/liberty/ - Liberty

>>81537

Playing devils advocate here but, what about child labour? what makes it different from "what if the child consents tho"?

The real solution to all problems children\abortion related is to decide whether the NAP applies to children. Hint: to be opposed to child sex, you must believe that the NAP does not apply to children. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you wish to avoid endorsing pedos at all costs, but if the NAP does not apply to children then it's difficult to argue against abortion from a moral standpoint. So, it appears to me that one must choose beween endorsing abortion and endorsing pedos. If you think this is a false dichotomy, I'd like to hear other positons, feel free.

>>81533

I clicked on this webm. Will I be arrested for CP?

>>81542

>to be opposed to child sex, you must believe that the NAP does not apply to children.

I disagree.

It is a violation of the NAP to have sex with someone that does not give informed consent, and children are incapable of giving informed consent for sexual matters, because they have not yet matured sexually.

>>81539

It quite clearly says so long as both the child and parent consents. Also there is literally nothing wrong with child labour. It builds character and reputation as a good worker, which helps the child succeed later in life.

>>81544

Yes, the FBI should be contacting you within the next few days.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with being a pedo, op. About a third of people are. Under, say, the constitution of the US, you have the same rights as anyone… born or naturalized, equal protection, etc… and your partner has the same rights as anyone, except that it's not constitutionally required to protect their right to vote; a bad call, but it's there in black and white.

The US constitution is also the fallback for those who like their loli and shota, and like their abortion; "they're born."

You ARE, however, recommended to back up the OTHER aspects of equality for the loli and shota in your lives. They are facing a LOT of illegal discrimination which is not supported by any of the aforementioned clauses. Several of your responders, similarly, are not exactly applying 'equal protection of ancapistan;' it is frankly just to shoot anyone who proposes a 'one rule for me and another for thee' scheme.

>>81539

>Playing devils advocate here but, what about child labour? what makes it different from "what if the child consents tho"?

The socialist argument. Toddler-owned business and self-entrepeneurship > toddler labor.

This is actually a lot CLOSER, rather than different, to "what if the child consents, though."

>>81544

>will I be arrested

No, because governments never violate the nap. :)

>>81551

>governments never violate the nap. :)

Huh? Is this some kind of Jewish in-joke?

>>81553

Mostly just bald-faced sarcasm.

stop replying to this shit.

>>81557

No.

So, how do we empower child-run business, /liberty/?

>>81539

Pretty much all questions of children entering into relationships/contracts/etc. come down to the point in the original pic I posted: a child is not a complete moral actor. Their parents have the ultimate say on anything they do, whether that be work for the McMine or fucking Uncle Dan.

>>81562

>Pretty much all questions of people entering into relationships/contracts/etc. come down to the point in the original pic I posted: a libertarian is too stupid to be a complete moral actor. The communists have the ultimate say on anything they do, whether that be work for the McMine or fucking Uncle Dan.

That's an interesting hypotheosis, but Rothbard says you're an authoritarian piece of shit.

>>81562

Children not being complete moral actors (itself a somewhat dubious claim, but let's set that aside for now) does not imply the reasoning that the parents have total authority over their lot, and have the right to treat them as property. The parents may have some nominal control over the child's agency, insofar as they are under implied contract to sponsor that child's attaining self-ownership, but this is far from absolute, and if anything is more obligation than privilege. They don't have dominion over the child's actions; at best they may override a child's action if it is existentially self-destructive to the child's attaining self-ownership.

Children are not capable of consent in the same sense as adults are, because for all intents and purposes the parts of the mind necessary to make life-changing decisions are still in development. Ergo, almost all societies rely on the parents to make major decisions for their children.

But this does not imply that parents "own" their children; by acting as a guardian the parents are providing a service to their children, which should not be confused with "using" children as property. i.e., "making decisions for your children" should not be conflated with something like "making decisions about which color a cabinet should be".

This is obvious to anyone who goes outside. So sorry OP, you're probably fucked in Ancapistan too.

>>81574

>Libertarians are not capable of consent in the same sense as leftists are, because for all intents and purposes the parts of the mind necessary to make life-changing decisions are undeveloped or damaged.

This is true, but the question is, what should we DO to you?

> Ergo, almost all societies rely on the parents to make major decisions for their children.

I live in one that does not. It's called the northeast and entire goddamn left coast of north america.

It's also mostly unknown in the americas, the pacifc islands, most of africa, every part of asia that didn't have a massively authoritarian state coupled with a bureaucratic exam system, and believe it or not, much of europe.

Basically, it's just you. Also…

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00593/full

…the "making others' choices" you advocate directly causes literal brain damage.

