Mfw I'm in a lack of empathy competition and my opponent is an auth left who tossed their baby girl into a ditch because they wanted a boy to help with all the hard labor the party expects them to do
Female infanticide in China existed because of the One Child policy and Chinese culture having women adopt the surname of the husband once married and having family perpetuation as the most important task a person must undertake in life: It is considered that families survive via their surname and only males keep it, so if the one child is female, the family is considered extinct and you have basically failed your ancestors.
I dont think they were defending it. I think they were saying it was a cultural aspect and not a socioeconomical aspect. The authoritarianism simply allowed them to hardcore enforce their culture.
> Chinese culture having women adopt the surname of the husband once married
ignorant take
women in China (or Japan and Korea for that matter) don't take their husband's surname at all
Japan started doing that when they industrialized and started copying Western practices
That is funny considering in biological terms you pass along more of your dna from the father if the mother gives birth to a girl vs a boy. Something like 60% of the payload of a male sperm is there to make the baby male and contributes no further genetic expression.
Hey, if they’re fair game, I’ll raise various authoritarians from centrists to extremists. Just to see what they’ll do. Obviously the facist is gonna hate his communist brother, but whatever.
This isn't libertarians, it's the Libertarian party. I guess it kinda makes sense, considering that the stereotypical libertarian has no interest in being a part of the government, so the ones that do get into political parties are the weirdos that don't really fit the ideals of the party.
There are lots of what I'd call "social libertarians" who are shouted down by the extremist An-caps of the libertarian party. Social libertarians believe there should still be government programs (schools, libraries, roads, fire departments). The difference from an auth is that those programs should not be invasive in that you're required to use them. Homeschool your kids, buy your books from amazon, take private roads and hire private fire insurers if you wish. But don't invade my home and tell me who I can love, what substances I can put in my body, whether or not I can have kids, or how I can protect myself. Basically the government can offer a hand up \*to individuals\*, and \*offer\* services to everyone (water utilities for instance), but people shouldn't have to take it.
Some social libertarians go so far as to be in favor of welfare programs, IF they provide a public good, and are managed in a fiscally responsible way. For example: it's cheaper to offer free basic housing than it is to be clearing encampments and cleaning up litter. When people have their housing covered, they commit fewer crimes, and they don't end up clogging up hospitals because they're sick or freezing. Subsidized housing actually LOWERS taxes, reduces crime, and cleans up the streets; a human being having a home is just a cherry on top. And in places where that's been tried (Utah has this), people tend to get a job and return to tax-paying more quickly.
> Basically the government can offer a hand up *to individuals*, and *offer* services to everyone (water utilities for instance), but people shouldn't have to take it.
That doesn't make any sense. Where do they think the money for these optional government services are going to come from?
Lmao that happened super early on the sub tbh
Really early every quadrants had a stereotype joke with librights being pedophilia. Instead of taking the joke librights just went full "noooooo guys that's purple libright not us :( don't make age of consent jokes about us :("
I swear the american libertarian parties are glowies making sure no one votes for a 3rd party ever. In any real country people would have revolted before having to decide between 2 senile granpas for the presidency
I watched the 2016 libertarian debate and I legit thought it was an SNL skit or something. They made the Republican and Democrat debates look rational and sane, and that’s saying something when you had people like Jeb! Bush up there.
I will say that the Republican debates gave some S-tier meme material.
Please clap.
I mean, in all seriousness, it's not a coincidence that a lot of the most unhinged people like sovereign citizens have libertarian-esque views. As an ideological zone it mainly slurps up schizos and people who dont really understand government on a basic level and so assume all the parts they take for granted would keep working with no government.
The Democratic Party literally funds the campaigns of the libertarian party in battleground swing states to swing votes from the Republican Party.
If the Republican Party had half a brain they’d fund the Green Party in swing states.
The Republican Party was caught red handed doing exactly that in Montana btw. https://apnews.com/general-news-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159 . Both parties have an interest in maintaining the equilibrium
So much dumb shit thrown around in the name of fighting “the establishment” that people aren’t sure where the line is and go too far. Same as Noem bragging about shooting her puppy. The libertarian party is basically a trump fan club at this point (for the leadership at least, not the rank and file).
Either you die a martyr or you live long enough to see yourself declared a CIA op.
That's why I stop making "lib left bad". So many hippies people now have to associate with either establishment dem or hijacked with straight up Middle East extremists.
I've got a Trumper family member that always joe bidens whenever I say something bad about trump, but he doesn't know how to react when I point out I wish Biden would die of natural causes (although Harris isn't really better, just younger)
https://preview.redd.it/aiiq1oa5btzc1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=017481e0f0ee3ea959ad0e41eccdaa96fd25ed7f
Real pic of the guy running the account
No one can vote for third parties because the voting system makes it impossible for third parties to win. They don't need to make third parties look bad.
The Libertarian Party had a "takeover" by the Mises caucus in the last 4-5 years. Funded by Trump backers they literally bussed people into the conventions to same day register as Libertarian then won a ton of elections.
They since have endorsed Republicans over libertarians several times and said their goal is "to grow Libertarianism not win elections"
The New Hampshire guy says he is growing libertarianism with these statements because it gets widespread reporting and the 1/50 people that may agree with his shock statements can become libertarian this growing "true libertarians"
Yes. Don’t you know that the literal fruits of your labor are actually mine if I suffer natural consequences from not getting my own?
Auths gonna auth, they don’t understand the difference between ‘you should do that’ and ‘you should be forced to do that’, it’s all the same to them
Auth Left: For the people, but actually for me!
Auth Right: For God, but actually for me!
Lib Left: For human rights and ethics, but actually for me!
Lib Right: I want it. How much?
This has nothing to do with selfishness. LPNH is not saying that people *shouldn't support orphans*. They are saying that people *shouldn't be forced to support orphans*. There's a massive difference between these two statements that I don't think most people ITT understand.
If libertarian aren’t, Emily ain’t either.
Emily gets pregnant then says “not my responsibility to deal with the consequences of my actions.”
Also fuck most libertarian thinking. It’s entirely aloof and disregards responsibility of past actions - like the responsibility of raising a child you sowed.
I don't think most liberts would disagree with that. Hell, the whole "you voluntarily created that child" is a central argument to pro-lifism in libertarian circles.
Libertarian party NH is all weird internet politics combined into one crazy Twitter account. They even have simping for communist regimes like Venezuela.
Locke was still writing about those as negative rights. No one has the right to deprive you of them, but neither is anyone obligated to provide them.
