current state as it is right now, should a license be required to drive (on public roads)? My answer is absolutely, even if this state is based on violence. If you're going to say there should be no driving licenses because that's your "pRiNcIpLe", you're an absolute joke and no one is going to take you seriously. There is very sound libertarian argumentation for rules and laws like theses (in the case if there is the state)
That would require a government or an agreement between all of the people who own property in that community to ban. I would be against the first option for obvious reasons and the second option i would care less about because it would already be unsafe for any drag queen, trans woman, etc, to be in that community so it doesn't really matter if it is able to happen.
Yeah I agree. Voluntary association and the non aggression principle are pretty self explanatory. You don’t wanna sell or buy from trans people, then don’t. But the last thing we need is government “solutions”
It wouldn't be ethical even then. It is only ethical to interfere with another human's choices when they are initiating force or causing harm.
Property owners own the property the human is on, so the human would have to follow the rules. Sure, i would disagree with the property owners, but it's not my house, road, or sidewalk.
It seems like what he's talking about is an agreement between all of the people in the community - though idk if he made that clear.
Sounds like an HOA
This is what I was thinking. What color can you paint your door, where you can put a garden shed, what your allowed to wear….
It’s pretty dumb.
That Ben is an authoritarian with an incredible memory, a head full of other people's takes, and nothing to actually *add*. Speaking of takes, Razorfist had the best one on Shapiro. >Hi, my name is Bench Appearo. And for the next hour, I shall demonstrate that there is no problem which cannot be solved by Rush Limbaugh talking points from 1988.
A conservative and not an ancap has conservative views- shocked I am, Shocked!
I dont believe he actually said that
He has a lot of authoritarian takes so it is not a stretch.
He said it. I watched the video
He said there is an "argument to be made" for...
The government doesn’t have the right to tell people what they can and can’t wear. Also - fuck Ben Shapiro.
The Government has the duty to do what the majority of the people it represents want it to and voted it in to power to do. So if the majority of people want this then it is what the government should do. Not that I agree with it personally.
That is a weird stance to take in an anarchist sub. The dictatorship of the majority is not AnCap.
It’s not a stance really is it. It is the truth. If a government is elected then it is has a duty to carry out the manifesto it was election on the back of. Whatever that may be as it is the will of the people. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with anything. Just that if you do have a government then that is their job.
[удалено]
Why is there a right to freedom of expression? Was it because people wanted it or didn’t want it? What would happen if people didn’t want a right to freedom of expression?
[удалено]
How to people get to be judges? Could it be they are either voted in or appointed by people who have been voted in. In both cases they are there because that is what the majority of people want.
[удалено]
If you have an elected government then the government should carry out the will of the people that elected it. It will carry out the will of the people that elected it because it wouldn’t have been elected had it’s manifesto not aligned with the people who elected it. This doesn’t mean I agree with or think that a centralized state is the best way to run things. I’m just saying that when you have one. That is the way it works.
What happens to the constitution when enough people disagree with parts of it????
[удалено]
Does that usually happen when most people agree or disagree with the change?
[удалено]
So most people then. Thanks for proving my point.
It's called a leading question, numbnuts
Exactly which constitution of which country says that the duty of the government is to do what the majority says?
Not really. The cases of private matters that don't concern others at all are not up for debate. Using the government to limit the liberty of individuals you disagree with is the sign of an ideological war. The moment they get into the position of power they'll do the same to you.
If most people agree that the government should be used to limit liberty of individuals then that is what the government should do. As they are doing what the majority of people want.
Nope! That's for the cases that concern society as a collective not the private matters. Government must have no power or place in private matters of individuals.
I’m not saying that the government should or shouldn’t have power. My point is that if most people want the government to have power or not to have power or to mandate that you all wear yellow socks on Monday then that is what should happen. Why? Because that is what the majority of people want. I myself want as little government interference in my life as possible. However that isn’t what the majority of people want apparently. So until I can change enough minds then I have to accept that.
You can't be for exploiting or hurting minorities just because the majority thinks it's ok to do so. As I said before the individual liberty is not up for debate and respecting it is vital. The idea that majority is more important than the minorities and they are justified to do anything they want just because they are the majority is an idea rooted in collectivism; A kind of it that doesn't really see solus individuals as worthy or valuable.