But, no. Only anglos do that fucked-up bullshit. The wikipedia article on observational learning, otoh, is just one of many sources that hint that, everywhere in the world, children have no binds, owners, or control.

Also, Rothbard thinks you're an asshole.

http://dogsection.bigcartel.com/product/no-against-adult-supremacy

>>81576

>the left coast

>the LEFT COAST

<Libertarians are not capable of consent in the same sense as leftists are, because for all intents and purposes the parts of the mind necessary to make life-changing decisions are undeveloped or damaged

>he calls it the LEFT COAST

It doesnt matter what state on the left coast you're in, this is proof that they're deliberately poisoning the water supply

>>81593

You do realize people say "left coast" all the time to denote how many leftists live on the West Coast, yeah? This isn't an uncommon thing.

>>81576

This is nothing new, we already know that an authoritarian upbringing predicts a lower IQ, and it's almost common sense that the way your parents raised you is a predictor of what you will expect from your ideal government.

>>81596

I think he had something else in mind when he said "left" coast, I stopped giving these idiots the benefit of doubt long ago.

>>81593

>the northeast and left coast

>what state in the left coast you're in.

See how b does not cover the entire case of set a, whatsoever? See how the subject sees a fucking meme and can't think of anything else?

This is prime evidence of why, unlike children, libertarians cannot consent and need communists to make their decisions for them. The only question which remains is how much we should pretend they're human, or control them totally.

>It doesnt matter what state on the left coast you're in

Utah.

You''re forgetting the outer weed states in the empire. ;) We've done a lot of work on children's liberation lately, while you're arguing for more of a state and more authoritarian controls.

>>81576

>>Libertarians are not capable of consent in the same sense as leftists are, because for all intents and purposes the parts of the mind necessary to make life-changing decisions are undeveloped or damaged.

>This is true, but the question is, what should we DO to you?

Oh clever, you changed out some of the words in the statment, that must mean it's equally true.

The difference between my statement and your moronic comeback is that there is immediate physical evidence that children have not achieved maturity, physically or mentally.

As for the rest of your post, you know damn well that

>Ergo, almost all societies rely on the parents to make major decisions for their children.

was not in reference to play-time. (What was OP just talking about?)

>>81627

>The difference between my statement and your moronic comeback is that there is immediate physical evidence that children have not achieved maturity, physically or mentally.

…and while your claims are basically false, we have an entire board on 8chan providing far more immediate evidence that libertarians have not achieved any respectable degree of mental function.

What is the same between them is the implied assertion, provided by apparently you, that a living being needs to meet some standard of approval before holding personhood. It's how you tell the fascists from the libertarians, frankly. You're all for it, but at the same time, you don't meet the level of mental functioning required to discern the common theme. Too bad for you.

It's not your only failure to mentally perform. For instance…

>As for the rest of your post, you know damn well that {quote} was not in reference to play-time.

Neither was the study in question, nor the rest of the post. Utah, for instance, was mentioned, but most people would call running a business "economic activity," rather than "playtime."

Let's take a look at what happened here. You WANT there to be someone dumber than you by dictate alone, because you have no accomplishments of your own. To that end, you chose to combine wishful thinking with reality denial, and chose to make-believe a bunch of crap that really does not pertain to anything you were claiming to attempt to address.

This is NOT the level of mental functioning which can be called, well, functional. The only question is what to do to you on that basis. Your advocacy is that you have no rights or humanity.

…and that's why your own argument applies; because you chose this fate for yourself.

>>81628

>"economic activity,"

>In reference to pedophilia

Sorry man, not even ancapistan will let you fuck kids.

>>81651

>FLDS jokes

rly, fgt?

>>81628

Would the BO mind reading off this guys global ID? That's the one that you click on to see post histories. I dont actually need his history, just the ID since it persists across boards. I'm curious if this is the guy I think it is, and if all commies are pedos or just this one.

>>81533

nothing

>>81746

>instincts

>knowing what theyre doing

>instincts

>knowing

This guy admitted to possession of cp can he be banned?

>>81747

>WAAAA CENSOR HIM!

Who's the fascist now, huh? And nice reading comprehension, you literal nigger.

Not posting the proofs, you don't deserve it.

>>81658

All healthy men are pedos, which is why I find it weird how the jews bribe antifa with cp.

>>81751

I would punch a nazi if it would make CP legal again.

>>81746

you know you might be right, but that doesn't mean that abolishing age of consent laws would be a net benefit. the cases where lolis are into it would be outweighed by the ones where lolis are exploited / pressured into it and find it difficult to say no.

just like in your example that one case is outweighed by cases where 14 year olds were married off and forced to have 9 kids rather than being educated, so their whole life was spent in service to men's desires rather than their own

>>81775

>14 year olds were married off and forced to have 9 kids rather than being educated, so their whole life was spent in service to men's desires rather than their own

>implying that's not a good thing

>implying that's not how it should be

>implying that's not what we fight for

Fuck outta here illiterate feminist.