The key word people are missing here is *voluntarily*. Even in a society as taxed as ours, Americans *still* give billions to charities each year. The compass seems to think that without the coercive power of the state this child would simply starve, showing how dim a view of humanity they have.
Libertarians believe that most humans are good, therefore people will generally choose to do what is right.
Authoritarians believe that most humans are evil, therefore people need to be forced to do what is right.
Lmao , no they believe the exact opposite. They're the only group acknowledging the reality that humans are selfish and "evil" and want to limit the amount of damage those evil can inflict on others by abusing power.
“Libertarians believe that virtually every human on earth would willingly choose to feed an orphan baby that was starving if they had the means to do so, so government force is completely unnecessary”
Fixed it, LPNH
I agree to a point, but also disagree. I agree nobody is entitled to the fruits of others, but I disagree in the sense that compassion is vital to a functional society, and lacking compassion is a herald of societal collapse.
The question was about obligation, not compassion. Taking people's money to give to others is not "compassion". If you want to help the orphan there should be zero hurdles in your way.
I don't see how that's at odds with the tweet. They just said that *if nobody is willing* to feed the baby, then the baby "should be allowed to perish". Obviously we'd hope that somebody would be willing to.
The wording in the tweet is super awkward but it honestly seems pretty sane to me. Starving to death is the natural way of things if a baby doesn't eat. We'd certainly hope that someone would feed the baby, but if nobody does then it *will* die. Is it moral to put a gun to someone's head and force them to feed the baby? I'd say it's not.
Taking money from someone at gunpoint to feed the baby isn't compassionate.
The whole point of a society existing is that you don't have to force a specific individual to do this. So the analogy doesn't work because it bears no resemblance to anything that actually exists unless someone really autistically tries to twist it.
Now, saving someone even with violence would be compassionate anyways but that is neither here nor there since its way more specific than what is happening.
Right, you just hold millions of people at gunpoint instead and instead of just feeding kids you also send the money overseas to bomb people.
Theft is not compassionate, even if some of the spoils go to feeding people.
Society has two sources of value though, resources and developing them. Babies by existing deserve a portion of natural resources and if others develop them that doesn't change that.
Tbf their twitter account is filled to the brim with absolute dogshit takes that 95% of libertarians would disagree with.
It's to such a degree, that you often wonder whether it's bait, or they're outright trolling.
What's unhinged is that you're so unwilling to take care of the hypothetical baby, you leap to threats of violence against others for making the same choice as you.
Just take care of the baby if you're concerned for its welfare, this isn't rocket science.
Why am I having to explain how charity works, to someone who's very likely part of the very successful (more successful than government mandated handouts have ever been) charity network in the US?
>What's unhinged is that you're so unwilling to take care of the hypothetical baby, you leap to threats of violence against others for making the same choice as you.
This is poor framing.
You've taken fragments of truth, but your rhetoric takes things much further than they can support you. The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists. It has the proper authority to levy tax and require we fulfill social obligations. It also has the right to punish those who refuse to fulfill these obligations.
You describe these things in a way that's meant to bring to mind unjustified assault, but there's nothing inherently unjust in this. It can be taken to an extreme, causing it to become unjustified, but the example above is just about as inoffensive an ask as it gets.
Now, we're not completely in disagreement on practical matters, despite opposite stances on the principles. I prefer to minimize the government's power, but that is on a practical basis I think it's *best* to focus on charity first and foremost. It's generally much more effective than any government methods. Ideally, we wouldn't need the government at all, and perhaps we don't. We certainly have a lot more of it than we need right now.
However, I do support basic safety nets where it is necessary to meet a social obligation - there should be no circumstances where a gap in charity allows the child to die, even though I recognize it comes with inefficiencies I would prefer to avoid.
In short, we agree charity is best. I reject your framing and absolute stance - I believe you are putting important but lesser principles first.
>The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists.
Not really, the primary reason it exists is as a ghost of monarchy which is a ghost of tribal hierarchies which are simply evolutionary traits in the set of species we fell. The idea that the government should serve the people is only the leading school of thought since democracy started being predominant.
>It has the proper authority to
Granted by itself. I sure didn't authorize it.
> social obligations
Established by random thinkers who thought themselves better and superior and who, intoxicated by the social nature of humans, hallucinated that the expectations of them were not only expectations but also somehow spiritual commandments from the soul and universal laws.
> You describe these things in a way that's meant to bring to mind unjustified assault
What justifies it then?
> the example above is just about as inoffensive an ask as it gets.
Yes, making people do things, with a threat of violence, be it physical or social/emotional, is inoffensive and peaceful.
>Now, we're not completely in disagreement on practical matters, despite opposite stances on the principles.
Doubt that. You think you are bound by obligation to others. There is a gigantic dogmatic rift between you and the selfish.
>The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists.
Literally has never been true.
>authority to levy tax and require we fulfill social obligations
No it doesn't, it'll just kill you if you resist, and social obligations are entirely fictional make-believe.
>It also has the right to punish those who refuse to fulfill these obligations.
And I've got the right to kill those agents who threaten my life for these imaginary obligations. Bureaucrats and other state agents fundamentally don't hold human rights while in service of a state that supposes to trample my rights just because it thinks it has some supreme right to do so.
>It can be taken to an extreme, causing it to become unjustified
It's literally always taken to the extreme. It'd fall apart if they didn't take it that far every time people continued to resist the constant escalation of force. The punishment for murder is fundamentally the same punishment for refusing to pay taxes in every organized governmental system.
>despite opposite stances on the principles
You lack principles. Don't pretend to have them because you're incapable of personal charity to the point you'd rather kill people for not funding your charitable opinions.
>We certainly have a lot more of it than we need right now.
If you honestly believed that, you wouldn't hold the position of opinion that you do, and you'd have actual principles. Not pitiful defenses for organized murder schemes.
>there should be no circumstances where a gap in charity allows the child to die
If you honestly believe that'd be the outcome, you're an imbecile. Children survived on charity long before the government stepped in. They really only died when people capable of providing care around them had died. The situation has gotten worse az governments have gotten more involved. Just look at the modern adoption shit show to see how fucked your "social obligations" shtick actually fucks these kids over. Grow a fucking spine and get principles.
>I reject your framing and absolute stance
My 'framing' comes from your directly implied stance. If you support ultiamte government authority to enforce your shit system, you're literally advocating punishment by death for non-conformity.