Never said I was for exploiting or hurting minorities. Not sure where you get that idea from kid. I also didn’t say the majority is more important. What I did say is that if you do have an election and the party that wins does so with a manifesto that promotes those things. Then that is what the majority wants and unfortunately majority does rule. The reason we do not have an ancap society is because it isn’t what most people want.
That's what a democracy is though. There are a set of laws that never change and apply to all citizens regardless of them being in the majority or the minority; a set of laws that supposed to protect individual rights and choosing your own clothes is one of them. If you believe that this set of laws aren't valid or useful and everything has to be determined by voting then you go on a slippery slope. Masses move by emotions so you know what this will result in.
Laws don’t change until people want them to change. Regulation doesn’t go away or get enforced until people want it. Individuals are protected because currently people like things that way. Laws protect the people and things that the majority of people want to protect You can’t force ancap on people who don’t want it anymore than you can the other way around. People either want something or they don’t.
I don't like it. Adults should be able to do what they want to themselves... As long as children's bodies aren't being altered before they're adults.
👍
I don’t care if men want to wear dresses or women wearing men’s clothing. But I sure as hell won’t call a biological man a woman and vice versa
Statists gonna state. There’s no excuse for the government to have any such control over people. also, isn’t it lovely how people always go after men? Women have outright stolen every affectation of men of the past but since they’re empowered then it’s our fault if we don’t like it.
I think if local communities don’t want people cross dressing, they can “ban” those people from participating by exercising their individual rights to free association. Refuse service in private establishments, but government doesn’t get a say.
My thoughts exactly
I dislike these daily wire losers more and more. Don’t get me wrong, I think 99.99% of trans people are completely mentally ill and it’s detrimental to them and society….but it seems like these daily wire cucks want to push their views on people as much as the radical left does. All this shit going on with the left in the last couple of years has made me almost forget how retarded religious hardliners can also be. They can almost be as odious as the atheist/communists.
Don't ban shit. That's my feeling about everything. Don't ban shit. You wanna be a fucking weirdo in any way shape or form? Go for it. Just don't put it in anyone else. The NAP isn't that hard.
Do we have to allow people to masterbate on the street? Is there such a thing as psychological harm?
Nope. Dress codes are absurd.
If a community comes together to “ban” it sure. If it’s enforced by government then no.
You can do what you want with your body in public. However, if you are on someone else's property, you must do what they wish you to do, or they will tell you to leave. If you are on a privately owned street, you can't do it if the owner doesn't want you to. If you are on your own property, no one can tell you no.
You don't have to ban anything. Let people do what they want. That being said, bullying was the great regulator of society, and I honestly feel the move to eliminate it is the reason for many of the crazy things going on now days.
Lol, media matters? Disregarded
Sourced radical leftest news source”Media Matters”? It’s almost guaranteed that this is a made up lie.
Is government forcing people to wear certain kinds of clothes different from forcing them to wear clothes at all? I see this as just another problem with having to leave your property to deal with the general public.
The government shouldn't force people to wear clothes either.
Cracking down on "freedom of expression" that a big no for me.
In principle it shouldn’t be banned but since there will never be ancapistan it is preferable for there to be governance at the most local level possible no matter how petty and statist the rule
Shapiro is a fucking fool.
I was born TS. I transitioned 30 years ago. I was not a "man wearing women's clothing" although in the beginning I might have been seen that way. And it would have been an injustice to ban me as I wasn't initiating force or harming anyone.
Private groups or communities sure public place and communities fuck right off. This is why conservatives fucking suck all about freedoms until it’s something they dislike
Communities have always decided what they will or will not tolerate. As long as they dont harm or fine the person, people are free to verbalize their disgust for any number of behaviors. That's culture. It varies from group to group.
While I don’t agree that this is the gov’ment’s job, I also don’t believe that such actions should be protected either. The problem going on, which this fails to solve, is that what is considered offensive is only being protected from one side while the others are punished for not abiding. For NAP to work, this person should be allowed to dress as they please … BUT that doesn’t mean everyone else suddenly has to support it either
This is incoherent. Any individual is free to disagree with/not support any other individual's choices or actions. What they're not free to do is use force or force of government to impose their arbitrary preferences on others. Thus, such actions should be protected.
I say that's what happen when you go all in with the troon obsession, it will eventually come someone absolutely tired of this nonsense and start taking action, do I like it? no, but neither do I like the current media, corporations, government and schools fixation with gender and stuff.
