/liberty/ - Liberty

Read thread about abortions, we've already discussed it there.

If you invited someone onto your property you cannot kill them(presumably NAP applies to them which is not always the case, read thread to see more), but you can evict them any time for any reasons either by telling them to get out and waiting them do it or by offering them a way out they cannot refuse because it'd break the NAP. Basically you meet a friend, let him in and then you find out he's christian - so you tell him to move his bootlicking ass out. Afterwards, he either does it and the situation is resolved or he decides to wander around your house because he's a faggot, trying to call it "going away". Then you offer him direct path out or even take him there yourself. Easy.

>Conditions of nature have brought someone unto your property without their consent.

It doesn't matter because breaking of property rights exists when owner didn't give consent, not actor(being unaware of a crime doesn't make it not a crime) . Still, you might have a system similar to above if you decide so as in different places legal systems may vary.

>>92999

So, the evictionist position is the conclusion? In which case, I suppose you cannot kill them, even when that's part of the eviction (as in abortion). Mmkay, but I still have issue with the other one. Surely, the breaking of someone's property rights requires an actor to do so through human action. If water washes upon your island, that's a condition, not an action. if water washes a person upon your island, surely that person hasn't done it, it's still a condition of nature, changed from one condition to another from the sea.

>>93031

Read the fucking thread. You can do whatever the fuck you want to them because they don't have any "rights" to begin with and only you can offer them ability to claim those rights by becoming a legal actor.

>if water washes a person upon your island, surely that person hasn't done it

It doesn't matter. If he could, he should flow the other way, if he couldn't - worse for him. Again, nobody gives a fuck on whether you "wanted" , "needed" or "planned" to break property rights. You either do or you don't, and if you do any mercy you'll get will be from the owner's initiative.

Now go get that thread and post in there further. We need to keep such threads alive to not turn the place in perpetual motion of shitposting and arguing over the same questions.

Holy hell this is a /christian/-tier board

>nobody gives a fuck on whether you "wanted" , "needed" or "planned" to break property rights. You either do or you don't, and if you do any mercy you'll get will be from the owner's initiative.

Meanwhile, in feudal era, "What do you mean you want to start a business? This land is his majesty's property!" *shots*

>>92999

I would say if you invited a guest onto your property, or your consent to his being there is otherwise implied, you have an obligation to let the guest know that your consent has been withdrawn and provide reasonable means for him to leave–"you have half a second to walk to the edge of my property a mile away or I shoot you" is not self-defense, for instance, but premeditated murder. However, if the intruder is uninvited, all bets are off. Non-aggression cares not for aesthetics, and, at least from a pure NAP standpoint, you're well within your rights to dispose of the intruder through any means you wish, including lethal force.

But that "pure NAP standpoint" is a non-trivial caveat. Chances are, the covenant in which you live, or the insurance company which you've hired to enforce your rights, has a code of conduct that's just a bit stricter than "anything allowed by NAP is OK." And if this outside entity decides that you didn't respond the way their policies suggest you should respond, then your rates might go up, or you may lose coverage entirely.

>>93053

>I would say if you invited a guest onto your property, or your consent to his being there is otherwise implied, you have an obligation to let the guest know that your consent has been withdrawn and provide reasonable means for him to leave

Yes, i described exactly that, though i might have been a bit unclear.

>you can evict them any time for any reasons either by telling them to get out and waiting them do it or by offering them a way out they cannot refuse because it'd break the NAP

So if you think you invited someone who's not welcome on your property you act like this to stay legal: inform them they need to get the fuck out, and either wait for them to do it or offer them means to evict themselves like driving them out yourself which they cannot refuse because if they do they're resisting and therefore breaking property rights.

>Non-aggression cares not for aesthetics, and, at least from a pure NAP standpoint, you're well within your rights to dispose of the intruder through any means you wish, including lethal force.

Good thing we agree on that.

>Chances are, the covenant in which you live, or the insurance company which you've hired to enforce your rights, has a code of conduct that's just a bit stricter than "anything allowed by NAP is OK."