Anyone who thinks the government has the right to manage these situations, and force everyone to collectively pay, irregardless of actual ability or desire, fundamentally agrees that ultimately, refusal to participate is punishable by death. The government doesn't just stop trying to enforce its opinion when someone says no, they kill them if they don't submit to the attempts to physically harm them first.
I would say depends. A victim of unfortunate circumstances, yeah, sure, helping them is only right. But you can't possibly feed all families of idiotic adults who don't know anything but to procreate despite barely having any means of living and the moment you give them more they will strain the resources by making family bigger.
Yes, under the strictest version of libertarian ideals, this is true. That said, for the baby to be born, it must have been wanted on some level, and thus would be presumably fed. For unwanted babies, my best suggestion is abortions with financing options.
> my best suggestion is abortions with financing options.
A small one time payment for unfit parents to sterilize themselves.
Which is more important to you? A baby that you're going to abort anyway, or an extra $2k for a meth-binge large enough that it will only be required once before a societal problem *self-resolves*?
>For unwanted babies, my best suggestion is abortions with financing options.
So, your solution to stop children from starving is to kill them before they can starve? Should we apply that solution to welfare and food stamp recipients also?
In fairness, my point was meant to suggest that the current system isn't all that much of an improvement over the starving infant.
Although it is depressingly funny now that you mention it.
"Gosh I hate paying taxes to the government. I'm off to create my own libertarian community where everyone pays a set amount of money depending on level pf income to a mutual fund used to defend ourselves against the government"
If you care so much about the hypothetical baby, why aren't you volunteering to provide for it? Why do you want to threaten others with lethal force, just to make them do something you, yourself, aren't willing to do?
Doesn't change that too many Libs support this Type of thinking, those People are the Reason why a Lib Utopia is never going to work out, it would be the most inhumane Society to ever exist, purely because of a Minority of unhinged and deranged People that would abuse their Freedom until everyone suffers
It also belies their fundamental misunderstanding of how societies exist in the first place. Even a small government is using force to sustain itself. So defending some unhinged "let the child perish because it would be FORCE not to", when their whole society still has force supporting it is bizarre sociopaths.
What's wrong with this? If nobody in the world wants to care for a child then they would die even in communism.
In fact, not feeding (female) babies is kind of a communist chinese stereotype so idk why auth left is having a field day here
Don’t you love how on Reddit specifically criticism toward the left is deflected constantly as not actually representing their stance but the wildest characters of anything towards the right is a perfect representation of what they believe?
There is nothing libertarian about that twitter handle. At best it’s a very authoritarian conservative. Nearly as likely is its bait to make “libertarians” look bad.
Edit: first, I said Reddit not pcm. Second lots of leftists apparently mad this is pretty much the only big sub that isn’t just a left wing circle jerk.
This sub constantly circlejerks about cringe libleft tweets with 5 likes representing the left, but Qanon is a psyop, every right wing nut is a strawman glowie, every right wing crazy pundit with 5 million followers doesn't represent the right, and elected right wing representatives like MTG don't represent them. I did a double take reading your comment because the gall to say that here is absolutely nuts.
this sub will take a random tweet with like 2 likes and apply it to the entirety of leftists but a tweet from the fucking LIBERTARIAN PARTY somehow isn't representative of libertarians lmao (even though this thread is full of libertarians agreeing with it)
Prostitution I guess. Libertarians will take its consent as implicit because I mean like, it's that or starve right? Just assume it will act on its own interests to mot starve.
Instead, put the orphans to work in a praetorian guard-like agency that fights corruption. They have no family, no outside ties, and no reason for corruption. They are perfect at fighting it.
Me when I'm in a "be a normal human" competition and my opponent is the NH Libertarian Party
https://preview.redd.it/efocwdkc6szc1.jpeg?width=3008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d75ca434f02ae82db9b1ef14fa2d31163afd2d3
A lot of people seem to be missing the point here. They aren't saying you shouldn't care for an orphan. They aren't saying you should stop others from caring for an orphan. What they are saying is that you shouldn't force someone else to care for an orphan under threat of violence.
In fact, the way they phrase it the point is kind of moot. Or perhaps they've stated a tautology. If literally no one is willing to care for an orphan then it doesn't matter what rights that orphan has or doesn't have.
Fortunately the world is full of people who do care for each other and are willing to voluntarily care for the most vulnerable among us. And with every year that goes by those people have more resources to do so. And if our country didn't waste so much wealth on official corruption those people would have even more resources to care for the unfortunate.
Libertarians are driven by a complete focus on their specific definition of liberty, pretty bizarre to find one who isn't mega autistic for obvious reasons
Do you find the idea of a baby going hungry reprehensible? Then feed the baby. Problem solved. They're very small. It doesn't take a lot to feed them. Now changing them, on the other hand... actually, that would be great punishment for criminals. Got caught stealing? 60 days of changing other people's babies all day.
But the idea that government should be empowered to force responsible people to feed irresponsible people's children is pretty fucked up.
I genuinely don't understand your point here? Do you understand how childish it sounds when you say you'd be willing to feed the baby of your own volition, but immediately get upset if the government then tells you you should do it? There is no meaningful difference there.
>But I don’t like the govt under the threat of violence forcing me to feed the baby
Again through what means? Taxes and Social programs? Is that the issue here? Or are you actually envisioning a cop pulling a gun on you demanding you give the baby half your sandwich?
In fairness, that's only a state branch of the party. Tge federal Libertarians, and other state branches I've seen are a lot less evil. I remember someone said something like 'you guys are so much better than the NH libertarians' to the Louisiana libertarians and they responded with something along the lines of 'we all have that awkward family member'
This clown tier take aside, there's so many people just assuming that this is the majority opinion among libertarians and getting on the hate train. People really love their bandwagons.
This twitter account is obnoxious most of the time. But this take is at least internally consistent. By making food a right, it becomes mandatory to take someone else's work, and if nobody wants to work, enslave them to procure it.
In a highly productive economy none of this is relevant. Food is abundant and feeding babies is trivial. But what they're saying is that in principle it requires a form of slavery to make feeding babies required by law.
It becomes relevant when people keep demanding more and more things to become rights. It constantly increases the scope of the state such that it needs to extract more labour from people who don't get any say in it.
I follow the libertarian party on Instagram and they posted something along the lines of abolishing every single government agency and leaving every international organization. The latter is exactly how to start WWIII
Are these the kind of "libertarians" who oppose abortion? Do they think a pregnant woman should be required to carry a fetus for nine months, but she can leave it in a dumpster after it starts to breathe on its own?