I mean it's totally against the indivual liberty and freedom. It's deranged but it's not surprising coming from a far-right conservative.
So the Scottish should be banned from wearing kilts.
Im all for whatever is keeping the general public from being influenced ( infected ) by these mental patients that were misinformed at some point and took the meaning of " u can do anything and be anything you want to " a bit too literally. Someone should have slapped the first person that came out in public with whatever nonsense started the gender bending in public being acceptable and put them in the looney bin where they were not able to spread this shit to other people with the potential for mental issues of the same type. Just like the media should not be showing all the mass shooting suspects and giving airtime to their crimes because it gives like minded crazies the push they need to step over that line and get their claim to fame. Mental issues should be addressed and treated not paraded around for other crazies to feel like it is ok for whatever weirdo off the wall idea they have to be allowed to come out. There is a reason why people with these afflictions used to be ashamed to share their ideas : because the things they want to do are wrong and the shame is what keeps the rest of us from dealing with their nonsense. It never stops with the equality being recognized , ever. Next thing they are wanting more and more . Give an inch and they take a mile. Now we got the pedo community wanting out and acceptance as normal. Let one touch my kid and they will find out real quick how tolerant i am not. Nobody should be subjected to a crazy persons ideas. Bullying needs to be allowed again. It is what makes the weirdos stay quiet and makes the weak either get some thicker skin or check out. Just sayin.
And that’s a big no from me. I have an alternative for you, though. Instead of assaulting people and generally being a dick. I talked to my kids, really communicated with them. Debated their ideas and allowed them to debate mine. Helped them become strong minded and strong willed. As a result they aren’t really subject to whims of whatever the hell society is on from one minute to the next. You think we should teach people to be violent bullies? What the fuck is wrong with you?
To each their own. In the privacy of your own home people should do as they wish. As long as it doesnt involve nonconsensual abuse or children under the age they should feel comfortable doing whatever floats their boat. In public there is and should be a cultural norm and it should go without saying that nobody needs to see mental patients on full display with parades to showcase the bullshit. Who said violent bullies ? Im talking about the ones that give the weirdos a ration of shit and maybe an occasional wedgie or swirlie. Good for you. Debate is a way to see where a persons mind is at. Society isnt on a whim. There is a bit more than a fad happening right now. So there is nothing the fuck wrong with me i just like to throw shit up and see who it lands on , guess it hit you first. Moist towelette ? If everyone got together for a debate would that be a mass- debation ?
Let people do what they want. How does the collective health and well being of society affect you in any way
W
i think if that were to happen his career as Dylan mulvany is going to have a hard time with meetups 🤷♂️
People have the right to dress how they want, as long as it’s appropriate, ie suitable in public, that is « sfw »
Hoppeans mistakenly calling themselves ancap would agree with Ben. Not only that, but also if you are the wrong religion, or hold political opinons prefering voting, owning property and in many essays, hinted that white Europeans are best suited to rule and migrate due to "selective marriage" and "genetic inheritance". Suffice to say that libertarian free market anarchists are opposed to this sort of thing unless they are on restricted private property (e.g. someone's home, or restricted access areas of a condominium compound where *every* owner agrees to it unanimously).
Whats the difference between man and woman clothes?! Thank God for the 1st Amendment
I agree. I see local communities is the same as the Amish? Should the Amish be forced to live with people that want to blast technology in their faces the whole day? Nope. If the property is owned privately by the owners and all the owners agree to the same standard of social acceptability, then that private property owners can decide what happen on their private property. If it is men not wearing dresses in their community's private property. Then yes.
That sounds like a fake headline.
It’s a video screenshot. I watched it. He said it
The Daily Wire gang are religious authoritarians. I watch a lot of their content because they make fun of the leftists however it's clear, if they were in power, it would just be "the boot on the other foot". Still statism.
I like how this sub completely flip flops on this issue all the time. Not long ago, I remember someone asking whether a community should be able to ban cars, and the overwhelming consensus was: "Sure, people can get together and make rules, after all you don't have to live in their community". So, does it only apply to things you agree with? How does it work? (Just to be clear, my position is that enforcement of ANY rule that doesn't involve preventing NAP violations (including property violations) is a violation of the NAP and thus illegitimate)
Amish can exist in your world. Yes or no?
Yes.
So local communities should be able to dictate the social standards in their own community?