>>81776

So you're in favor of the Rotherham rape gangs, I take it?

>>81775

Many of those age of consent laws have clauses that may result in unintended or deliberate consequences, such as putting lolis on sex offender registry just for posting sexts or nudes of themselves.

>>81776

I see you are a muslim

>>81746

Want to see how a free market would react to that claim? Go into public and read out your post.

>>81783

you mean to people their own age? you can get around that within special provisos.

if they're sending nudes to older men i don't think the loli would be punished, but the older man would in so far as he was the one persuading her to send them.

Nothing at all, OP.

>>81776

it should not be like this

girls should decide on their owns whether they want to bond with other person

It violates the NAP because those children are someone else's property

>>85674

>marriage advocating

>christfag

>not entitling people to services is pedophilia

Not on my /liberty/.

BTFO, you cock sucking theist.

>It violates the NAP because those children are someone else's property

Ahh, /liberty/. Making Rothbard roll in his grave repeatedly….

>>81539

Child labour and child sex rings both violate the NAP of the child. If you want to argue that child labour is not exploitation because the child is paid, you might have an argument. But, as >>81537 poitns out, children are not born as free, moral, entities. Children are not mini adults, but vessels that need to be shaped by society and their parents. Age of consent is a meme, because it implies children have the ability to consent in the first place; they do not.

>>81563

>A dead economist from 30 years ago is the sole arbiter of Libertarian thought

>It's authoritarian to want to protect children from child labour and sex rings

>>85729

His arguments were good, which yours aren't.

>>85729

>It's authoritarian to want to protect children from child labour and sex rings

Oh, hey. I wonder what that looks like without the emotive bullshit.

>It's authoritarian to want to protect

Yes, it generally is.

>>85728

>Child labour and child sex rings both violate the NAP of the child

Nope. This is 101-tier bullshittery.

<there exists possible child labor which violates the nap.

<there exists possible child sex rings which violate the nap.

<there exists possible child labor which does not violate the nap.

<there exists possible child sex rings which do not violate the nap.

To jump straight to your emotive bullshit, the group of gradeschoolers texting each other buttpix are both a ring, and no, they are not violating the nap with themselves as victim and perpetrator in the same act.

Bullshitters generally want to try to immediately split along literally-irrelevant lines to further spew bullshit. They also tend to go for the most emotive possible crap - such as your "child sex rings" myth, which tend to be abject fiction outside of said peer-to-peer sexting - but hey, why should a little MORE lying stop you?

Bullshittery is also generally a mark of authoritarians who cannot stand on their own grounds, and you…

>children are not born as free.. entities. Children are.. but vessels that need to be shaped.

…you are directly advocating violating the NAP.

>>85739

>you are directly violating the nap

The nap only applies to people. If you hold that there is some period of development where a human has a less than person status, then they are not covered by the nap. You may say this sounds preposterous but I challenge you to tell me a newborn infant can consent. There is some line between infancy and death where a human obtains all the faculties of an adult, and thus all the privilages of adulthood as well, but until that line is cross, children retain only partial person status, partial privilages, and partial coverage under the nap.

>>85739

NAP violators disgust me.

>>85743

>You may say this sounds preposterous but I challenge you to tell me a newborn infant can consent.

Okay, the vast majority of newborn infants can consent, and the reason that you as a new parent can't get any sleep is because they DON'T.

Also…

>The nap only applies to people. If you hold that… a human has a less than person status, then they are not covered by the nap.

Kind of makes it uselessly null, don't you think?

>>85740

>I swear, the kids started posting buttpics to each other, not to me

<kids chatting on their phone to kids they know.

<the entire school-aged population looking up a random entry in the phone book in a random city to text naked pictures of themselves

- which of these happens more often in real life?

- which of these happens in your apparently very detailed fantasies which you decided to spew all over the 'net?

Your mission in life is to one day be able to tell them apart.

>>85752

That's… my general opinion as well, but I've learned that the raw shock and horror of watching someone try to debase their claim to humanity is, frankly, somewhat powerless and mostly a distraction. They just are. All you can do is point out what they said.

…such as "I have elaborate but unrealistic sexual fantasies," for instance.

>>85759

>the entire school-aged population looking up a random entry in the phone book in a random city to text naked pictures of themselves

Why not this:

>One bad guardian sending nudes of his son to ten people he met on the Usenet twenty years ago

Something like that would never happen, ever, sure.