Well, there surely will be some organizations that do have such rules but in general, i doubt that'll be the case. Anyone would likely prefer more freedom and less rules to learn without changing basic principles, so there'll always be demand for this "strictly NAP", even if some PMCs do contracts with some special points that'd break the contract. Even if there were none in my area, i'd probably just make some coop with my neighbors about mutual protection and interact with other PMCs on the same basis of basic NAP because their own clauses that'd prevent you from dealing with them are out of the equation. Of course, if you kill someone who was invited on your property you'll have to provide proof of resistance, be it record, physical proof or anything else, but that's basic stuff that's needed for the most basic NAP code, as only objectively provable information should serve as basis for all else, to prevent abuse and arbitrarity, both by a court(that'd serve more as detective agency in the case because of this), the PMC and its contractors.

>>93069

>Well, there surely will be some organizations that do have such rules but in general, i doubt that'll be the case.

Sure, that's a fair prediction to make if you assume that the insurance company is A) purely secular, B) unfamiliar, and C) provides only rights enforcement and nothing else. But thinking on the idea of the Hoppean covenant, I think many insurance companies won't be merely for-profit businesses that exist in a vacuum. They'd be tied to something with greater meaning to the client-base, either in the community (historical mutual aid societies), through religion, or a combination of both. And the policy plans of these companies will reflect the values of the community or creed which they represent. While this may seem like a limitation on the surface, since it requires you to limit your behavior, the truth is that such arrangements have an awful lot of advantages, mostly centered around making sure the community is high-trust and functional. Further, since by limiting behavior you've limited the client pool to lower-risk people, customer's premiums will go down as well. For these reasons, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that quite a few people would demand these restrictive services over an "NAP purist" company.

>>92988

If you get a reputation for killing your guests then nobody will come on your property anymore. No more package deliveries, you have to fix your own plumbing, no ISP employee will set up your internet, no whores will visit you, etc

>>93079 (continued)

Also people might hate you, and try to kill you when you go on their property. So unless you have some other redeeming quality that would make people overlook your killings, youd end up trapped on your own property, kind of like Dracula

>>93047

>feudal era

>*shots*

retard

>>93079

>>93080

Kind of like how some businessmen have just stopped associating with females in the workplace. Too dangerous. Same concept.

>>93077

Anon, you really shill your religion too much into everything. It's not that important and will never become anything but a hobby in the future. You can do the fuck you want but when discussing things on material basis because nobody cares about your own fetishes and any of your non-material claims about god and sheeit will never serve as proof, if only for the reason that even if there are any supernatural deities they do not really intervene in laws of physics and such and so cannot be observed.

>I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that quite a few people would demand these restrictive services over an "NAP purist" company.

Do you understand that these "restrictive services" will only be restrictive for actual clients and you will not be able to enforce them on other people, right? If you do and you meant that then you describe something like community based organization with other functions like religious patronage that is based and functions with its members, and it's A-ok. If it's not, and it tries to lobby the rules, force others or change the basic basis of NAP they are a dangerous authoritarian institution and deserve to be put on stakes near the closest road to remind other statists of their fate if they try to do their shit.

>I think many insurance companies won't be merely for-profit businesses that exist in a vacuum

It's not that a company would operate "strictly for profit", it's that during interaction between actors and companies they're treated as such to cover all possibilities and not offer backdoors. Want to create a christian village? Go pay for it like you did for other service, maybe less if the provider of the service wanted to. Want to start worker cooperative? Go organize and function like you want to, but you'll still have to interact with those outside of your own order by the same business rules, which are, coincidentally, called the NAP.

>the truth is that such arrangements have an awful lot of advantages, mostly centered around making sure the community is high-trust and functional

Lack scalability of such communities will always leave them outcompeted by organizations that offer universal and unfamiliar access to their services. Basically, all critique that applies towards ancoms and how their communes fail applies to your own christian utopia. Or the God will come and make your special tribalist commune effective thus creating the true communism?:^)

>>93085

Also, by "outcompeted" i don't mean that you'll lose or something, you can still get and easily manage your safe space. It's just it won't become widespread and exist as an exception running at bay of efficiency that still allows sustainability but is valuable because of its organization and not the outcomes it'd bring.

polite sage for doublepost

Here's what half-measure ancap's say:

"Property norms will be basically the same as they are in the US, and so things that seem convenient to me right now are therefore universal principles that extend to all property" ala >>92999

Here's the actual ancap answer:

"Property norms themselves will be subject to free market forces and so what constitutes "conventional" enforcement of property rights (as in 90% of arbitrators will agree with you) is industry/culture/geography/context-dependent"

So your answer to…

>I. You have invited someone unto your property without expressed conditions, and you change your mind while they're on your property.

