/liberty/ - Liberty

>muh PR

Waste of time. It's fucking anarchism, you're going to get blocked by normie programming no matter how much you try to "sanitize" it. These people think you're a dangerous radical if you suggest removing the minimum wage, trying for mass appeal just makes you impotent, bland, and undesirable (see: Gary Johnson). If libertarianism wants to succeed in the political arena, what needs to be done is to create activist groups dedicated to a single core issue. This has worked wonderfully for the fags—their only shtick, the only thing they wanted for decades, is fag marriage. They pushed for it in legislation, in the courts, in the court of public opinion, and because they never let up and didn't stray from their message they eventually got it. Gun rights have seen something similar—sure, the NRA has cucked out on several things, and didn't stop the NFA, GCA, Hughes, etc., from passing, but because they've kept focus on one issue—namely, that confiscation will never happen—the left hasn't been successful in passing such and won't be for the time being. But libertarians just have this gamut of issues, with no focus. And this leads to us getting split up and pulled in every which direction as people move to promote whatever part they like the most. And that doesn't get into the loss of momentum from infighting and disagreement on certain aspects. But if we all got together and said, say "we're going to abolish the income tax", and fought to get that singular goal achieved, we would be much more effective. If and when we get popular support for that, we tackle something else, like the minimum wage. Or licensure requirements, whatever. The point is, we need focus.

>>88568

>recreational mcnukes and child slaves lmao

This is an blatant strawman that doesn't need to be addressed, since obviously nuclear weapons are something that can only exist with government funding behind it, and obviously people are not property.

>what if the child consents tho

This is an honest question that actually needs to be asked and answered, no matter how distasteful that answer is for normies. Using this question as a smear is assuming the need for a third party to extort money from you in order to enforce an arbitrary set of morals.

>>88571

Libertarians have worked with other groups to get stuff banned/legalized in the past. They played a clear role in Colorado's Pot amendment and I know in a number of states they were major players on the activism committees that ended up getting the death penalty banned.

There's also "taxation is theft" which is even more popular.

>>88574

>obviously nuclear weapons are something that can only exist with government funding behind it

Double-digit IQ untermensch.

>>88568

Those aren't even AnCap memes as much as it is memeing at AnCaps. Addressing slurs doesn't get you anything, but it does show you're very open to getting trolled. Anyone who forms their opinion on anything based on memes should probably not reproduce.

>>88578

Not an argument.

>>88588

There are no targets for a nuclear strike in ancapistan; everything would be too spread out and intertwined with nontargets. Strategic weapons are only useful with the clear delineations of national borders.

>>88592

>There are no targets for a nuclear strike in ancapistan

Says fucking who?

>>88593

Give me an example of a potential target, then. Keep in mind that it has to be large enough to justify a nuclear device rather than far more cost effective conventional bombing, important enough to require the development of a nuclear program (although partially subsidized by nuclear powerplant R&D), and far enough away from infrastructure that will be critical to the attacker that the risk of collateral damage isn't too great.

>>88594

A rival corporation

>>88571

>It's fucking anarchism

It's not. Ancaps are bootlickers, not anarchists.

>>88595

Let's say you decide to nuke Google. What's your target? Their headquarters? Their data centers? Their leadership? All of their employees? The first two are small enough targets that conventional weapons could get the job done cheaper and easier, and the latter two are spread out enough that you'll need to kick down doors to get the job done.

The fact of the matter is that atomics are not actually particularly effective weapons. Instead, they're a symbol for the kind of nationalistic dick-waving that will disappear in ancapistan.

>>88594

If I even don't have the right to declare nuclear war on my dog for growling at me on my own property then what rights do I have?

>>88585

Good point. How can we make efforts to turn libertarian groups further into this direction though? We all know what an impotent mess the LP is, but even uncucked organizations have a well-meaning but ineffective tendency to focus on the holistic. Further, I'd argue that an explicitly libertarian single-issue (e.g. "abolish the income tax") would be more beneficial than a piggyback affair, because it would shine a spotlight on libertarians specifically and not whatever group they're cooperating with. That's not only good exposure, it would show some of the more disillusioned among us that real change is possible given the right approach. Jeff Deist had a pretty nice talk about this kind of thing on Friday, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it was streamed.

>>88612

You have that right, you just won't have any nukes to shoot at it. There's nothing keeping you from blowing up a dirty bomb on your property, but you'd better not damage any of your neighbors' property and you'd better report it to prospective buyers when you go to sell it.

>>88621

On a more serious note, you are actually very wrong about the strategic importance of nukes in Ancapistan. They are very important, and maybe vital, for deterring statist imperialist aggression against Ancapistan.

Nukes allow weak countries like North Korea to exist without a proper standing army. Nukes are like guns, but on an international level, so one of the first things we will need to do in Ancapistan is start building our own Metal Gear.