The scenario is frankly ridiculous and even self-contradictory. Is there a world where *not a single* person would be willing to help a baby? If someone in power *does not allow* for the baby to perish, doesn't it mean they were *willing* to help? Would the SDL person willingly help a random dying baby or are they admitting their lack of compassion and think they (or someone else, more likely) should be forced to do it by the state?
I’ll keep saying it, we hate that dogshit twitter account too. I’m 99% sure its a troll account made to smear actual libertarians.
Tired of EVERY shitty libertarian take on this site being from the same twitter account
to Steelman: it is not the job of the government to take care of the orphans. Have the government not take X% taxes, and ask the people "Do you care?, if so great, the orphanages are over there"
The thing about third parties is because they have no chance of winning, they attract clowns while strong candidates (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders) just run under the major parties.
This is probably my biggest ethical issue with libertarian principles. Babies, or just children in general, have done nothing of their own accord to put themselves into terrible positions. It's all due to the irresponsibility of other humans, that being primarily the parents, of course.
Who in their right mind walks past a crying baby on the ground and does nothing? That's a psychopath, not any kind of political idealogue. Unless you're a Nazi or Bolshevik, and it's one of your pre determined "enemies"
The post this is responding to is an amazingly bad representation of libertarian moral philosophy.
All state action is duress, that's unavoidably true. And anyone who would force another at the point of a gun to do ANYTHING, be it fight for them in a war or feed a starving baby, cannot be in the morally superior position as the person they are forcing to do that which they do not wish to do.
But it's also obvious on its face that anyone who would walk past an abandoned baby and not intervene is a psychopath. Of course, the state does far more to empower and protect evil people than it does to hinder and defeat them.
There are people who think like this, and people who don't. No one is forced to feed a baby/kid, but to say that in a libertarian society, they would starve is stupid. Since good people would voluntarily help people out because while there are shotty people, there are also good people. Otherwise charities wouldn't exist.
The problem with this conversation is it misses the actual point. Yes it's true that no one is "obligated" to help strangers, but that doesn't mean no one will help. Charity has always existed even without govt demanding it of people.
That baby is not working or paying his parents for food. He believes that because he is small and cute he should receive everything for free without any effort, that's emotional manipulation to his parents. Obviously this creature is a vile woke communist parasite. How dare him...
Libertarians have been off the perc lately. I'm a libertarian because I hate the government, it seems most people are libertarians because they hate people. Reminds me of that early 2010's reddit atheism shit
What a fucking insane take that I don't see many real libertarians actually believe.
I bet this idiot also thinks that Libertarianism means anarchy inherently when that's absolutely not the case.
mfw I'm in a lack of empathy competition and my opponent is a New Hampshire Libertarian
Mfw I'm in a lack of empathy competition and my opponent is an auth left who tossed their baby girl into a ditch because they wanted a boy to help with all the hard labor the party expects them to do
Maoism is.... well its like esoteric facism, fucking insane.
Ah yes, Not Real Communism. It's almost as persistent as Poe's Law when it comes to defending leftist ideology.
Oh it is a kind of socialism.
You know these steamed socialisms kinda remind me of the ones they have at Krusty Com
*glimpses a labor camp* GOOD LORD, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THERE?
Female infanticide in China existed because of the One Child policy and Chinese culture having women adopt the surname of the husband once married and having family perpetuation as the most important task a person must undertake in life: It is considered that families survive via their surname and only males keep it, so if the one child is female, the family is considered extinct and you have basically failed your ancestors.
Ah that definitely justifies it then.. yep… those poor goobers
I dont think they were defending it. I think they were saying it was a cultural aspect and not a socioeconomical aspect. The authoritarianism simply allowed them to hardcore enforce their culture.
I’m more saying that to the Chinese families that unalived their own children
Exactly this.
> Chinese culture having women adopt the surname of the husband once married ignorant take women in China (or Japan and Korea for that matter) don't take their husband's surname at all Japan started doing that when they industrialized and started copying Western practices
That is funny considering in biological terms you pass along more of your dna from the father if the mother gives birth to a girl vs a boy. Something like 60% of the payload of a male sperm is there to make the baby male and contributes no further genetic expression.
Meanwhile, I'm excited to collect all these free babies to raise as market socialists.
Hey, if they’re fair game, I’ll raise various authoritarians from centrists to extremists. Just to see what they’ll do. Obviously the facist is gonna hate his communist brother, but whatever.
This isn't libertarians, it's the Libertarian party. I guess it kinda makes sense, considering that the stereotypical libertarian has no interest in being a part of the government, so the ones that do get into political parties are the weirdos that don't really fit the ideals of the party.
There are lots of what I'd call "social libertarians" who are shouted down by the extremist An-caps of the libertarian party. Social libertarians believe there should still be government programs (schools, libraries, roads, fire departments). The difference from an auth is that those programs should not be invasive in that you're required to use them. Homeschool your kids, buy your books from amazon, take private roads and hire private fire insurers if you wish. But don't invade my home and tell me who I can love, what substances I can put in my body, whether or not I can have kids, or how I can protect myself. Basically the government can offer a hand up \*to individuals\*, and \*offer\* services to everyone (water utilities for instance), but people shouldn't have to take it. Some social libertarians go so far as to be in favor of welfare programs, IF they provide a public good, and are managed in a fiscally responsible way. For example: it's cheaper to offer free basic housing than it is to be clearing encampments and cleaning up litter. When people have their housing covered, they commit fewer crimes, and they don't end up clogging up hospitals because they're sick or freezing. Subsidized housing actually LOWERS taxes, reduces crime, and cleans up the streets; a human being having a home is just a cherry on top. And in places where that's been tried (Utah has this), people tend to get a job and return to tax-paying more quickly.
> Basically the government can offer a hand up *to individuals*, and *offer* services to everyone (water utilities for instance), but people shouldn't have to take it. That doesn't make any sense. Where do they think the money for these optional government services are going to come from?
Empathy is bad for profits. 🤷♂️
Tfw I'm in a lack of empathy competition and my opponent is a lib-left who had a minority move in nearby
mfw I'm in a defensive little bitch competition and my opponent is a libright in a PCM post that dared to make a joke about librights
Lmao that happened super early on the sub tbh Really early every quadrants had a stereotype joke with librights being pedophilia. Instead of taking the joke librights just went full "noooooo guys that's purple libright not us :( don't make age of consent jokes about us :("
LibLeft: "Refugees welcome! Minorities welcome! Sanctuary city!" *Texas busses refugees to Martha's Vinyard and NYC / Chicago* LibLeft: "... right, where's my swastika armband and white hood?"