…is "it depends". Are you on a boat off the coast of Florida surrounded by a bunch of churchy-types? Making your guests walk the plank probably won't go over very well then.

Is this answer unsatisfactorily up to interpretation? Yes, but the unfortunate state of reality is that it is chockful of actors with different goals and different means to achieve them. So if you are hoping for some paragraph-long algorithm that will work in every situation, you might as well get on your knees and pray. And while you're there, I have an economic calculation machine to sell you, because prices can always be predicted too in that case.

>>93087

I was not arguing that it'll be the only way, just the most convenient and prevalent, it might differ but it'll bring issues that'll prevent the system from getting widespread.

>Property norms themselves will be subject to free market forces

That's oxymoron, market forces can only be and influence things when there are property rights. If you leave property rights arbitrary you'll not get very far because of conflicts on this ground which would prevent "market forces" from doing things. Don't be the virtue signalizing faggot sperging about "free marketplace of ideas", that's not "actual ancap answer" or anything, it's the answer of the normalfag retard that doesn't know shit but believes in market doing magic.

>>93085

>Anon, you really shill your religion too much into everything. It's not that important and will never become anything but a hobby in the future.

That's an awfully final statement to make about a matter so speculative. I could just as easily argue that, without the state and its civic religion crowding out the market, religion will become more widespread in a free market, not less. And who ever said anything about *my* religion? I'm making a rather general statement about the superstitious tendencies of humans.

>you can do the fuck you want but when discussing things on material basis because nobody cares about your own fetishes and any of your non-material claims about god and sheeit will never serve as proof, if only for the reason that even if there are any supernatural deities they do not really intervene in laws of physics and such and so cannot be observed.

Anon, you really tip your fedora too much into everything. First off, discovering that you might be "skeptical" of authorless Bronze Age texts isn't a mark of great genius, most of us here don't blindly follow these things and it would really be much less irritating if you stopped acting so big-brained about this matter. We fucking get it, muh sky daddy's magic book is unrealistic and its ancient fables don't follow the physical laws to the letter. But guess what? The same can be said of tarot cards and fortune cookies, the same is widely known of these things, and people follow them anyways. Because most people don't give a shit whether their beliefs make strict sense or not, they just want a ritual to follow and a fairy tale that alleviates their existential dread. That's human nature, and no amount of shilling or education is going to change that. Even most of the atheists who claim they've broken free of religion's shackles I've been there firsthand, for the record surround themselves in the trappings of it. Surely you've seen this behavior, legislation becomes their prayer, and the I Fucking Love Science facebook page delivers them their sermon every morning. Though they won't admit it, most nu-atheists are religious to a T, but they've adopted all of the "bad" parts–blind worship and ritualism–with none of the benefits of a coherent moral system beyond the DNC's platform, and it shows. No, they don't all become axe murderers overnight, but they do become aimless pleasure-seekers and more prone to degeneracy. Or is it pure coincidence that there's so much overlap between atheists and the polyamorous genderqueer dogfuckers? I don't even believe in a god myself, I've just learned to recognize the role religion plays in a society and the positive effects it has. Christ, I didn't even want to rant about this shit, I just made some purely normative statements about religion and in-group preference, but you had to get your fedora in a twist over it, so here we are.

>>93090

This fucking site eats flags on doubleposts

>>93092

>instead of bible thumping and being an arrogant moralfag

Those are Protestants, we all laugh at them.

>blind xenophobila and narrow mindness are pretty degenerate to me.