>muh ebin child consenting meme

If you want to defuse this somewhat, focus on the idea that you're questioning the definition of childhood. Someone old enough to hold a job and be tried as an adult if they commit murder isn't a child and shouldn't be treated as one in any situation. Note that this will only work on people who both lack the pretension to assume that they can decide how mature others are and whose IQ is greater than that of an average potato, so most of the left will be unaffected by it because the modern left is completely impossible to reason with. However, it may get people on the right and in the center to rethink what they've been taught.

>recreational nukes

Do the people who say this expect ancapistan to forgo a nuclear deterrent? They're mad about the possibility of an actually free country having the means to defend itself from the land of the permanently offended. If a new country was formed that makes a big deal out of having permissive age of consent laws and saying publicly in front of the whole world that the American view of the subject is driven entirely by hysterical liberal pseudoscience which has been completely disproven for many years, you'd better fucking well believe that country would need nukes in as large a quantity as could be managed. A Metal Gear program would actually be a realistic possibility given that it combines several defense systems into one, which would be appealing to a country without much in the way of resources.

>>88649

>However, it may get people on the right and in the center to rethink what they've been taught.

Most people on the right and center are authoritarian and lack critical thought processes, too. Most people in general are authoritarian. The U.S. is a blip in history; most people would rather have security than liberty, collectivism before individualism.

I hope the blip becomes the norm, but I'm not counting on it.

>>89029

That's why we need an army of Metal Gears.

>>88574

the question has already been answered, the child cannot consent because the child is property of the parent.

>>89111

so cannot a pet dog consent to eat its food?

>>89130

no

>>89133

sad

It's only OK if the child is a boy, goy.

Here's anarcho-capitalism's real PR problem: All of you fucking morons on this board. It's a shame, because the world needs legitimate liberty-loving people more than ever; but instead of supporters with balls, we get morons who try their hardest to dodge first-principle arguments. Every single thread, you people prove that looking like supporters of trendy nihilistic scientism is more important than living ethically. For a bunch of lazy fuckers it makes sense, because having principles implies behavioral standards, and behavioral standards imply work. So instead of "right vs. wrong" or "freedom vs. slavery", everything has devolved into "personally convenient vs. inconvenient".

It's ironic, given that pragmatism in the long-term and ethical action in the short-term are often one and the same. You can't convince people to give up their own dependence on a coercive & violent system while at the same time suggesting similarly coercive & violent solutions to modern problems (AKA everything suggested by the helicopter fags). And when you can't instigate deep cultural change, you are not actually going to prevent further growth of the state. As a result, the next few decades of your lives are full of centrally managed face-scanners, AI's with judicial influence watching your every transaction, and riding around in automated vehicles with a censored list of destinations. In such a world, if you happen to become "inconvenient" yourself, you'll get crushed like an ant.

So either get a spine now, or plan to die before the late 2020's. The political fight we are in is in fact something we can lose, and it is in fact something with a time limit. Once the literal physical might of a technologically-enabled oligarchy is greater than the physical might of every physically-realizable rebellion, we have lost permanently.

>>89315

Their "physical might" already is greater than that of any potential rebellion. The reason they haven't used it yet is because they CAN'T, not in a world where doing so would be instantly revealed and cause a shitstorm of fury that would make the American Revolution look like a fucking game of Twister.

If they still had the capability to burn a compound full of people to death with the thin justification that "they were totes raping kids gaiz", they'd be using it. But they can't. They'll lose, and that's why they're trying so desperately to convince people to voluntarily give up their liberty; they know for a fact that they CANNOT take it by force.

>>89315

>nihilistic scientism is more important than living ethically

It always will, cry harder, ethical cunt.

>>89301

>>>/sudo/

>>>/iirc/

>>>/mod/

>>88568

Children are incapable of consent, owning nukes isn't an issue, and slavery violates the NAP

>>89319

>Nihilist attempting to assert the value of one thing over another when everything is meaningless

>>89301

If we could kill everyone who believes this particular load of feminist bullshit, the world would be a much better place.

>>89315

>You can't convince people to give up their own dependence on a coercive & violent system while at the same time suggesting similarly coercive & violent solutions to modern problems (AKA everything suggested by the helicopter fags).

Bullshit. I have the right to find every faggot who believes there's anything wrong with a man boning a hot, willing 15-year-old girl and toss him out a fucking helicopter because that's called self-defense against a tyrannical law, and if they don't like it they can lick my choad. However, this would be an inefficient use of fuel supplies, so I'd rather just shoot them from the sky with the helicopter's mounted autocannon and/or launch missiles at them.

>And when you can't instigate deep cultural change, you are not actually going to prevent further growth of the state. As a result, the next few decades of your lives are full of centrally managed face-scanners, AI's with judicial influence watching your every transaction, and riding around in automated vehicles with a censored list of destinations.