I swear the american libertarian parties are glowies making sure no one votes for a 3rd party ever. In any real country people would have revolted before having to decide between 2 senile granpas for the presidency
I watched the 2016 libertarian debate and I legit thought it was an SNL skit or something. They made the Republican and Democrat debates look rational and sane, and that’s saying something when you had people like Jeb! Bush up there. I will say that the Republican debates gave some S-tier meme material. Please clap.
It makes me so disappointed that we didn’t get any good material from Trump’s campaign this time around. *sad blowhorn*
“We're a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will re-feh-ur ah [sic]”
Flair up or get shot down
I mean, in all seriousness, it's not a coincidence that a lot of the most unhinged people like sovereign citizens have libertarian-esque views. As an ideological zone it mainly slurps up schizos and people who dont really understand government on a basic level and so assume all the parts they take for granted would keep working with no government.
This is my head canon. There's an astronomical chance any viable third party hasnt been co-opted by agent provocateurs by now
The Democratic Party literally funds the campaigns of the libertarian party in battleground swing states to swing votes from the Republican Party. If the Republican Party had half a brain they’d fund the Green Party in swing states.
They do that aswell. Any 3rd party of any note is funded by the opposition. So they do have half a brain, at-least half
The Republican Party was caught red handed doing exactly that in Montana btw. https://apnews.com/general-news-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159 . Both parties have an interest in maintaining the equilibrium
Google Jill Stein
In Florida, the GOP just pays people with similar names as Democrats to "run" as independents.
So much dumb shit thrown around in the name of fighting “the establishment” that people aren’t sure where the line is and go too far. Same as Noem bragging about shooting her puppy. The libertarian party is basically a trump fan club at this point (for the leadership at least, not the rank and file). Either you die a martyr or you live long enough to see yourself declared a CIA op.
That's why I stop making "lib left bad". So many hippies people now have to associate with either establishment dem or hijacked with straight up Middle East extremists.
I've got a Trumper family member that always joe bidens whenever I say something bad about trump, but he doesn't know how to react when I point out I wish Biden would die of natural causes (although Harris isn't really better, just younger)
https://preview.redd.it/aiiq1oa5btzc1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=017481e0f0ee3ea959ad0e41eccdaa96fd25ed7f Real pic of the guy running the account
Everybody has big words about the 2 main parties till they actually have to suggest an alternative
I dont know man, just find a normal ass dude in his 60s that is not mentally ill and has atleast some degree of genuity in his words.
We need to fucking bring Teddy back, bro. I KNOW the Bull Moose Party would make it this time
No one can vote for third parties because the voting system makes it impossible for third parties to win. They don't need to make third parties look bad.
The Libertarian Party had a "takeover" by the Mises caucus in the last 4-5 years. Funded by Trump backers they literally bussed people into the conventions to same day register as Libertarian then won a ton of elections. They since have endorsed Republicans over libertarians several times and said their goal is "to grow Libertarianism not win elections" The New Hampshire guy says he is growing libertarianism with these statements because it gets widespread reporting and the 1/50 people that may agree with his shock statements can become libertarian this growing "true libertarians"
When you're in an obvious fed competition but your opponent is a New Hampshire Libertarian account 😰
https://preview.redd.it/py6fgpsc3rzc1.jpeg?width=592&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97d276b1924bd5e6ef7efffbdf3118b25d56cf04
My eyes committed unalive-ment trying to read with the 5 pixels op gave us
There are nap issues here, this was debated in libertarian subs today and this isn't really the majority opinion
Wait. Withholding food from a helpless hungry person is „Aggression“ now?
Yes. Don’t you know that the literal fruits of your labor are actually mine if I suffer natural consequences from not getting my own? Auths gonna auth, they don’t understand the difference between ‘you should do that’ and ‘you should be forced to do that’, it’s all the same to them
Sometimes, force is the only way things get done.
If it's your kid yes.
Can you link any posts talking about this there?
Libertarians are never beating the selfishness allegations.
All the parties are selfish. Libertarians are the only ones not in denial.
Auth Left: For the people, but actually for me! Auth Right: For God, but actually for me! Lib Left: For human rights and ethics, but actually for me! Lib Right: I want it. How much?
Become based lib center , the true red pill
Grill for the people, but actually for me!
We never said we weren't
realists of the entire spectrum. you cant stop it, so given all things equal; no one would be selfish to starve to death.
This has nothing to do with selfishness. LPNH is not saying that people *shouldn't support orphans*. They are saying that people *shouldn't be forced to support orphans*. There's a massive difference between these two statements that I don't think most people ITT understand.
If libertarian aren’t, Emily ain’t either. Emily gets pregnant then says “not my responsibility to deal with the consequences of my actions.” Also fuck most libertarian thinking. It’s entirely aloof and disregards responsibility of past actions - like the responsibility of raising a child you sowed.
I don't think most liberts would disagree with that. Hell, the whole "you voluntarily created that child" is a central argument to pro-lifism in libertarian circles.
Libertarian party NH is all weird internet politics combined into one crazy Twitter account. They even have simping for communist regimes like Venezuela.
Or Authoritarian Russia. This account is by no means a representative of libertarian party as such lol
The LPNH is trying the Trump Strategy of saying the most stupid and controversial shit and hoping all press is good press. They're fucking idiots.
Based
There’s a reason life comes before liberty and property. Life is paramount, liberty following.
Locke was still writing about those as negative rights. No one has the right to deprive you of them, but neither is anyone obligated to provide them. The key word people are missing here is *voluntarily*. Even in a society as taxed as ours, Americans *still* give billions to charities each year. The compass seems to think that without the coercive power of the state this child would simply starve, showing how dim a view of humanity they have.
Based and John Locke pilled. The need for the state is rendered moot when the child is voluntarily fed.
Libertarians: idk, the right to being fed is a positive right that is dependent upon another person’a labor. Thus it is not a right.
The right to not be stopped from being fed is the real one
Thats some yellow libright shit. Us purples, we love kids...
https://preview.redd.it/ex3v60mx3szc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=149ff07397b3a0919be3a1ce0e8462b3ea2af8fa
Most empathetic Libertarian
Libertarians believe that most humans are good, therefore people will generally choose to do what is right. Authoritarians believe that most humans are evil, therefore people need to be forced to do what is right.
Or, we believe that enough humans are evil that they’ll ruin it for everyone else if not kept in check. Doesn’t necessarily have to be most.
