/liberty/ - Liberty

>>90739

You'll find few who disagree with first principles here; you'll fit right in as long as you leave the reddit shit at the door.

>>90742

I haven't used reddit actively since Pizzagate. Fuck em'. I'm enjoying 8chan more than I thought. Voat was a shithole tho.

How the hell do one "disagree" with first principles? That's the point of them, the are logical, empirical truths. Not fucking opinions, ya know?

>>90746

I come down on that side of it as well, but I see the other side's point. Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact you can't chain a woman to a radiator and force her to give birth.

As far as the tapeworm comment, you must not have kids. It's obviously a human child. Hell, I'd put da,m near anything over a tape worm - fucking wasp fetuses. Tape worms are an affront to existence.

>>90744

>Voat was a shithole tho

O shit, you're one of those pearl-clutching tards that tried to migrate aren't you. Fuck off back from whence you came you dubswasting niggerfaggot.

>>90747

LOL. Fuck off you kike bitch.

>>90748

>As far as the tapeworm comment, you must not have kids

Babies are one of the greatest things in the world. Fetuses are not babies.

>>90751

They will be if they aren't killed by their host.

>>90752

It's the host's call on that, and nobody else has the right to make that call unless they want to implant the fetus into their own body and allow it to feed on their blood.

>>90753

Ha, that's actually a decent compromise. I don't know if the science is there yet. Or take em' out and put em' in a vat. Sell em' for adoption.

>>90756

>Voat was a shithole

>If voat was too edgy for you

He didn't say "edgy". By the way, stop misusing the word "edgy". "Edgy" means "daring, provocative, or trend-setting", not "thing I don't like".

>>90756

OMG I triggered the goats.

Voat has been in beta forever. It's an ugly site, with an ugly community. Pizzagate is the only decent board. Edgy? You've gotta be fucking kidding. More like in a state of arrested development.

>>90759

You're projecting your insecurity onto another, all because he said he used Voat. Quit it, you dumb shit.

>>90759

I started trying to use Voat the day it went live and gave up because hardly anyone was there. Went back along and along. Still don't like it. Still in beta. It's just a shitty reddit clone that does nothing better than 8chan. So, stop fucking whining like a little faggot about it. You guys are sensitive as fuck. lol.

If you must know, Minds and Steemit are where I dwell these days, unanimously.

>>90763

Alright, I'm drinking. I'll feed you. I'd prefer discussion, but slap fighting with a whiny faggot will have to do.

I am a newfag. Good job detective goat. My first day earnestly trying to use 8chan. I've lurked for a few months. I have thick skin.

I too saw all that shit go down on Voat and Reddit, as I follow Qanon as a lurker. The Mods were powertripping, so fuck that shit. That drew me here, but I'm an atheist and a hardcore ancap. Thought I'd try to find some libertarians to shoot the shit with while I drink.

And fuck you for dissing my Breaking Bad reference. Community? You are an actual fag aren't you.

Agreed that first principles are important, if you don't own your body (and the actions of that body), then who does, and what are the natural consequences of playing the child/slave/criminal/retard role.. I think the question that should flow naturally from this however is how to overcome the fear of freedom and independence and build healthy communities, something libertarians don't work nearly as hard on as they should IMO.

Props to Molyneux for covering both ends of the issue here, logic and personal/social growth. Have learned more about logic and debate from him than anyone else, and his call-in show was absolutely useful to gain some self-knowledge and awareness of the issues and mistakes people in general face, which helps to reduce shame IMO.

He has also done some good work on the abortion question IMO.

>>90764

The last thing we need here is more redditors, get the fuck out.

>>90739

>you cant have different rules for gov than you do for the rest of us

why?

>>90764

If you really lurked for a few months than you would know better than to reddit space every other post. Cut that shit out and quit acting like a fucking redditor. If that's too hard for you than you should have stayed back in that shithole.

>How many libertarians are actually principled?

Zero.

>>90771

why is reddit hated in the usa?

>abortion

The evictionist position falls apart entirely once you think about it for a few seconds.The baby did not choose to be there, it's a direct result of actions its parents chose to undertake. And even ignoring that, removing the baby inevitably kills it.

>>90905

>inb4 "but what about rape?"

Why does the fetus deserve a death sentence for something its father did?

