1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump didn't start any useless wars though, right? War is necessary for national security. Not that I know about foreign policy, but I would assume you can't have terrorism brewing up somewhere while you wait to be attacked.

2
Royal_Krakenstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

By ostracising you are making someone have to enter the land of a another country and the other country will hold you accountable. This does not seem like it would hold up well in the long term.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice meme. But it is foolish to hold a human being in such high esteem. Not to diminish the work you have done, of course.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ostracised where to? You would be violating the NAP if you sent them into another's land.

2
Royal_Krakenstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

A communist really told me that fascism was right wing because it discriminates. What a joke.

0
Royal_Krakenstein 0 points ago +1 / -1

You could enter the ancap model running a minarchist government over it. But there will always be opposition and groups that will you want to defend against. So a military defense will always be necessary.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

As in minarchists themselves are more successful or minarchism running over the ancap model will draw more successful people towards the government? If it's the latter, I really am not seeing the best in government. Usually the successful are in the market working, right?

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Basically 18. The age of consent is an age that we have agreed on where we think that people have generally gotten all grown up. Since it is difficult to write into the law how to judge things on a case by case basis, we need have a straight up age. Unfortunately it means some people will fall through the cracks who we would not consider developed enough and capable of consent.

We all have many points of governance in our lives such as embarrassment and ambition and the age of consent is something that can be built into a society. Since the point of a society is to keep men civilised.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Although I think that Individualism would be the value of the LibRight since my impression is that the AuthRight has less of an emphasis on the individual. Maybe Trumptards just ruined it for me.

2
Royal_Krakenstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

Finally, someone who says that freedom and equality are opposites. People differ in performance so you cannot have both of these things. Marxists look over this and consider people to be the same cog when they look at employees in a corporation.

Fuck Marxism.

3
Royal_Krakenstein 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sorry for engaging in AnCap treason. I hope my thoughts did not violate the 'Non-Helping Commies Principle'. Frankly I'm just a minarchist with AnCap interests trying to see what it is all about.

3
Royal_Krakenstein 3 points ago +3 / -0

As a minarchist, I would think that the AnCaps do have the right to engage in war with the Bad Guys because while they are not being violated themselves, they a duty towards their fellow men and women.

How far are we willing to push this individualism? Can a Good Guy not protect another Good Guy from attack because they themselves have not been violated?

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Perhaps the final solution is a peer to peer system.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because it's an anarcho capitalist imageboard :/

5
Royal_Krakenstein 5 points ago +5 / -0

What is 'read locke'? Anyways militias are cool. It's the way how the founding fathers intended the people to rise against a tyrannical government.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +2 / -1

Realistically speaking, perhaps the function of the LP is to steal votes from the RP to make them adopt more libertarian policy. As far as I see it, libertarianism still has a long way to go, if at all, until it becomes a mainstream ideology.

1
Royal_Krakenstein 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think that prostitution is extremely immoral but I would not be for the government to outlaw it.

3
Royal_Krakenstein 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not sure about what other thinks but my answer to that is that children cannot consent. Cannot consent to many things, sex being one of them. It takes away from their freedom but can you call it freedom if you are not as rational as you could be to make the choice? Of course this can be applied to non-children so we need to be careful.

2
Royal_Krakenstein 2 points ago +2 / -0

We can hope for the best. Although I presume the final solution is a peer to peer or something similar.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›