Did it ever occur to you that your fixation on little kids making pornography is perhaps a little creepy?

>>85788

TF anon, do you really think kids never fuck themselves before 18? Or maybe even only sex after marriage is possible allowed? Or preventing something from happening at the cost of everything else is a great strategy?

>>85795

>TF anon, do you really think kids never fuck themselves before 18?

You know, there are these creatures called "teenagers", who are not kids anymore but also not quite adults. Being into post-pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia, so I don't know why you brought them up. Got an axe to grind with ridiculous age of consent laws? Then find a neocon to talk with, don't waste our time.

>>85812

It's impossible to write a law that only targets adult pedophiles but not children themselves. Case in point: the median age of registered sex offenders in the US is 14. That's current age, not age when they were registered, so it's being dragged upwards by 20 year olds who were registered at 10.

On top of that, huge swaths of the "evidence" for how harmful "child sexual abuse" is has been misrepresented or fabricated outright, while all research to the contrary is publicly decried on grounds other than scientific evidence. Here's one example of a sex researcher pointing out that many of his colleagues claim effects in their studies that aren't actually reflected by their data, and then getting shit on by the media, losing all of his funding, and being officially denounced by the US Congress, all without a single challenge to the validity of his work that isn't trivially refutable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

When it comes down to it, the entire phenomenon of CSA is just a distraction from the far more pervasive and far more harmful problem of physical and emotional abuse. It's there so that abusive parents can justify socially isolating their children from anyone who might give a shit about them, so that therapists can get their checks twenty years later.

>>85812

Fair enough

>>81533

Nothing is wrong with that.

Note that everything in this post will refer to post-pubescent teenagers and not children. It's still sadly applicable to this thread because burgerclap retards can't tell the difference.

>>85816

I have some bad news for you. When you have faggots like >>81805 special pleading as though the form of persuasion used by a teenager to get her to send nudes to another teenager is any different from that used by an adult who wants nudes from said teenager, showing them logic and facts isn't going to get you anywhere. When you have a situation where scientific studies are being censured for completely political reasons, discussion isn't going to achieve anything because you're dealing with fundamentally irrational people who basically have the mentality of religious fanatics. The only solution to this problem is to create your own jurisdiction with sensible laws, and if others try to attack it, you smash them with as much force as is needed to ensure that they never try again. Violence is the only thing these "I need to control your life for your own protection" crypto-liberal shitfucks understand. The fact that they have no evidence of teenagers lacking any given capability that adults have is no deterrent to them. Religious fanatics don't believe in the need for evidence, due process or freedom of speech, and the only deterrent to people who don't believe in those things is the barrel of a gun. This isn't meant to be edgy. It's simply stating a fact that history has proven to be true time and time again.

>>85845

Unfortunately this.

<BAW-HAW-HAAAAW! W-why c-can't I just have a p-pure an' h-high quality based child waifu? If it weren't for the DAMN KIKES and the FEMINIST ROASTIES and the LIEBRUL CUCKS I wouldn't be a virgin! If they come for my sex bots it'll be WAR, and I have the stainless steel Devil May Cry replica blades to back it up!

>>85853

>republicuck defending feminism

I wish I could say anyone here is surprised by this. This is why your party is the fucking laughingstock of the planet.

>If they come for my sex bots it'll be WAR

It's cute how you think the types of people who would buy sexbots aren't also the ones who own the most guns. Go ahead and try to take sexbots away. See what happens.

>>85853

>losertarian trying to talk shit

Meanwhile the "laughingstock" of the planet holds an elective majority while any effort to herd your ilk into a politically efficacious group results in fatass strip teases and cucking to the left on all maters social and cultural.

>It's cute how you think the types of people who would buy sexbots aren't also the ones who own the most guns

It's cute how you think they are. The ones who do own guns can't shoot straight or handle the recoil. The rest of you are just polishing your mall katanas with paper towels.

>See what happens

Basically the same thing that happens when parents finally kick their wizard NEET burdens to the curb.

>>85870

>lol you're losers, ignore the part where we conspired with the Democrats to shut out any other parties

Is insulting the people you're trying to "herd into a politically efficacious group" the way they taught you to gather support in shill school?

>Meanwhile the "laughingstock" of the planet holds an elective majority

The only reason you have a majority is because the Democrats ran the only candidate that could possibly have lost to Donald Trump. You're bragging about winning the Special Olympics. Nobody outside of your circle of cuckservative boomer faggots likes the Republicans.

>while any effort to herd your ilk into a politically efficacious group

You mean to redirect genuine opposition in a direction where it won't threaten the cancerous system you support.

>results in fatass strip teases

IIRC that guy turned out to be a false flagging anarcho-communist.