>>90905

I would argue evictionism holds up, but only with the proviso that the parents must find a suitable surrogate and/or artificial womb for gestation to finish, and a new set of guardians willing to rear the child once it is born.

>>90907

that technology isn't here quite yet, and until it does evictionism is advocating for murder.

>>90908

I wouldn't disagree there. However, I believe incubators are feasible for a fetus that's in the very last stages of development–they're used occasionally if a child is deemed to have been born too early.

>>90909

People aren't getting abortions at that stage since the point is to not be pregnant. Why wait all that time going through all the downsides of being pregnant rather than getting it out ASAP?

>>90905

>The baby did not choose to be there

>The baby

A fetus is not a baby. A baby feeds on breastmilk or formula if the mother cannot produce or find a wetnurse. A fetus feeds directly on the mother's blood.

>>90924

This just in, anyone in a hospital bed with an IV is inhuman, it's okay to kill them.

>>90927

>anyone in a hospital bed with an IV

Is not directly feeding on the blood of a host organism. Fuck you, fuck your false comparison, and fuck your Dixie flag.

>>90928

That doesn't change the fact that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

>>90930

War crimes, genocide, and pederasty weren't enough for Yankees, so now they're coming for the unborn.

>>90927

If the person is in hospital bed as a requirement of the contract he's there to stay whether you count him an inanimate object or not. Might as well put a skeleton in there and put balsam on its bones. It's that way because hospital is obliged to do that by contract protected by a 3rd party. Baby, child or fetus does not have any of that and you have no obligations for it whatsoever.

>>90929

>That doesn't change the fact that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

In a way. By consenting to sex you consent to consequences that come after that(you cannot force the other person to do stuff because of that, you consented, no matter how informed you were), so the woman cannot sue someone if she gets pregnant, but she has no obligations because of that, she's as free to modify her body(and fetus is a part of her body up to the moment of birth, not that it matters) however she'd like, including abortion. You could contract her beforehand so that she is obliged to act certain way, but only if you indeed made a proper(business-tier or something) contract, not just a promise. Aside from that, the child is supplied, protected and supported by his parent/s only on voluntary grounds, up until he becomes a proper legal actor and contracting them directly. A person becomes a legal actor only when he's participating in contracts between PMCs that offer protection and resolve conflicts between their contractors, by the way. The contract does not necessary have to be pay/hire, it might just be an agreement but it has to be there for issues to be able to resolved not on the level of 2 armed groups negotiating.

>>90940

>she's as free to modify her body

Sure. Her body, her rules. It's just that the fetus is not her body.

>>90941

It is, up until the time it's born it's no different from another organ, and after that it is still nothing but her property.

>>90941

>It's just that the fetus is not her body

It cannot live without her body or major medical equipment.

>Is a premature birth that has to be put into an incubator a fetus or an infant?

An infant. It is no longer directly feeding on a host organism. I am making my position very simple and clear, and you are endlessly trying to complicate it for some reason.

I will clarify. As long as this being you value so much is feeding directly on the body of a host carrying it, it falls under the custody of the host, since we in free countries believe in sanctity of body. It's the same fucking concept that keeps hospitals from harvesting your organs after you die unless you sign a donor card.

>>90930

>>fuck your Dixie flag

>Haha, no.

Sorry. I forgot to quote you in the other post, and once again allow me to clarify. I do not dislike the concepts of the Confederacy; in fact I agree with and support them completely. I just despise the public face representing the Dixie flag, those who choose to ignore logic in favor of religious zealotry, to the detriment of all.

>>90943

>It cannot live without her body

The mother consented to the act of sex knowing full well that pregnancy could be the result.

>>90944

>those who choose to ignore logic in favor of religious zealotry

I'd rather be a zealot than a murderer.

>>90949

Okay. What you need to do, then, is start investing heavily into technology that will allow you to take a removed fetus and implant it into your own body. Once the fetus is in your body, feeding on your blood, it will fall under your custody. Literally everybody wins. Have fun with GERD.

>>90739

>If you don't hold on tight, you will you be forcing jew grannies to bake nazi cakes at gunpoint, before you know it.

<makes a public offer for sale with words like "custom" or "made to your exact specifications."

<commits fraud.

>How many libertarians are actually principled?

One less.

>>90960

It'd be easier to make an artificial womb that can sit in the living room.