Xenophobia wouldn't exist if the left weren't so insistent on forcibly integrating radically different groups. Having an in-group preference doesn't require one to hate everything that is different, it's more than possible to stay segregated and amicably trade from a distance. Conflict and the subsequent hatred is diversity plus proximity, remove the foreign element from your home and community and you no longer have a reason to hate them. And what exactly is "degenerate" about this behavior? Degeneracy implies a high time-preference act whose proliferation is decivilizing, as people prioritize the present over the future. In-group preference doesn't do this at all, quite the opposite in fact. Economically, it's well-known that specialization begets gains from trade, and to specialize you need to homogenize. In a more general sense, the more in common one has with his neighbors the more he relates to them, and the more high-trust the community becomes. People are more likely to be friendly with one another, more likely to voluntarily cooperate, and more likely to help one another in times of need. This is true in any context, and for some of them even the general public is forced to agree–military units are more cohesive with camaraderie, firms are more effective when they specialize, marriages are more likely to work when the man and wife have more in common, the list goes on. There's nothing inherently valuable about diversity or integration, so I fail to see how "xenophobia" can be degenerate. "Narrow-mindedness" could mean anything and everything so I won't address it too much, only to say that "narrow-mindedness" with regards to one's in-group does not necessitate intellectual narrow-mindedness.

>Well, i think that education and philosophical discourse that lead to improvement of culture

You realize that the church has been the driving force behind the development of education, philosophy, and culture for a good part of European history, right? Not just "blind obedience" education either, Thomas Aquinas and others asked quite a few thought-provoking questions that rustled feathers.

>inb4 Galileo

The church didn't actually give a shit about anything Galileo was saying originally. A group of his colleagues got their panties in a twist when Galileo proved them wrong, and started lobbying the church to do something to him. And in the end, he wasn't even tried for arguing against Aristotelian geocentrism, he was tried for talking shit about a high-powered cardinal.

>Overlap or the inclusion? Because there's a whole lot more atheists that do not participate in these activities, while the actual overlap is between these fags and modern leftists. Besides, christian folk does have a history of having scumbags, maniacs, rapists and mass murderers as well.

Yeah, and there's a big overlap between atheists and leftists as well; like I said before most atheists just start worshipping feminism and the state instead of a religion, and modern leftism is the very epitome of state-worship. And sure, not all atheists are a hedonistic, quivering mass of flesh, just like not all niggers are criminals. But per capita, you see a higher rate of hedonism within atheists than you would a control population, just as you do with criminality in blacks. Even if it's a majority of the population, the correlation clearly exists, and one may show that they underlying reasons behind are tied with atheism.

>You've assigned pretty important and big roles in the society to it

I'm just extrapolating from a 2,000 year track record of it being important and playing a big role in society. The only reason it's at all lessened today is because of the civic religion crowding out the real ones.

>It's still not very convenient to interact with such a unified community without belonging to them

That's kind of the point of this whole arrangement, as teh community becomes more high-trust and cohesive without foreign elements. Contemporary gated communities are a good example of this construct in action. There's no need for public property or unions to enter into this, either, I'm not sure where you got the idea that those are necessary.

>I just meant that they'd still interact with outsiders, be it traders, service providers or just bystanders, and their interactions are resolved by the rules of outside world, not yours

Precisely, they can and will trade from a distance, it is in their own interest to do so after all. But trade does not necessitate socializing.

>>93103

>Even if it's a majority of the population

Even if it's a minority*

>>93081

>Implying European Feudalism didn't last long into the 17/1800s

>>93119

This but unironically, I'd prefer feudalism to democracy.

>>93053

> However, if the intruder is uninvited, all bets are off.

Hmm.

<pees on your front porch under cover of darkness.

<it is my property now. any dog can smell this.

<leaves absolutely no human-visible evidence of said property claim nor my wishes for the disposition of said property, despite homesteading it by comingling your moss and algae growth with my nitrogen

<lurks in hiding

<shoots you when you decide to grab the morning paper.

I'm not sure about ALL bets with absolutely no caveat. I would call your post generally a good post, though.

>>93125

>homesteading already-owned property

Doggo confirmed for small brain, hasn't read Locke.

Shitposts aside, the one caveat I could think of from pure NAP is if the property owner was negligent in embordering his property, or otherwise did not make it clear where his property began. Other caveats could be included in any insurance company/REA that has policies stricter than NAP, as suggested in an earlier post.