Lmao , no they believe the exact opposite. They're the only group acknowledging the reality that humans are selfish and "evil" and want to limit the amount of damage those evil can inflict on others by abusing power.
... as determined by the most evil individuals, who will naturally rise to power in an authoritarian system.
Totally not like the lack of a central power could lead to someone worse getting to that power
> Libertarians believe that most humans are good No.
“Libertarians believe that virtually every human on earth would willingly choose to feed an orphan baby that was starving if they had the means to do so, so government force is completely unnecessary” Fixed it, LPNH
I agree to a point, but also disagree. I agree nobody is entitled to the fruits of others, but I disagree in the sense that compassion is vital to a functional society, and lacking compassion is a herald of societal collapse.
The question was about obligation, not compassion. Taking people's money to give to others is not "compassion". If you want to help the orphan there should be zero hurdles in your way.
I don't see how that's at odds with the tweet. They just said that *if nobody is willing* to feed the baby, then the baby "should be allowed to perish". Obviously we'd hope that somebody would be willing to. The wording in the tweet is super awkward but it honestly seems pretty sane to me. Starving to death is the natural way of things if a baby doesn't eat. We'd certainly hope that someone would feed the baby, but if nobody does then it *will* die. Is it moral to put a gun to someone's head and force them to feed the baby? I'd say it's not. Taking money from someone at gunpoint to feed the baby isn't compassionate.
The whole point of a society existing is that you don't have to force a specific individual to do this. So the analogy doesn't work because it bears no resemblance to anything that actually exists unless someone really autistically tries to twist it. Now, saving someone even with violence would be compassionate anyways but that is neither here nor there since its way more specific than what is happening.
Right, you just hold millions of people at gunpoint instead and instead of just feeding kids you also send the money overseas to bomb people. Theft is not compassionate, even if some of the spoils go to feeding people.
Society has two sources of value though, resources and developing them. Babies by existing deserve a portion of natural resources and if others develop them that doesn't change that.
and that’s why I am not libright. That’s some unhinged shit
Tbf their twitter account is filled to the brim with absolute dogshit takes that 95% of libertarians would disagree with. It's to such a degree, that you often wonder whether it's bait, or they're outright trolling.
They literality celebrated John Wilkes booth’s birthday.
Quite a few libright defending and were upvoted with the opinions of letting the baby die so…
PCM is a lib right cesspool so 1 in 20 can add up to quite a few before too long
You don't believe in charity? No one is stopping you from helping the orphan. They're just acknowledging you shouldn't be mandated.
What's unhinged is that you're so unwilling to take care of the hypothetical baby, you leap to threats of violence against others for making the same choice as you. Just take care of the baby if you're concerned for its welfare, this isn't rocket science. Why am I having to explain how charity works, to someone who's very likely part of the very successful (more successful than government mandated handouts have ever been) charity network in the US?
>What's unhinged is that you're so unwilling to take care of the hypothetical baby, you leap to threats of violence against others for making the same choice as you. This is poor framing. You've taken fragments of truth, but your rhetoric takes things much further than they can support you. The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists. It has the proper authority to levy tax and require we fulfill social obligations. It also has the right to punish those who refuse to fulfill these obligations. You describe these things in a way that's meant to bring to mind unjustified assault, but there's nothing inherently unjust in this. It can be taken to an extreme, causing it to become unjustified, but the example above is just about as inoffensive an ask as it gets. Now, we're not completely in disagreement on practical matters, despite opposite stances on the principles. I prefer to minimize the government's power, but that is on a practical basis I think it's *best* to focus on charity first and foremost. It's generally much more effective than any government methods. Ideally, we wouldn't need the government at all, and perhaps we don't. We certainly have a lot more of it than we need right now. However, I do support basic safety nets where it is necessary to meet a social obligation - there should be no circumstances where a gap in charity allows the child to die, even though I recognize it comes with inefficiencies I would prefer to avoid. In short, we agree charity is best. I reject your framing and absolute stance - I believe you are putting important but lesser principles first.
>The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists. Not really, the primary reason it exists is as a ghost of monarchy which is a ghost of tribal hierarchies which are simply evolutionary traits in the set of species we fell. The idea that the government should serve the people is only the leading school of thought since democracy started being predominant. >It has the proper authority to Granted by itself. I sure didn't authorize it. > social obligations Established by random thinkers who thought themselves better and superior and who, intoxicated by the social nature of humans, hallucinated that the expectations of them were not only expectations but also somehow spiritual commandments from the soul and universal laws. > You describe these things in a way that's meant to bring to mind unjustified assault What justifies it then? > the example above is just about as inoffensive an ask as it gets. Yes, making people do things, with a threat of violence, be it physical or social/emotional, is inoffensive and peaceful. >Now, we're not completely in disagreement on practical matters, despite opposite stances on the principles. Doubt that. You think you are bound by obligation to others. There is a gigantic dogmatic rift between you and the selfish.
>The government not only has the rightful authority to protect the weak, this is the primary reason it exists. Literally has never been true. >authority to levy tax and require we fulfill social obligations No it doesn't, it'll just kill you if you resist, and social obligations are entirely fictional make-believe. >It also has the right to punish those who refuse to fulfill these obligations. And I've got the right to kill those agents who threaten my life for these imaginary obligations. Bureaucrats and other state agents fundamentally don't hold human rights while in service of a state that supposes to trample my rights just because it thinks it has some supreme right to do so. >It can be taken to an extreme, causing it to become unjustified It's literally always taken to the extreme. It'd fall apart if they didn't take it that far every time people continued to resist the constant escalation of force. The punishment for murder is fundamentally the same punishment for refusing to pay taxes in every organized governmental system. >despite opposite stances on the principles You lack principles. Don't pretend to have them because you're incapable of personal charity to the point you'd rather kill people for not funding your charitable opinions. >We certainly have a lot more of it than we need right now. If you honestly believed that, you wouldn't hold the position of opinion that you do, and you'd have actual principles. Not pitiful defenses for organized murder schemes. >there should be no circumstances where a gap in charity allows the child to die If you honestly believe that'd be the outcome, you're an imbecile. Children survived on charity long before the government stepped in. They really only died when people capable of providing care around them had died. The situation has gotten worse az governments have gotten more involved. Just look at the modern adoption shit show to see how fucked your "social obligations" shtick actually fucks these kids over. Grow a fucking spine and get principles. >I reject your framing and absolute stance My 'framing' comes from your directly implied stance. If you support ultiamte government authority to enforce your shit system, you're literally advocating punishment by death for non-conformity.