>>90964

There's no fraud as long as you don't take their money. It's simply refusing to do business with someone and is morally indistinguishable from a boycott.

Don't waste your time arguing with moralfag. He will ignore anything to keep his precious belief.Especially since muh fetuses' souls is mostly christcucks' concern, which is what he most likely is

it really bothers me that abortion and child labor/abuse/porn are the only subjects that divide libertarians as much as the greater 95%. We decided NAP should apply to blacks and women years ago, but should NAP apply to fetuses? should it even apply to children? And there are those who claim NAP should only apply to straight, white, anti-communist conservative, gentile, Christian men. And vegans claim NAP should apply to animals. For this reason, I really believe it is imperative to convince as many mainstream pro-life groups as possible that the only way to save the countless babies aborted every year is to pour private donations into research fast-tracking the invention of a form of abortion that does not kill the fetus and allows it to develop normally. I am simultaneously pro-life and pro-choice, and believe the only way to preserve liberty of both mother and fetus from inevitable black-market abortions that are undetectable is to develop some kind of technology that allows the permanent premature induced separation of the fetus while preserving the life and development of the fetus to the same standard as a normal pregnancy. Until that is possible I see no chance of complete liberty for both mother and fetus.

>>90972

I haven't even been anywhere near a church in years.Want to try again, you libertine faggot?

>>90985

<I haven't even gone to church lately

<therefore I don't believe in baby souls and am totally not a christcuck

Just terrible, low effort. I guess you're not allowed to lie about being a Christian, maybe god doesn't like it or something, so you've got to edge around it.

>>90905

It's immoral to get pregnant in the first place; you would need the unconceived child's consent beforehand to do so ethically. Instead of wasting time and money whining about abortion, we should be working on getting better, earlier sex education and better, more available birth control. Any attempt to curb abortion directly is just going to result in more dangerous abortions with less oversight, and requires a state to enforce.

>>90974

Shutup lefty

>>90972

>implying there's only one

>implying ethics matters only to the religious

Really, the argument comes down to how you define human life. There are arguments which depend on implied contracts and what obligations parents have to children, but it's disingenuous to get into those without having a solid definition of what a human is. And I think it's not difficult to show that human life begins at conception when keeping libertarian principles in mind. This is a philosophy built on first principles that are wholly internally consistent, self-evident axioms. There are no contradictions, no asterisks, no obscure subclauses to these hard-and-fast rules. Therefore, any libertarian definition for life must similarly be internally consistent.

Life at birth quite obviously violates this idea; in the final stages of pregnancy the development level of the fetus is indistinguishable from the same immediately after birth; it is possible for obstetricians to induce birth early or late if tehy deem it necessary as well. As a result we may conclude that birth is nothing more than a change of address. If a woman were to give birth on September 7th and drown her child on the 8th, clearly it is absurd to say that she would be free of wrongdoing if only the child were scheduled to be born on the 9th. So that definition is out.

Humanity by sentience is also not consistent. For one, it takes over a year for human children to pass the mirror test more than that for a lot of Africans, so the logical conclusion of this definition is that it is moral to smother babies in their cribs up to a certain point. As it's generally agreed that this is not moral, any proposition that suggests otherwise cannot be true. This statement would also imply that the retarded are not human, and that a normal man struck hard enough on the head would cease to be human. Humanity is not a constantly running conditional evaluation, so this definition may be dismissed.

For similar reasons, we may rule out the idea that humanity is achieved with self-sufficiency, as infants are not capable of surviving without their mothers on birth–they may only be sustained with mother's breast milk. This would also imply that anyone who falls into a coma and must be fed intravenously ceases to be human, to say nothing of the fact the fact that "self-sufficient" is an arbitrary and nebulously-defined term, making it a poor choice for self-evident axioms. Like the sentience definition, this would imply that humanity is a conditional state, which is not how we see it.

Conception is the only definition I have seen that is completely internally consistent, and does not ask for the suspension of disbelief or a twisting of definitions. Further, it makes intuitive sense–it is the moment that a genetically unique zygote is created, and that genetic uniqueness makes it objectively separate from either the mother or the father, and therefore a new, separate entity–not a part of the mother's body.