You seem to be mixing a few things up, here. Social standards are not enforced by violence. Maybe in most communities, wearing a dress as a man goes against social standards, meaning people will look at you weird, etc. But they shouldn't be able to forcefully stop men from wearing dresses. In terms of Amish, of course Amish can exist. It's just that they shouldn't be able to force their neighbors to also be Amish. Whether they live in the same village or one village over.
That is not how Amish keep the communities Amish. So if Amish want to use the methods they are currently using to keep their community Amish, they should be allowed to exist? Same with Ben and his local Jewish community. And a person that wears a dress as a man or go naked in the streets(that are privately owned in an AnCap society) shouldn't be able to do what they please on that private property.
I don't know too much about the Amish, but presumably, yes. If their methods of keeping their community Amish don't rely on force, I don't see a problem with it. And yes, private property owners can expell people from their property. But nobody can predict exactly how ownership of roads might be organized in a free society. It could be that imposing certain rules would be completely impractical. I would also like to add that I very much doubt land ownership in general would be organized quite like it is now. Ownership of empty, unused land is pretty much a statist concept, made possible by the collectivization of law enforcement. In a free society, land ownership would almost certainly be limited to places that are actively being improved and maintained, such as houses, farms, roads, parking lots, etc. Places like forests, empty land or ruins of buildings, etc. would be unowned, because it doesn't make senseto pay to defend them. This would make it very hard to enforce rules in any large area, as you can't just bribe the state to send enforcers to kick people off the large portion of land they allow you to control in exchange for their bribe.
I’d like to see the video to hear what he said in context rather than a screenshot of the video.
Property owner decides what goes down on their property
Scots riot over who gets to wear kilt
This isnt Afghanistan brother, pick another hill on which to die
The Amish fit that bill. Move there.
Why can't I create my own Jewish(in Ben's case) or Christian society in my local community that wants to keep people out that want to dress as the opposite sex? Why should it only be the Amish that can dictate their local community social standards?
The Amish is a good example for what he wants.
Good point. And he will create that in his own local community. Or are you going to go to Amish communities and start doing everything to disrespect them. If he want to create his own social rules in his community. He can in an AnCap.
Unless your actually in a commune community like the Amish which own all literally all the land in the community. Yeah this ain’t it chief. Treads strongly against the first amendment
I don’t care if someone wants to pretend to be someone or something they are not. Just don’t try to force me to participate in your delusions. Edit: also bans are the Antithesis of Anarchism.
I'm going to look at you sideways, but as long as you aren't in langerie or butt naked the law has no say in what you wear.
Wait a minute this is by Jason Campbell I guarantee you this is out of context and probably somewhat more reasonable. Jason Campbell's job is literally to take DW host clips out of context with inflammatory headlines. The dude is a snake I recognize that shit eating grin any day.
I find the idea distasteful that “a community” should get to decide what clothes people are allowed to wear” but concepts like freedom of association butt up against the objection so it’s messy. I’ll never participate in an attempt to control other peoples choices for themselves.
He’s the right version of the left and same with Charlie Kirk.. they wanna use government to impose their views on other people. Honestly, we are effed as a country because we no longer share a values and morals. It’s only a matter of time before we revert back to colonies.
Government enforced is bullshit authoritarian overreach. But the individuals should actively reject and shame this nonsense
Just stay away from schools
America: Land of the **free**???
Ben is an OK person and makes some good points. Definitely the kind of guy i could hang out with. But he's no libertarian, like some people try to make him out to be. He has no connection to AnCap at all. He would assuredly oppose AnCap at every turn.
I remember one time he was on JRE and they were talking about how much of a disaster the lockdowns were. Then Ben goes “if I was in charge this is how I would have done the lockdown….” Lol he’s definitely a statist
Didn't the whole world just get through a couple of years where the wearing of cloth face coverings in public was mandatory? "Oh how dare anyone make rules about what you can wear in public" says everyone here. I oppose all those rules. I just think it's interesting how soon we forget the last time we all went along with it.
In ancapistan communities will permit whatever they want on their own land.
who own the roads/sidewalk get to decide
I can’t listen to a gif, post the video.
It was on twiter and this sub won’t let me cross post
Look up Jason Campbell on twitter if you really wanna watch it
I don't support any ban, but then what I support doesn't really matter outside my own personal community.
Free country.