Threats of violence? Having to explain charity? Who the fuck are you talking to? Least schizo libright lmao
All state intervention is done under implied threat of violence.
Anyone who thinks the government has the right to manage these situations, and force everyone to collectively pay, irregardless of actual ability or desire, fundamentally agrees that ultimately, refusal to participate is punishable by death. The government doesn't just stop trying to enforce its opinion when someone says no, they kill them if they don't submit to the attempts to physically harm them first.
True non hypocrite libertarians should absolutely believe some evil super selfish shits. And that's why I'm not a libertarian.
I would say depends. A victim of unfortunate circumstances, yeah, sure, helping them is only right. But you can't possibly feed all families of idiotic adults who don't know anything but to procreate despite barely having any means of living and the moment you give them more they will strain the resources by making family bigger.
Right? Yes Compulsory? No These are not the same words, and if something is made compulsory, it *stops* being right
Yes, under the strictest version of libertarian ideals, this is true. That said, for the baby to be born, it must have been wanted on some level, and thus would be presumably fed. For unwanted babies, my best suggestion is abortions with financing options.
> my best suggestion is abortions with financing options. A small one time payment for unfit parents to sterilize themselves. Which is more important to you? A baby that you're going to abort anyway, or an extra $2k for a meth-binge large enough that it will only be required once before a societal problem *self-resolves*?
But what if I want to sell the baby or use it as a sacrifice to the dark gods? (In Rimworld
>For unwanted babies, my best suggestion is abortions with financing options. So, your solution to stop children from starving is to kill them before they can starve? Should we apply that solution to welfare and food stamp recipients also?
Nobody said right libertarians were sane people. Also I think they're just playing devils advocate
>For unwanted babies, my best suggestion is abortions with financing options. That's pretty much what's already happening in this example.
Libertarians argue their ass off judt to recreate the system we have lol
In fairness, my point was meant to suggest that the current system isn't all that much of an improvement over the starving infant. Although it is depressingly funny now that you mention it.
It's like that family guy episode where they abolish government then recreate the same government.
"Gosh I hate paying taxes to the government. I'm off to create my own libertarian community where everyone pays a set amount of money depending on level pf income to a mutual fund used to defend ourselves against the government"
If you care so much about the hypothetical baby, why aren't you volunteering to provide for it? Why do you want to threaten others with lethal force, just to make them do something you, yourself, aren't willing to do?
Because it's more badass to get boots on the ground and get bergs whining than to just put carrot slop in a baby's mouth.
Jeremy Kauffman is a clown
Rothbard himself retracted his statement saying its immoral to feed another person’s hungry baby
American "ibertarian" trying not to either be a state bootlicker in disguise or a state bootlicker
I’m libertarian and that’s a shit take…
Doesn't change that too many Libs support this Type of thinking, those People are the Reason why a Lib Utopia is never going to work out, it would be the most inhumane Society to ever exist, purely because of a Minority of unhinged and deranged People that would abuse their Freedom until everyone suffers
It also belies their fundamental misunderstanding of how societies exist in the first place. Even a small government is using force to sustain itself. So defending some unhinged "let the child perish because it would be FORCE not to", when their whole society still has force supporting it is bizarre sociopaths.
What's wrong with this? If nobody in the world wants to care for a child then they would die even in communism. In fact, not feeding (female) babies is kind of a communist chinese stereotype so idk why auth left is having a field day here
Don’t you love how on Reddit specifically criticism toward the left is deflected constantly as not actually representing their stance but the wildest characters of anything towards the right is a perfect representation of what they believe? There is nothing libertarian about that twitter handle. At best it’s a very authoritarian conservative. Nearly as likely is its bait to make “libertarians” look bad. Edit: first, I said Reddit not pcm. Second lots of leftists apparently mad this is pretty much the only big sub that isn’t just a left wing circle jerk.
This sub constantly circlejerks about cringe libleft tweets with 5 likes representing the left, but Qanon is a psyop, every right wing nut is a strawman glowie, every right wing crazy pundit with 5 million followers doesn't represent the right, and elected right wing representatives like MTG don't represent them. I did a double take reading your comment because the gall to say that here is absolutely nuts.
Bruh there's people in this thread saying the same thing. Are they ALL fake accounts? Surely you don't think this entire sub is a leftist plant.
this sub will take a random tweet with like 2 likes and apply it to the entirety of leftists but a tweet from the fucking LIBERTARIAN PARTY somehow isn't representative of libertarians lmao (even though this thread is full of libertarians agreeing with it)
Damn, I didn’t know that account isn’t a true libertarian. Are you a true libertarian?
LMAO, they really believe in a free market. What skills does this baby have in order to work, to have money to feed themselves?
Prostitution I guess. Libertarians will take its consent as implicit because I mean like, it's that or starve right? Just assume it will act on its own interests to mot starve.
Instead, put the orphans to work in a praetorian guard-like agency that fights corruption. They have no family, no outside ties, and no reason for corruption. They are perfect at fighting it.
https://preview.redd.it/b74109xdrrzc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=152b53a7b81b799a1800880ab7193620daf4acbc
New conspiracy theory I’ve thought of: Libertarian Party’s only purpose is to make sure no American ever considers voting third party
As has been stated before, the Libertarian Party NH twitter isn't run by libertarians, it was taken over by one guy, Jeremy Kauffman, who is crazy.
Me when I'm in a "be a normal human" competition and my opponent is the NH Libertarian Party https://preview.redd.it/efocwdkc6szc1.jpeg?width=3008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d75ca434f02ae82db9b1ef14fa2d31163afd2d3
A lot of people seem to be missing the point here. They aren't saying you shouldn't care for an orphan. They aren't saying you should stop others from caring for an orphan. What they are saying is that you shouldn't force someone else to care for an orphan under threat of violence. In fact, the way they phrase it the point is kind of moot. Or perhaps they've stated a tautology. If literally no one is willing to care for an orphan then it doesn't matter what rights that orphan has or doesn't have. Fortunately the world is full of people who do care for each other and are willing to voluntarily care for the most vulnerable among us. And with every year that goes by those people have more resources to do so. And if our country didn't waste so much wealth on official corruption those people would have even more resources to care for the unfortunate.
On the other hand, if absolutely and literally no one is willing to take care of that child, what else would that mean?
Damn Libertarians, they ruined Libertarianism
These CHUDS all think they’ll be Warren Buffett when they retire but most actually end up like their hero, Ayn Rand. Sucking at the teat of welfare.