>>91026

>My main problem with libertarians is that their starting basis isnt in the freedom of the individual, but instead in the idea that the free market is the best, which creates cases where profit>liberty

Awful lot of >implications in that. Libertarian thought can trace its ideological roots to Cicero and John Locke, neither of whom spoke much on the profit motive. Even were that not the case, the simple truth is that liberty enables profit and vice versa, so the claim "profit>liberty" makes little sense in any context.

>[commonsense regulated market noises]

Something tells me we've been down this road before.

>Just look back in history

Ah yes, let's look back on the History 1001 class taught by your socialist schoolteacher, surely there can be no ill will there.

>boys used as chimney sweepers

Yeah, no. There was nothing "barbaric" about this, in fact chimney sweepers, threshing machine operators, and all the other "inhumane" jobs from the Industrial Revolution that people will prattle on about were quality-of-life improvements. People flocked to those jobs over subsistence farming they were doing originally because they saw the quality-of-life in a factory shift as better than back-breaking 16 hour shifts exposed to the elements, giving most of what you harvested back to the landowner. Children took jobs because they and their family considered the increased wealth from those jobs to be better than occupational hazard, and it was only through their children being employed that people were able to lift themselves out of poverty.

>British parliament passed regulatory laws

They passed regulatory laws only after median income and quality of life had improved to the point that people didn't need to take jobs of that nature to achieve the wealth they wanted anyways. It was only a token gesture, made after the market had become robust enough to take such a decrease in efficiency without too many consequences.

>I get the feeling that a lot of ancaps are usually younger and very idealistic people who have no real practical experience in the work force.

Great, another boomer faggot has stumbled his way on here. I imagine you won't stay long.

>This is why I firmly believe in a regulated free market.

Well that's a true enough statement at least, those that want to regulate the free market will inevitably do so because they feel envious of some group or another, and wish for big daddy government to step in and hand out gibs at the expense of said group so they don't feel so insecure.

>Im not arguing in favor of a controlled socialist system. Im arguing for a market capitalist system, but with regulations.

I don't misunderstand you, but it's clear that you do, because those two statements are just different ways of stating the same thing.

>>91029

…conversely, child labor laws increase the death toll from domestic violence by preventing leaving. But yeah, great society!

>>91035

>correlation=causation

No, "not having any income = not having any income" is a tautology, not a correlation.

Also…

>liberalism is when the government does stuff based on idpol, and the more stuff government does…

lol.

>>91043

>>91041

https://machineryofpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/adam-smith-on-the-crisis-of-capitalism-2/

>>91043

>just outright ahistorical stupidity.

Well if you're going to insist every last sentiment in your socialist history book is the gospel truth we're not going to get anywhere. That was close, but still waiting for an argument and slobbering all over Adam Smith's cock doesn't count. I'm not going to read your shitty blogpost either, take the effort to type out an original thought you lazy fuck.

>>91043

>It's a strawman!

Also >>91043

>Pretending that the conditions of (some) chimney sweepers werent brutal, or that it wasnt government regulations that relieved those conditions is just outright ahistorical stupidity.

You should frankly GTFO since, and solely since, you are not even pretending to conduct yourself as an honest participant.

>>91043

>>91044

Alright, I'll rehash my points and your response one at a time, because it's becoming increasingly clear that expecting you to do that yourself is a fruitless effort.

>my point [in response to your "libertarians care about profit over freedom"]: neither libertarians nor their intellectual forefathers do that

<your response: STOP USING PPL THAT AGREE WITH ME AGAINST ME

>my point: Industrial Revolution quality-of-life was far better than what came before, even if it's worse than what exists now

<your response: STOP DENYING HISTORY MIDDLE SCHOOLER

>my point: regulatory laws were only passed after the market had solved QoL issues as median wealth had increased far enough to allow for an efficiency reduction

<your response: U JUST HATE REGULATIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE EDGY

>my point: regulations are the product of one group in the marketplace seeking to gain at the expense of another

<your response: …

>my point: regulated economies only become more socialist with time

<your response: …

Are you beginning to see from where the problems are arising here?

>>91047

>neither libertarians nor their intellectual forefathers do that

And yet, I have you and another anon arguing AGAINST the regulations and governmental systems the very intellectual forefathers argued in favor for, and you even called me a socialist for doing so. This just shows how you dont really know much about this topic in general.