>and cucking to the left on all maters social and cultural.

You're in here defending feminist kvetching over sexbots and guys liking beautiful teenage girls, so you're not in a position to talk about this.

>The ones who do own guns can't shoot straight or handle the recoil.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>85883

>Is insulting the people you're trying to "herd into a politically efficacious group" the way they taught you to gather support in shill school?

LOL, don't flatter yourself, faggot. I ain't interested in trying herd cats by talking logic and reason to lolbergs. If your reading comprehension were better, you'd realize that I was making fun of the Libertarian Party and any other effort to try and make a palatable ticket out of the inability to distinguish liberty from license. You aren't wanted and you aren't needed.

>The only reason you have a majority is because the Democrats ran the only candidate that could possibly have lost to Donald Trump.

Oh really? What does that say about losertarians right and left? You fags were handed the best possible opportunity for third parties to make gains in a mainstream and popular electoral event and you predictably pissed it all away running Stein and Johnson.

>You're bragging about winning the Special Olympics

You niggers can't even get participation trophies in the "special olympics." Sad!

>Nobody outside of your circle of cuckservative

KEK, love it when libs try to steal cuck from us. Doesn't work, though. Never had and never will. It was the #nevertrump cucks who were beaten in the 2016 election, but nice fallacy all the same, homeslice.

>boomer

Because Millenials are still suffering from cerebral Ron Paulsy rather than pursuing right-wing populism. Sure thing, gramps.

>likes the Republicans

And yet libertarians can't beat them in getting right-wing constituent support. Hmmmmm… ah! It must be collusion and muh shills! Even though collusion and shilling tried to stop Trump but it didn't fucking matter. Surely it can't be that most right-thinking people just don't agree or want anything to do with libertaricucking on social and cultural issues.

>IIRC that guy turned out to be a false flagging anarcho-communist.

Whatever you say…

>You're in here defending feminist kvetching over sexbots

No, I'm mocking you zero-T omega males who are so incapable of handling real women that you need to defend overly complicated flesh lights with the force of arms. Relevant males aren't concerned with sexbot politics because it doesn't concern them; they know how to deal with actual women.

>and guys liking beautiful teenage girls

The sad virgins who whine about not being able to fuck as many 13 and 14-year-old girls as they want are just the same kind of pasty skinnyfat dadbod-at-30 twat who shit on white women in favor of Asian girls. In both cases you're too weak to deal with most women so you fetishize what you think is easy, shy, and submissive. Anything to avoid working and improving yourself.

>so you're not in a position to talk about this

You seem to think that the left gives a damn about sexual morality and isn't the one pushing for legal pedophilia and open unapologetic pornography as a means of demoralizing western culture, so fuck anything you have to say on the subject. Sexual morality and discipline aren't left-wing just because you don't have the character to possess these traits and wish to villify them.

>Do you have a single fact to back that up?

I've seen lolbergs in real life. Nuff said, faggot.

>>85943

In a representative democracy it is an objective strength, yes.

>boomer

One day you'll grow up, binky. Physically at least.

>>85960

Holy shit is this a real life republican? Dude. You're rarer than a unicorn.

>>85960

>right-wing populism

How is that a better proposition?

>>85960

>You fags were handed the best possible opportunity for third parties to make gains in a mainstream and popular electoral event and the election was rigged against you.

Fixed.

>And yet libertarians can't beat them in getting right-wing constituent support.

It's almost as if the Republicans and Democrats have the support of the corporate media and nobody else does.

>Hmmmmm… ah! It must be collusion and muh shills! Even though collusion and shilling tried to stop Trump but it didn't fucking matter.

Trump is a shill himself.

>Surely it can't be that most right-thinking people just don't agree or want anything to do with libertaricucking on social and cultural issues.

You mean morons.

>In both cases you're too weak to deal with most women

HAHAHAHAHA holy shit the feminism. You're completely indistinguishable from a fucking Gawker editorial and you wonder why people are abandoning the Republicans. Dealing with women isn't supposed to be a chore, you stupid twat. It's supposed to be rewarding. That's why guys who aren't cucks go for teenage girls. Muh stronk feminist womyn aren't even worth considering because they've taken a million miles of dick and they're just horrible cunts in general.

To nobody's surprise, /pol/ has gone back on freedom of speech and anchored the thread about this.

>>86001

>the election was rigged

Cute, but wrong. No, in reality the election was rigged against Trump and Sanders because those two candidates were relevant. In Trump's case it didn't work because he had genuine support no matter how much shills rigged the game against him and in Sanders' situation the cheating disgusted so many who would have voted Democrat that it virtually forfeited the election. The election doesn't need to be rigged against libertarians because nobody gives a fuck about them.