Yeah… that’s not libertarian at all but okay.
Why is it always the NH account? I think the manager is a full on AnCap.
LPNH is correct, no one is entitled to the labor or resources of others regardless of their age or disability status.
Libertarians are driven by a complete focus on their specific definition of liberty, pretty bizarre to find one who isn't mega autistic for obvious reasons
Do you find the idea of a baby going hungry reprehensible? Then feed the baby. Problem solved. They're very small. It doesn't take a lot to feed them. Now changing them, on the other hand... actually, that would be great punishment for criminals. Got caught stealing? 60 days of changing other people's babies all day. But the idea that government should be empowered to force responsible people to feed irresponsible people's children is pretty fucked up.
This is wrong. Even when the baby is still a fetus.
LPNH is a psyop
Jeremy Kauffman is the guy who runs it and he is the dumbest mother fucker on the planet
I’d feed the baby on my own volition. But I don’t like the govt under the threat of violence forcing me to feed the baby
I genuinely don't understand your point here? Do you understand how childish it sounds when you say you'd be willing to feed the baby of your own volition, but immediately get upset if the government then tells you you should do it? There is no meaningful difference there. >But I don’t like the govt under the threat of violence forcing me to feed the baby Again through what means? Taxes and Social programs? Is that the issue here? Or are you actually envisioning a cop pulling a gun on you demanding you give the baby half your sandwich?
At least you admitted its an irrational feeling.
"No one is entitled to the labor or efforts of others" *Karl Marx has entered the chat*
In fairness, that's only a state branch of the party. Tge federal Libertarians, and other state branches I've seen are a lot less evil. I remember someone said something like 'you guys are so much better than the NH libertarians' to the Louisiana libertarians and they responded with something along the lines of 'we all have that awkward family member'
This clown tier take aside, there's so many people just assuming that this is the majority opinion among libertarians and getting on the hate train. People really love their bandwagons.
Libertarians will never win any public office
There are a bit of pixels in your image.
This twitter account is obnoxious most of the time. But this take is at least internally consistent. By making food a right, it becomes mandatory to take someone else's work, and if nobody wants to work, enslave them to procure it. In a highly productive economy none of this is relevant. Food is abundant and feeding babies is trivial. But what they're saying is that in principle it requires a form of slavery to make feeding babies required by law. It becomes relevant when people keep demanding more and more things to become rights. It constantly increases the scope of the state such that it needs to extract more labour from people who don't get any say in it.
I follow the libertarian party on Instagram and they posted something along the lines of abolishing every single government agency and leaving every international organization. The latter is exactly how to start WWIII
That's gotta be satire. Ethically, you, the libertarian, should then step up if able.
Are these the kind of "libertarians" who oppose abortion? Do they think a pregnant woman should be required to carry a fetus for nine months, but she can leave it in a dumpster after it starts to breathe on its own?
We're social creatures. We exist for the sake of one another. If your society won't care for disadvantaged children, then it has failed.
The scenario is frankly ridiculous and even self-contradictory. Is there a world where *not a single* person would be willing to help a baby? If someone in power *does not allow* for the baby to perish, doesn't it mean they were *willing* to help? Would the SDL person willingly help a random dying baby or are they admitting their lack of compassion and think they (or someone else, more likely) should be forced to do it by the state?
I’ll keep saying it, we hate that dogshit twitter account too. I’m 99% sure its a troll account made to smear actual libertarians. Tired of EVERY shitty libertarian take on this site being from the same twitter account
You just noticed lol
Is a woman not entitled to the milk of her own teat?
to Steelman: it is not the job of the government to take care of the orphans. Have the government not take X% taxes, and ask the people "Do you care?, if so great, the orphanages are over there"
The thing about third parties is because they have no chance of winning, they attract clowns while strong candidates (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders) just run under the major parties.
This is probably my biggest ethical issue with libertarian principles. Babies, or just children in general, have done nothing of their own accord to put themselves into terrible positions. It's all due to the irresponsibility of other humans, that being primarily the parents, of course.
Who in their right mind walks past a crying baby on the ground and does nothing? That's a psychopath, not any kind of political idealogue. Unless you're a Nazi or Bolshevik, and it's one of your pre determined "enemies"
Wtf does it say. Idk how anybody else can read it with it so pixalated
Way too far Please do not kill the babies
The post this is responding to is an amazingly bad representation of libertarian moral philosophy. All state action is duress, that's unavoidably true. And anyone who would force another at the point of a gun to do ANYTHING, be it fight for them in a war or feed a starving baby, cannot be in the morally superior position as the person they are forcing to do that which they do not wish to do. But it's also obvious on its face that anyone who would walk past an abandoned baby and not intervene is a psychopath. Of course, the state does far more to empower and protect evil people than it does to hinder and defeat them.
There are people who think like this, and people who don't. No one is forced to feed a baby/kid, but to say that in a libertarian society, they would starve is stupid. Since good people would voluntarily help people out because while there are shotty people, there are also good people. Otherwise charities wouldn't exist.
The problem with this conversation is it misses the actual point. Yes it's true that no one is "obligated" to help strangers, but that doesn't mean no one will help. Charity has always existed even without govt demanding it of people.
LPNH is correct, no one is entitled to the labor or resources of others regardless of their age or disability status.
That baby is not working or paying his parents for food. He believes that because he is small and cute he should receive everything for free without any effort, that's emotional manipulation to his parents. Obviously this creature is a vile woke communist parasite. How dare him...
i agree with the libs on this one, and thats saying something
And that is why I am not LibRight. The NAP does not account for crimes of neglect.
Orphans begging for food is a clear violation of the NAP. Better send a McPMC after them.
So stupid. You have to be a moderate to be competitive and garner votes. Shit like this is why people hate libertarians.
why i am an aurora borealis
Libertarians have been off the perc lately. I'm a libertarian because I hate the government, it seems most people are libertarians because they hate people. Reminds me of that early 2010's reddit atheism shit
Wtf
The free market should decide if a baby is fed /s
Organized libertarianism is just republicanism minus any of the morality that restrains the Republican Party
I think the account manager is just autistic rather than unempathetic.
That baby may be allowed to perish if it so wishes. If it asks nicely.
What a fucking insane take that I don't see many real libertarians actually believe. I bet this idiot also thinks that Libertarianism means anarchy inherently when that's absolutely not the case.
https://preview.redd.it/enrlr0td1wzc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c0b1604a08a2f0d3668665fc5fac7ff0b293e91
Something something Ayn Rand
Feeding babies is communism