The whole point of a free market is competition is the driving force behind it. This is in service to the public, but the businessmans main interest is in trying to consolidate his power through forming a monopoly. This also gets dangerous because this monopolistic businessman can become so powerful that he can subvert a democratic system with his money in order to put in laws and regulations that actually benefit him at the detriment of his business rivals, giving him an unfair advantage. Without competition, capitalism becomes just a useless miserable system with a corporate overlord and his legions of slaves.

Are regulations put forth by giant corporations for the express purpose of knee caping any competition bad? Yes, of course they are.

Are regulations that prevent monopolies and thus preserve competition bad? No.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

>>91050

>I don't give a shit what Adam Smith was or wasn't in favor of

I know you dont. Thats why I called you out as nothing more than a cast off alt-righter simply playing around with this ideology which you very clearly know nothing about.

And why would I look at any of your links when you just insulted me for posting links to further explain where I was coming from with my viewpoints (which you have yet to actually engage with btw) You literally bitch about me posting links for simply explaining in depth where my ideas come from, yet you post nothing but links in place of any actual argument. This is what happens when all you ever do is post le ebin memes in an echo chamber, your brain rots. I guarantee you dont even know who Adam Smith is.

>>91049

The government itself prevents healthy competition by granting monopolies through patents and creating barriers to entry through inane regulations that don't represent consumers' needs or desires. I don't get you "muh gubmint will save us from the evil pipeline building oil companies" people. The government didn't do shit, and if we went back in time to do it again, the government still wouldn't stand up for the express desire of the people. In fact, it's the police that YOU pay for that are keeping you from taking more direct action.

You don't want your kids sweeping chimneys? Easy, don't tell them to do it or starve. You're worried that some other kid somewhere has asshole parents whoring out their kids' labor (or their bodies)? The problem isn't with the employers, it's with the institution of parenthood that denies children their basic freedoms. But instead, you, just like all other statists, are too short sighted to use government to protect liberty, and instead you try to use it to eliminate the visible symptoms of oppression with more oppression.

>>91049

>And yet, I have you and another anon arguing AGAINST the regulations and governmental systems the very intellectual forefathers argued in favor for

Actually, they were universalists, while you're proposing an idpol-tiered legal system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicals_(UK)

…so, no. Also, there are at least three folks telling you to fuck off.

>>91049

>democracy

Spotted the cuck

>>91053

Actually, you were all just demonstrably wrong, as I provided actual links to all the founding philosophers of liberalism saying there is a need for certain sorts of regulations

>>91052

>The government itself prevents healthy competition by granting monopolies through patents and creating barriers to entry through inane regulations that don't represent consumers' needs or desires.

ok, now go back and read my post again

>Are regulations put forth by giant corporations for the express purpose of knee caping any competition bad? Yes, of course they are.

Youre also suggesting a really stupid purely ideological situation to fix a problem that 100% will NOT work. How the fuck is passing a law making child prostitution illegal oppression?

>>91066

You type like a retard, wannabe Satan.

>>91068

>u retarded!

Brilliant. Now go back to posting helicopter memes

>>91066

>I provided actual links to all the founding philosophers

"Because X said so" is not an argument, retard, try again.

>>91071

The point of those links was to show that liberal thinkers all did in fact support various forms of regulations and werent ancaps. I did this specifically because after I said I was in favor of some regulations and disagreed with ancaps, I had people saying "hurr you need to read more early libertarian thinkers!"

>>91077

keep your christianity at check pls, no need to derail this thread just because you wanted to secure your beliefs a little more.Especially since ancap is not exactly a religious society, even if it allows cults to exist

>>91076

except the exact thing Adams warned about has become true, with giant corporations forming into monopolies since they were able to subvert democracies and enact bullshit regulations, securing their place at the top and effectively killing off competition. He also predicted the dangers of business just shipping their production over seas to cheap slave labour and then just importing them in. Shit like NAFTA or chinese sweat shops is the exact thing he was scared of. Part of a free society is that it must be maintained by vigilant voters from a sneaky wannbe tyrant, and a potential tyrant can and has come in the form of corrupt businessmen.