>>93103

>Those are Protestants, we all laugh at them.

They still derived from christianity and call themselves christians. I think the religion breeds either abuse of unnecessary authority or protestantism.

>Xenophobia wouldn't exist if the left weren't so insistent on forcibly integrating radically different groups.

Not really. It wouldn't exist in civilized society(in which your statement is true) but in lesser ones it's often a norm.

>In-group preference doesn't do this at all, quite the opposite in fact.

I'd agree with the statement if we were talking only about white people. Niggers would have better time by going along with white people because they're closer to them if they're civilized. Group that's given preference is more important when it's determined by behavior, preferences, culture and other commonalities. There're not many cultures that have this "civilization" in them, so if one strives to it he's got little grounds to keeping other cultures, and if they are tied to those cultures they'll likely to be ineffective and not very fit to cooperation.

>And what exactly is "degenerate" about this behavior?

They are almost incapable of performing basic interactions like respect of property rights, upholding contracts, keeping their word, this sort of thing.

>You realize that the church has been the driving force behind the development of education, philosophy, and culture for a good part of European history, right?

More like the only force. Who knows if it could be recovered faster without it, like economy does without a state.

>Not just "blind obedience" education either, Thomas Aquinas and others asked quite a few thought-provoking questions that rustled feathers.

In the highest echelons of your order it might be true, for most part it is not really the case. Forced indoctrination of children is not uncommon, for example.

>inb4 Galileo

Or Bruno. you know. You can't just hand wave that one. We aren't even talking about other people that were killed including heretics. Not all of them deserved such fate, even if they were not scientists.

>Yeah, and there's a big overlap between atheists and leftists as well

And there's also a big overlap between conservacucks and christians. You know, maybe it's the libertarians that are so often a minority in any groups they come from?

>you see a higher rate of hedonism

I see nothing wrong with hedonism and disagree with using it as a criteria. I'm speaking from position of psychological hedonism and despise self-righteousness for the exact reason that those buffoons spew their bullshit to enjoy the sense of superiority, while most hedonists at least pay for their own pleasures and keep it to themselves. Also if you consider leftists as atheists i'll consider protestants as christians.

>The only reason it's at all lessened today is because of the civic religion crowding out the real ones.

It might be. Time will tell. States are thought as inseparable part of society today.

>There's no need for public property or unions to enter into this, either, I'm not sure where you got the idea that those are necessary.

Ok, then it's just that i don't like any of my communities to distort my ease of communication with outside world, but if collectivism is your thing you're free to do so. We just wouldn't be friends, probably.

>Precisely, they can and will trade from a distance, it is in their own interest to do so after all. But trade does not necessitate socializing.

It's not about socializing, its about complicating contacts by creating additional rules and boundaries. kind of like you'd go to some fair guy that pays good instead of some asian guy they needs rituals to start talking to you and still needs pretty of haggling unless asian guy offers something much more valuable.

>>93128

Probably to make the claim you either have to physically transform the land or separate it from outside. If the boundaries are no more then the insurance might not apply or rules are not working, to some extent. Kind of like if the land you have sown seeds in and claimed it but in a few years the land has regrown with grass and such and so your claim is nigh or at least is not protected and has to be resolved via a court if someone claims it for himself. The court will probably determine if the land has remainings of your labor in it or something, i dunno, but it has to be something to remove arbitrarity.

>>92988

What does the green-black flag mean?

>>93143

Its anarcho-primitivists, aka the most retarded leftists after furries

>>93128

>Doggo confirmed for small brain, hasn't read Locke.

See, that's one of those caveats - the property system you are using. Meanwhile, not only will "already-owned property" sort of fuck you if that confederate flag is true (North America was "already-owned property")… but the owners - the moss and algae - gladly accepted my nitrogen.

>Shitposts aside, the one caveat I could think of from pure NAP is if the property owner was negligent in embordering his property, or otherwise did not make it clear where his property began.

There we go. See, that's the first time whatsoever that property is "already owned."

I'd add in a bit about the disposition of the property owner also being made clear, or else commerce will basically cease to exist.