How do you expect to stop this other than with helicopters? There has to be a deterrent against this shit.

tl;dr we should have a /k/ style thread dedicated entirely to debating which attack helicopter is the best so we can buy them in bulk and/or engineer a custom model.

>>89332

I'd agree with all this, but the problem comes when people expand the definition of "children" to cover things it was never meant to cover. Feminism has done this sort of thing frequently with many words.

>>89335

>Retarded moralfag once again shows absolute lack of understanding of anything other that stroking his own ego.

>>89343

>I have the right to find every faggot who believes there's anything wrong with a man boning a hot, willing 15-year-old girl and toss him out a fucking helicopter because that's called self-defense against a tyrannical law

Only if they have political power, which they do not in ancapistan. They are free to do whatever they want on their property, including expressing such opinions. It's just the moment they try to implement anything like this you are free not to show mercy and not accept any reparations, violently killing or enslaving them instead. You could do these things without their action, but it would break NAP and might get you in trouble with a PMC if they manage to hire one.

>I'd agree with all this, but the problem comes when people expand the definition of "children" to cover things it was never meant to cover.

Look not at the age, but financial dependency. If a child is self sufficient and is allowed to opt out of his parents' care(or managed to escape), then there's no reason to not treat him like an adult, in legal sense, you can act whatever when personally interacting anyway.

>Feminism has done this sort of thing frequently with many words.

Leftism has done much more that that, just because of its longer existence. The only reliable way to escape leftist terms that interchanged ones before them in public mind is to stop using them altogether. Look at wikipedia - any definition of capitalism is about "means of production", which is a marxist term that should never be used when arguing, with factors of production being a lot better term. Today it's happening with libertarianism, the same way that it happened to "liberal", which now means a stupid ass succcdem+/- lefitsm of a kind. Subversion of libertarianism can be stopped by opposing "left-libertariansim", but for already established terms it's best just to abolish them.

>>89348

>You could do these things without their action, but it would break NAP and might get you in trouble with a PMC if they manage to hire one.

That's what those privately owned attack helicopters are for. Actually I'm surprised nobody's made a /k/ thread here yet. Even the commies have them pretty often.

>>89353

We are more concerned with our own things than chasing someone who disagrees with our theory. Time will tell who is right, as they are fighting not us, but their own state of being itself. Also, plenty of /k/ommandos are ancaps, so there's not much need for weaponry thread here when there is /k/.

>>89348

Children are kept financially dependent against their desires and well-being. Once upon a time, children were treated as people and provisional adults until the training wheels came off at 18. Now, they're treated as slaves until the training wheels go on at 18, and then never actually come off since daddy State is always there to look after you and make sure you don't have to figure your own shit out.

>>89332

>Children are legally incapable of consent

fix'd

'No' is the first word we ever learn. If the dangers of sex are the issue with which you are concerned, then do not oppose thorough sexual education. If the dangers of sexual abuse are your concern, realize that it's the 'abuse' part rather than the 'sex' part that fucks people up, and that said abuse is not only reinforced but practically fucking mandated by laws that criminalize any attraction outside of the (((legally-approved))) age of consent.

>>88568

>what if the child consents tho

This was started by an ifunny user by the name of Ancap_dill

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-if-the-child-consents-tho

As for PR problems, probably, but I figure the best solution for that is to go out and build an ancap society like what the seasteading institute is doing. The trick is keeping out Ancoms and gubmint.

>>89430

They can threaten all they want. Threats are not violence, nor are they a violation of the NAP. They're words. When words become action, then the reaction should be the immediate removal of those violating the rights of others. Until then, no policing thought-crime.

Repeat that, because it's fucking important.

NO POLICING THOUGHT-CRIME.

>>89430

>people dumb enough to make their intentions of committing violence are going to succeed

>people against it will also be dumb enough not to observe and prepare for it, completely smashing their efforts

That is not how warfare works or has. Unless you're trying to create a loud decoy group that protection agencies will be wasting their time observing, it's a pretty stupid move.

>>89469

>until someone gets murdered - don't call the police!

Yes. Literally. How many fucking times have you planned to kill someone? You say rei and I'll grab a mirror and show you a fucking liar. It's still a flawed premise because you are describing "the police" from the popular perception of the police who currently exist.

>If someone in my property, or anywhere else for that matter, tells me in all seriousness that he's going to rape my girlfriend, I'm not going to fucking wait for him to do it, I will take defensive action immediately.

Good job. You're a murderer, because you chose to take action before any action took place. Don't think I don't fucking get it, because I'm older than you are. If he tried to rape your girlfriend and you ventilated him, good job. If he said "you fuck you nigga I'm finna rape yo bitch" and didn't actually do anything (dindu nifin), you're killing a dumb cocksucker over wind. Words are wind. Actions matter, and stupidity is not racist.

>>89469

>Until it becomes legal to punch a nazi, every free society is at high risk of being enslaved by them.

where in the fuck have i heard this one before