>>91077

>edgycunt with rebel flag whos talking about muh Christianity and who doesnt know who Adam Smith is talking about how others wont take me seriously

lol you a meme person

>>91078

>>91079

>lel Christfag

>taking a shitpost this seriously

wew

<doesn't know who Adam Smith is implying

>doesn't know School of Salamanca

>doesn't know Carl Menger

>doesn't know democracy a shit

>doesn't know regulations and lobbying created the monopolies and not vice versa

<oy vey muh sweatshops

>doesn't into comparative advantage

>>91079

>Adams warned about has become true

From your point of view. We predicted that democracy or any other authoritarian structure will lead to its abuse, whether by cronies, politicians or a mix of them and others.

>Part of a free society is that it must be maintained by vigilant voters

Voting and supporting people that lead other people forcing others in front of a gun is not a part of a free society to me. Neither is free society the one where your ideas are right because they more present than others. Maybe you should stop calling a society where you justify your baseless moral beliefs by disguising them as the will of the majority as free.

>>91081

>From your point of view

No from his. He predicted that businessmen would form monopolies by buying out politicians to enforce bullshit regulations that basically just prevent any competition from arising

>Voting and supporting people that lead other people forcing others in front of a gun is not a part of a free society to me.

what are you even talking about? A society is not one person

>>91082

>No from his.

Whatever. It does not matter. You can hide behind his dead body as much as you want, it will not make your position less retarded without arguments.

>A society is not one person

But persons form society. You cannot measure society's "freeness" in any way other than individual freedom.

>>91083

Bitch response. Youre arguing in favor of the very system that Adams put forth and just discarding him because you didnt know what he actually said, and it runs contrary to your ancap views. Not one of the original liberal philosophers were in favor of anything close to ancaps.

>You cannot measure society's "freeness" in any way other than individual freedom.

Which is why one person being free and enslaving other people for his own finacial benefit isnt a free society.

>>91084

>Bitch response

The only one bitching here is you. Nobody here did take an oath to praise, follow, accept or protect any of the big names, no matter which ones you choose.

> just discarding him

Several people have already pointed it out but i'll repeat it. Nobody here gives a rat's ass about what he said or thought on a subject. Appeal to authority is not a valid argument and will not make it for the lack of arguments. If you wanted to find company to collectively jerk off on his portrait or biography you'll have to search somewhere else.

>Regulations are abused to create monopolies which is why we need more regulations to stop them.

Absolutely Keynsian.

>>91014

>you must be one of those damn christcucks!

>only they disagree with me!

>only religious people can be opposed to the cold blooded murder of defenseless babies!

wew lad

>>91025

The baby doesn't exist before you get pregnant. You do not need the consent of someone who doesn't exist.

>>91087

Only religious fags are retarded enough to consider fetus a baby or even human. It is and will be little more than a pile of bacteria on early stages of its development and does not operate independently until birth, being physically equivalent to a 3rd kidney. Very wew.

>>91088

But before you make an even greater fool of yourself, see >>91027 for why "hurrr just a clump of cells" is retarded.

>>91090

Learn how a fetus is formed first, retard, and after that tell me how it's not a lump of cells whet it injects itself into the flesh and feeds on it growing similar to cancer on early stages.

>>91092

>404 argument not found

Try again, moralfag

>>91094

>that genetic uniqueness

It is still just a cell, the same as a bacteria, or cancer or any other cell in any other organism. They can all be considered life but whether they are human is a whole another story. From scientific perspective a human is a species of homo sapiens, simple as that. Whether to consider a parasitic(or not) cell an independent organism is a whole another story but it still has little to do with moralfag concept of "human".

>So are you

Indeed, i can also be described as a living creature.

>it not human because

Because the concept of "human" is a stupid mess created by moralfags and has little to do with biology.

>That's a parasite, not cancer.

Sure, i chose the comparison because unlike a parasite zygote is not removed by the immune system and acts around it, just like cancer would.

I still wonder what fuck was egocentric enough to make the name of their species the equivalent of goodness or self worth of an actor because that's extremely fucking hilarious and disgusting at the same time.

>>91095

>From scientific perspective a human is a species of homo sapiens, simple as that

And a zygote has homo sapiens sapiens DNA, DNA that is unique to it. If you want to go by muh biology that's pretty unambiguous.

>>91096

>DNA that is unique to it

A cancer cell also has a unique DNA than is homo sapiens, so what?

>>91097

No it doesn't, it's the damaged DNA of whoever is inflicted with the cancer. You going to keep edgeposting or do you have an argument?

>>91100

It does. Damaged DNA is different from the host's DNA. It's just achieved through different means.

