Retail store Karens? That's pretty racist there, brother. Are you entitled to your own empirical reality? When you think of how America has been treating immigrants and non whites since the 1960s - cradle to grave welfare, affirmative action, unending efforts to pursue racial egalitarianism, tolerance and outright deference to non white cultures - all of these being known by immigrants to be opposite if whites wanted to enter their societies - and your big problem with entitlement is consumer protection laws and white women? Is your head so far up your own asshole that you can communicate with the ghost of Murray Rothbard himself? When you look around society, how many entitlements are currently going to white men and married christian women? With all respect and love my fellow libertarians, have some balls and be honest about where dangerous, entitled, society-destroying expectations are coming from! They're not coming from consumer protection laws (which are an effect, not a cause) and white women at retail stores!
My post was a bit aggressive, but libertarian discussions should not default to blaming easy targets. If you want to discuss entitled, unreasonable hordes causing problems, mass migration is an infinitely bigger issue. Otherwise, it's just larping.
I think he’s talking to a phenomenon of argumentative customers, who feel entitled to xy&z, and are willing to make a scene to get it. Nothing about race, I’ve seen plenty of videos labeling non whites as Karen’s.
Libertarian arguments would say that it’s up to the business to how it would react to any people. Libertarian arguments essentially have both parties unregulated in their ability to conduct business. If the business owner doesn’t want to deal with a customer, and they don’t feel, for whatever reason they want to continue, they could kick that person right out, barring any contractual agreements which would be case by case.
As an aside, is it not the case that libertarianism doesn’t defend particular groups? If business didn’t want a particular ethnic and or gender group shopping there, in a libertarian system, that’s fair game. They’d lose business, other business owners could take up the uncatered market. The market sorts it out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding of the philosophy.
Retail store Karens? That's pretty racist there, brother. Are you entitled to your own empirical reality? When you think of how America has been treating immigrants and non whites since the 1960s - cradle to grave welfare, affirmative action, unending efforts to pursue racial egalitarianism, tolerance and outright deference to non white cultures - all of these being known by immigrants to be opposite if whites wanted to enter their societies - and your big problem with entitlement is consumer protection laws and white women? Is your head so far up your own asshole that you can communicate with the ghost of Murray Rothbard himself? When you look around society, how many entitlements are currently going to white men and married christian women? With all respect and love my fellow libertarians, have some balls and be honest about where dangerous, entitled, society-destroying expectations are coming from! They're not coming from consumer protection laws (which are an effect, not a cause) and white women at retail stores!
Every single definition is racial and highly offensive towards white women. I'm not sure what your experience with this term is?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=karen+definition&t=brave&ia=web
My post was a bit aggressive, but libertarian discussions should not default to blaming easy targets. If you want to discuss entitled, unreasonable hordes causing problems, mass migration is an infinitely bigger issue. Otherwise, it's just larping.
I think he’s talking to a phenomenon of argumentative customers, who feel entitled to xy&z, and are willing to make a scene to get it. Nothing about race, I’ve seen plenty of videos labeling non whites as Karen’s.
Libertarian arguments would say that it’s up to the business to how it would react to any people. Libertarian arguments essentially have both parties unregulated in their ability to conduct business. If the business owner doesn’t want to deal with a customer, and they don’t feel, for whatever reason they want to continue, they could kick that person right out, barring any contractual agreements which would be case by case.
As an aside, is it not the case that libertarianism doesn’t defend particular groups? If business didn’t want a particular ethnic and or gender group shopping there, in a libertarian system, that’s fair game. They’d lose business, other business owners could take up the uncatered market. The market sorts it out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding of the philosophy.
"libertarian discussions"? What forum are you on?