>muh corporate media

Again, corporate interests did everything they could to quash the Trump train but couldn't overcome grassroots enthusiasm, which is what makes this:

>Trump is a shill himself

Extra retarded, but I guess you really need those extra $0.02 in your account for correcting the record, huh?

>You mean morons

Heh, says the tool who can't see that libertarians are objectively pawns of liberals. Lolbergs insist that the government/state shouldn't enforce their morals on anybody. Liberals pretend to agree and then immediately impose their values once they seize power. You 're too facile to be trusted with the custody of civilization and the electorate knows it.

>holy shit the feminism

Holy shit, the nervous beta-male laughter that cannot hide insecurity

>indistinguishable from Gawker

Feminists denigrate alpha males, imbecile. They spit on men who understand how to effectively handle women because it undermines their desire to socially engineer gender equality. You wouldn't appreciate this, though, because you're too angry over sour grapes to fix your shit and get good at the game.

>people are abandoning the Republicans

Party affiliation overall, yes, but another things sure as hell for sure: They aren't flocking to libertarianism instead.

>Dealing with women isn't supposed to be a chore, you stupid twat. It's supposed to be rewarding.

No, faggot, dealing with women has ALWAYS been something requiring investment and effort on behalf of a worthy male. Since time immemorial, men have been the pursuers. The suitors have cultivated the art of courtship. To better himself and prove ready for the responsibilities of heading a household. This is healthy and and natural.

You, soft manchild of the 90s, have never been anything other than maximum comfy-womfy in your life and don't believe that female companionship should demand anything from you.

>That's why guys who aren't cucks go for teenage girls. Muh stronk feminist womyn aren't even worth considering because they've taken a million miles of dick and they're just horrible cunts in general.

There's more than two choices here, but neither option is open to your chode anyhow. That much is certain.

>>86074

>No, in reality the election was rigged against Trump and Sanders because those two candidates were relevant.

The entire first-past-the-post system is a form of election rigging that leads to duopolies as stipulated by Duverger's law.

>Again, corporate interests did everything they could to quash the Trump train

Trump is a corporate interest and so are the liberals. The liberal media's hate train against Trump was reverse psychology designed to fool people into thinking Trump was ever anti-establishment in any way.

>Holy shit, the nervous beta-male laughter that cannot hide insecurity

"Just man up and take sloppy seconds! Wifing up a used-up cunt that's going to cheat on you, divorce you and falsely accuse you of rape is what real men do!" You're so out-of-touch it beggars belief.

>You wouldn't appreciate this, though, because you're too angry over sour grapes to fix your shit and get good at the game.

The game is rigged by feminists to remove all the best options i.e. teenage girls.

>Party affiliation overall, yes, but another things sure as hell for sure: They aren't flocking to libertarianism instead.

They're not flocking to the Libertarian Party, but most people here agree that the Libertarian Party is cancer. As a party, they're just Democrats with weed, and now that Trump is looking like he's going to end the federal marijuana ban there's no use for them because they're not actually libertarian in any meaningful sense. Libertarianism as a broad ideology is receiving more support though.

>No, faggot, dealing with women has ALWAYS been something requiring investment and effort on behalf of a worthy male.

Because of feminist laws and entitled feminist harpies who scream rape at anything they don't like, it's become an investment that's no longer worth it if you live in the West.

>There's more than two choices here

No there aren't.

>>86096

>LOL! Yeah! Sure is cuh-razy, huh? Believing in something proven to work

In practice the corporate government runs everything and the people have no control. However, the American people are so deliberately stupid that they're the best possible argument anyone could make against democracy.

>People tend to make better decisions collectively than as individuals, yes.

t. people who wanted to murder Charles Darwin for questioning their sky wizard

>Tell me about the deadly touch radio controlled spiders and chem trails next, mmkay?

I don't know about either of those, but it would explain a lot if there was something in your water supply making you a retard.

>Feminists are the ones squealing all of the time about sex-positivity and legalizing "sex work," Achmed.

Feminists were the ones who outlawed prostitution to begin with for the same reason they raised the age of consent, to remove challenges to their sexual market value. Read a fucking history book.

>Why?

There may technically be other options out there, but none are worth considering because teenage girls are so immensely superior to everything else.

>>86098

>LOL! Yeah! Sure is cuh-razy, huh? Believing in something proven to work and embraced by the most developed, wealthy, and scientifically advanced countries in the world. We should throw it away for some autistic nerd's pet theories.

Wealthy countries are wealthy because of free markets and advances in technology, not a flawed political system where you don't even know who's running your country or whether he will fulfill your promises.

>People tend to make better decisions collectively than as individuals, yes.