>>91093

I don't need an argument when you don't even know the difference between stem cells and bacteria.

>>91104

Well, you did not have one anyway.

>>91105

I've made my case multiple times already.

>>91105

Create an internally consistent, a priori definition for when life begins and why zygotes don't qualify then, so far all you've produced is DUDE CANCER LMAO.

>>91086

> Nobody here gives a rat's ass about what he said or thought on a subject.

I know, and its because you are very uneducated kids who just like posting edgy memes and dont actually know or care about liberal philosophy. Its pretty amazing that all I did was point out a flaw in ancap beliefs and I get in response childish butthurt and shitposting and whining about appeals to authority (when I didnt do that)

You cant respond to them in good faith because you dont even have a basic grasp of these ideals.

>>91066

Anticompetition is part and parcel of the state. You can't have the power to arbitrarily shut down any business at any time and expect everyone to just leave it lying there unattended. As long as there's "consumer protection" laws, there are laws that prevent competition.

A law that says that all buildings over 3 stories tall over fault lines most be built on steel pilings at least 70 feet deep sounds like a good thing, right? You certainly wouldn't want your apartment complex tipping over in an earthquake. But what if it turns out that 70 feet it's excessive and 25 feet would be just fine in most cases? Or what if someone came up with an innovative new way to build an earthquake safe pier foundation that doesn't even need a graded surface? Either way, your arbitrary depth requirement is creating barriers to entry that keep small players from competing in the market. The same way an ecosystem can only support a handful of species the size of an elephant, but thousands of different rodents, the construction market can only handful of companies capable of driving 70+ foot pilings. By making those guys the only players in the game, you've granted them a monopoly that you now have to protect people from, and your solution is even more regulations, which winnow out even more potential competitors.

>How the fuck is passing a law making child prostitution illegal oppression?

When do you think was the last time an 11 year old woke up and decided, "when I grow up, I'm going to be a whore! Actually, I'll go ahead and start today!"? Kids don't want to work shitty jobs, and left to their own devices, they won't. The only reason you see kids working as prostitutes or chimney sweeps is because their parents (or legal guardian) are forcing them to. It's not the employers *offering* the job that's the problem, it's the parents *forcing* the kids to take it that's the problem. By limiting the things parents are allowed to force their children to do, you're not ending the use of coercion in society, you're just making it less obvious.

This goes right back to the topic of this thread: when you're arguing to accomplish a handful of arbitrary goals (end the use of children as chimney sweeps) rather than from your principles (everyone should be free to live their life as they so choose, up to the point that it directly interferes with the requisite rights of others), you end up trying to end oppression using oppression and playing Whac-A-Mole with the symptoms while leaving their source to fester.

>>91106

And your case has been refuted. A cancer cell is unique one that appears in a human organism and has homo sapiens DNA which is different from the host. Your argument makes little sense even in context of biology because it does not really matter what would be a different creature as science is focused on actual things and not concepts, i.e. it sees cells and interactions between them. Even if you manage to define something as a separate organism it still will not change neither muh human organism value nor any other moralization you pull out of your ass.

>>91107

Hah, good luck creating something consistent when the goal you ultimately follow is securing muh feefees.

>Create a definition

I won't because i'm arguing that making up such definitions is nothing but futile attempts to insert morals into a scientific field. If anything, these concepts deserve to die and never be used as they are a literal pile of garbage made by different pretentious philosophers through time attempting to describe the universe but ultimately describing their attitude towards things and pretending it to be a universal position. This argument shouldn't exists in libertarianism at all, not take a shape i'd like it to have.

>>91112

>ur all just silly edgy kids for not complying with my appeal to authority(which odes not exist)!

Now you can rightfully shove not only ad populum but an ad hominem up you ass as well and head straight to reddit as it is clearly the place where you came from.

>>91119

>I won't because i'm arguing that making up such definitions is nothing but futile attempts to insert morals into a scientific field.

>hurr, a priori and conceptual theory is just a bunch of dumb philosophers

Yeah, science rules! I bet you watch Big Bazinga Theory too.

In any case this matter is one of law more than it is science. The latter may be used to supplement the former, but since that seems to make you REEEE you're welcome to try another route.