When you put two idiots in a room, 1 + 1 won't make 2, it makes 0.

>There is, unlike your imaginary difference between libertarianism and liberalism at the end of the day.

Republicans are just yesterday's liberals. Tomorrow your wife's mixed-race child will call itself a republican despite being a tranny communist.

>Being an adult with a future?

Has nothing to do with women.

>No no no no. Go back to square one, kiddo. That's not what the game is all about.

Yes, because "the game" is about spending your salary on expensive gifts, kissing her ass, waiting patiently for her to finish having sex with Tyrone and if you respected her enough she just might allow you to clean the cum off his dick.

>C'mon, boy,

Seriously?

>the Red Pill has been out long enough that you have no excuse spouting those fallacies. Take your Ritalin and come back later

Did you just discover the internet yesterday or something? You talk like a redditor, go seek validation somewhere else.

>>86081

loving =/= offending

ok?

>>86107

>In practice the corporate government runs everything and the people have no control

<Boy howdy playing Deus Ex really opened my eyes, man.

>the American people are so deliberately stupid that they're the best possible argument anyone could make against democracy.

Substituting Mencken paraphrasing for actual knowledge, eh kiddo? Once upon a time I thought that mangling quotes made for a good argument too. Maybe when you hit 18 you'll know better I dunno.

>t. people who wanted to murder Charles Darwin for questioning their sky wizard

*tips fedora* Also, no, Darwin was not largely harangued by Christians for contradicting the notion of divine creation but offending Victorian sensibilities by suggesting that humans descended from mere animals. Yet another ahistorical fallacy of yours…

>it would explain a lot if there was something in your water supply making you a retard

It would explain if there was a lot of soy in your diet making you so resentful and bitter about mature women.

>Feminists were the ones who outlawed prostitution to begin with

LOL. Read a history book.

>but none are worth considering because teenage girls are so immensely superior to everything else.

<I have nothing to offer a woman matured past her most cursory and impulsive years. It's not that I have no chance, no no no no I am alpha I am alpha I am alpha

>Wealthy countries are wealthy because of free markets and advances in technology

It's almost like certain systems of government are better at promoting this than others. Hmmmmmm

>When you put two idiots in a room, 1 + 1 won't make 2, it makes 0.

In your corner, rhetoric. In mine, recorded history. Hmmmmmm

>Republicans are just yesterday's liberals

Libertarians are today's liberals with autism.

>Tomorrow your wife's mixed-race child will call itself a republican despite being a tranny communist

Yeah? And lolbergs will insist there's nothing at all wrong with it because ending the drug war legalizing pederasty are the true tests of a free culture, cuck.

>Has nothing to do with women.

<Having a legacy isn't important to my future. I will live on in the RP logs I've shared with the other NEET who pretends to be a teenaged anime girl with fox ears

>because "the game" is

Something you don't now and never will understand. It's about training women to respect you and understanding their psychology, which is above your head so you demand the easy and honorless way out.

>Seriously?

Yup

>Did you just discover the internet yesterday or something? You talk like a redditor, go seek validation somewhere else

Been around longer than you, son. YOU talk like you were banned from the MGTOW subreddit, and your piss poor replies are all the validation I require, kiddo.

>>86142

<Boy howdy observing how the American government acts really opened my eyes, man.

Fixed.

>Substituting Mencken paraphrasing for actual knowledge, eh kiddo?

Disprove it, then.

>*tips fedora* Also, no, Darwin was not largely harangued by Christians for contradicting the notion of divine creation but offending Victorian sensibilities by suggesting that humans descended from mere animals.

Explain the Scopes trial then, you retarded fucking nigger faggot.

>LOL. Read a history book.

I've read more books than you've heard of.

>It would explain if there was a lot of soy in your diet making you so resentful and bitter about mature women.

<I have nothing to offer a woman matured past her most cursory and impulsive years. It's not that I have no chance, no no no no I am alpha I am alpha I am alpha

You seriously think anyone here is going to fall for "muh mature womyn" shit? People here are redpilled as fuck, and because of that we know that most women and most people in general never mature past about 14. They do, however, become less attractive, and that's why it's not a matter of what we have to offer them, but of what they have to offer us.

>It's almost like certain systems of government are better at promoting this than others. Hmmmmmm

It's almost like you're a gigantic faggot. Hmmmmmm.

>In your corner, rhetoric. In mine, recorded history. Hmmmmmm

When the fuck have the American people made a good decision about anything?

>Been around longer than you, son.

We can tell, because you talk exactly like a boomer republicuck.