>This argument shouldn't exists in libertarianism at all

That's ridiculous, all legal theories need some basis in reality to be functionality and that requires clear definitions. The NAP clearly denotes what constitutes legal and illegal actions, and the process for differentiating between them. You can't have laws that prevent the murder of man if you're not clear on what a man is. So once again, do you have a clear definition or are you just signaling how edgy you are for killing babies?

>>91128

to be functional*

>>91128

>Yeah, science rules! I bet you watch Big Bazinga Theory too.

Looks like study of ethics completely wiped out every little bit of logical thinking your petty brain once had. I don't watch sitcoms or similar shit, you missed

>>hurr, a priori and conceptual theory is just a bunch of dumb philosophers

Ethical philosophers(what the ones behind these theories surely are) are hardly philosophers and their exercises in futility are nothing more than throwing guesses at unfalsifiable theories, just like a religious person would. These concepts do not make sense outside of position about inherent value of a human life and so are useless.

>all legal theories need some basis in reality

Which his the very reason your arguments do not make sense. Just because legal systems included morals before does not mean that they are necessary, just like the existence of the state.

>this matter is one of law more than it is science

Stick your ethics up your ass, moralfag.

>You can't have laws that prevent the murder of man if you're not clear on what a man is.

You can also have laws preventing killing animals, bacteria, jumping too high or cutting hair too short. It all is defined only by consensual contract in ancap. Non aggression explicitly applies to legal actors(contractors), not any human(whatever you pretend that is) or non-human life. A legal actor is a PMC contractor as it's their job to resolve conflicts and assaults and nobody is obliged to protect or not attack you just because, no matter how much you shill for NAP as universal karmic or moral system and law.

>killing babies

Go find some normalfags to preach about muh children, faggot.

>>91131

>Nope.

Yep.

<hey you shouldn't kill people

Fuck off right along with commies "hey you should feed people", humanists "you should protect criminals" or the retarded bunch "you agreed to give gibs to your children by having sex".

>>91132

>still no arguments

posting in lulzthread…

>>91066

>demonstrates you're objectively wrong.

>"actually, you're demonstrably wrong!"

…and you completely changed the topic to do it.

>>90943

It being inside her body does not make it her body. If I swallow a golden, it does not become a part of my body at the point in which I close my mouth or swallow it. Due to the fetus having different dna from the mother, the "it's like any other organ"-argument falls, and, just like when stealing another man's arm and attaching it to your own body, any agression upon it would need the owner's consent in order to be moral (at which point it could hardly be called agression).

When it comes to the "parasite"-argument, it presupposes the fetus as a seperate life from the mother. That eliminates the former argument, and brings a new question: Is the kid an agressor? The answer is no. The often held equivalent is if some guy got carried by an avalanche unto your property, on which let's say the air is extra healthy due to some plants you keep around (as in the nutrients the mother provide for her child). There are two possible agressions by the man, (being on your property and breathing your product) both of which are usually considered non-agressive on the grounds of them being made regardless of his will (remember that gasping for air when holding your breath is inevitable and cannot be controlled). Now, imagine having a certain control over the avalanche: You can stop it from happening both when you wish and permanently. You also know that certain actions done by your house's technology are what cause the avalanches, and while there's a possibility that said technology may malfunction (rape) and produce an avalanche without your consent, you would still be able to definitely stop the avalanches permanently (sterilization) or virtually guaranteed at wish (preventional hormones). You also know that the avalanches have a certain chance of carrying with them snowboarders who would end up on your property, breathing your special air. This is the version of this metaphor which contains all the relevant details, and makes the argument go from "the baby did nothing wrong" to "if the mother would kill her unborn kid, she's an absolute psycho".

>>91133

loved that song

>>91155

A random guy is a person, which a baby is not.

>>91325

>babies aren't people

If you'd just admit you're okay with killing babies this would all go a lot smoother.

>>91327

It won't change things even if you call fetus a baby even a hundred more times.

>>91331

You just slipped and called one a baby yourself, right here: >>91325. But let's play with definitions some more; I think you're an extremely overdeveloped fetus and are overdue for a late-term abortion. So get in the gas chamber faggot.

>>91333

>he thinks there's only one

>>91327

There's nothing wrong with killing things that aren't me.

>>90744

> That's the point of them, the are logical, empirical truths. Not fucking opinions, ya know?

are you 12? have you ever picked up a philosophy book in your entire life?

this place manages to be worse than reddit somehow