>>86167

You're arguing with a boomer redditor, SON, you better show some fucking respect. The only way to reprogram years of my conditioning, KIDDO, is to work for Fox News and shill for one of two very convenient choices kindly offered to us, the people of the US of A, by our benevolent G*d-given federal government. Don't like that? Well then fuck you, BOY.

Now, I wonder when my wife will return with a pack of niggers from the club? I really hope she didn't start without me, but it would be awfully immature of me to call a mature and independent woman while she's out on the prowl. Hmmmmmmm

>>86098

>LOL! Yeah! Sure is cuh-razy, huh? Believing in something proven to work and embraced by the most developed, wealthy, and scientifically advanced countries in the world.

~tips fedora~ M'sparrow…

>>86167

>observing

Seeing is not the same as understanding, which explains you many misunderstandings about the world and general dunning-Kruger syndrome.

>Disprove it, then

The success of the US as an institution relative to its youth on the long term historical scale is proof enough.

>Scopes trial

LOL, too easy. Scopes trial, like the religious hand-wringing over evolution, was late coming to the debate and something only evangelicucks really ever cared about. Darwin himself was long dead before then. Gee, it's almost like you know absolutely nothing about shit you pretend to be more informed than those silly normie boomers about, heh.

>I've read more books than you've heard of

Dan Abnett and Harry Potter don't count.

>You seriously think anyone here is going to fall for "muh mature womyn" shit?

No, I don't expect the shut-in pederasts here to have taste in women.

>People here are redpilled as fuck

Lolbergtarianism isn't "redpilled," it's babby's first attempt at going against the grain.

>that most women and most people in general never mature past about 14.

Says the fag who thinks there's a future for or desirability in libertarianism. KEK, even fascism/national socialism is more widely embraced and better substantiated.

>It's almost like you're a gigantic faggot. Hmmmmmm.

Ooooo, did I strike a nerve, little man?

>When the fuck have the American people made a good decision about anything?

Read a book.

>it's not a matter of what we have to offer them, but of what they have to offer us.

<I'M ENTITLED TO PUSSY! IT'S ALL THOSE EVIL ROASTIE FEMINAZIS FAULT I'M A VIRGIN REEEEEEREERUHREERUHREERUHREEEEEEEEEEE

>>86172

That all you got, huh? Sad!

If you can't explain within 5 minutes why 8 year olds shouldn't have sex without referencing religion/morality, STDs, or rape, you should probably either kill yourself or prepare to accept your new pedo overlords.

Protip: you can't.

>>86218

SAD!

>>86230

If you think kids can consent to sex but not any other sort of agreement or contract, you're clearly just a deviant making bad excuses for your degenerate behavior.

Related topic:

How about gender reassignment surgery and/or HRT? Can this procedure be done before puberty without violating the NAP?

>>86242

Can you make HRT a life saving operation somehow?

>>86242

No, because a child is essentially the property of their parents until the age of majority.

>>86262

Yes, because a child is the property of the parents until they release them. They are under no obligations what so ever. The could kill and then eat them like any other animals they own.

>>86245

Sorry kiddo no braces for u its not live saving.

>>86238

I do think that kids can consent to other contracts. However, I think that the way that most people think of contracts is ridiculous and all sorts of fucked up. On the one hand, you clearly can't take out a loan and then say "I don't consent to make payments on this," but on the other, "Hah! Here on page 273 paragraph 18 section 3 of the contract you signed says that you have to eat this pile of shit!" is fucking stupid. I imagine that most if not all examples you'll give of why kids shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts are going to involve some sort of dumb gotcha buried in legalese, but the thing about sex is that it's so fucking easy to withdraw consent. It's as simple as "that doesn't feel good, I want to stop," and then it's over (or it's rape, which no one is advocating that we legalize). It's nothing like a surgical procedure where you'll be unconscious and unable to change your mind until it's over.

>>86242

yes

if child consents

If commies are fair helicopter-game in ancapistan, it goes triple for pedos.

>>86794

i dont get it

>>86242

>How about gender reassignment surgery and/or HRT? Can this procedure be done before puberty without violating the NAP?

Well….

>gender reassignment surgery

<toddler comes up alone and convinces the boothstooge themselves.

<toddler is taken to the piercing booth by its parents.

…circumcision, tattoos, cool-ass dragon bodymod. Only one of these is potentially ethical.

>and/or HRT?

It may be unethical for them to be anything that is NOT a lupron'd larohn dwarf until it picks, you know, the serious decision of a bodyform…

So, the conversation has come full circle and we're all DFC2yo now. Unless you're a goddamn dragon. :)

>>86830

>Only one of these is potentially ethical.

It's the tattoo, right?

>>86846

I'd rather have a tattoo on my ass than a cut dick. Or some weird furfag-tier dragon body.