>>93144

i like anprims more than ancoms because i care about environment

>>93146

>I'd add in a bit about the disposition of the property owner also being made clear, or else commerce will basically cease to exist.

any property owner who doesn't make their disposition clear enough for anything but the most willfully oblivious idiot would reasonably be considered to be acting in bad faith/looking for a problem to begin with, I would think. conversely, a property owner that immediately assumes bad faith in a trespasser is probably an asshole looking for a problem. Prepare for bad actors, but don't invent them where they don't exist.

>>93119

Besides you propositions being retarded, you are terrible at making jokes. what made the other joke good was what was implied (that ancom leads to anprim). Spelling it out makes it obvious that the left can't meme.

>>93130

>They still derived from christianity and call themselves christians

You're missing the point. The advantage of religion in a society is as a bulwark for tradition, and all of the benefits that tradition necessarily implies. Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I'd argue the latter moreso than the former) do this well because each represents millennia of tradition and history. Protestant faiths do not, because whenever they disagree with tradition they just make up their own fanfiction and call it good.

>Not really. It wouldn't exist in civilized society(in which your statement is true) but in lesser ones it's often a norm.

I should clarify, xenophobia only exists where there is a xen. Even in primitive cultures, if foreigners don't walk among them they aren't afraid of them, because there is nothing to fear—out of sight, out of mind.

>They are almost incapable of performing basic interactions like respect of property rights, upholding contracts, keeping their word, this sort of thing.

Now you're just pulling things out of your ass. The people to whom you refer are more than happy to keep theirs, and don't demand that the state subsidize their lifestyle.

>More like the only force.

You're being disingenuous, and implying that the church was granted some kind of monopoly on preserving knowledge, which is patently wrong. There wasn't a mob of priests roving Western Europe, breaking the knees of anyone else trying to preserve knowledge. The church was just the only group who cared; it attracted intellectuals, as no other group at the time could or would provide classical education. Without the church, or something very similar to it, this knowledge would not have been preserved, period. The broken window fallacy hardly applies here, as we're talking about a voluntary institution and not a state or criminal.

>In the highest echelons of your order it might be true, for most part it is not really the case.

That's true literally everywhere, across all history and all institutions. The elites care about history and education, the plebians are content with bread and circuses.

>Bruno

Was tried for being a pantheist and rejecting the virginity of Mary. Would have been nice if he wasn't tried at all, but he wasn't attacked for his views on science, so you still don't have a case. Also, the Inquisition, while gruesome, was actually an improvement compared to what came before. Prior to its creation there wasn't any clear definition of what was and wasn't heresy, and the punishments for heretics tended to be far more extreme.

>conservacucks are Christian

And in spite of their myriad flaws, their views are far more in line with the cause of liberty than the left ever was.

>I see nothing wrong with hedonism and disagree with using it as a criteria. I'm speaking from position of psychological hedonism and despise self-righteousness for the exact reason that those buffoons spew their bullshit to enjoy the sense of superiority, while most hedonists at least pay for their own pleasures and keep it to themselves.

You are misinformed on the nature of degenerates. Few if any of them pay for their lifestyle completely themselves. And even for those that do, the state's actions have still removed most of the consequences of their behavior, meaning it is still subsidized and not reflective of the actions they would take in a free system.

>It might be. Time will tell.

This is a non-sequitur, you didn't address or even acknowledge anything I said on the civic religion.

>its about complicating contacts by creating additional rules and boundaries.

Which, once again, is a feature and not a bug. The boundaries serve to limit contact with those people with whom you do not want to interact in the first place. They are performing a service for you and enhancing your experience, much in the way that a dress code at a high-end restaurant does.

>>93247

>The advantage of religion in a society is as a bulwark for tradition

I don't like traditionalism. If anythings is useful it doesn't need a cult around it to remain in use and keep going.

>I should clarify, xenophobia only exists where there is a xen.

I don't really see how this is not the case.

>The people to whom you refer are more than happy to keep theirs, and don't demand that the state subsidize their lifestyle.

Then we might be referring to different people. I was talking specifically about people who are incapable of upholding basic lasting human interactions. I could have pulled a pic about african niggers not knowing what "keeping a word" is but i don't have it.

>There wasn't a mob of priests roving Western Europe, breaking the knees of anyone else trying to preserve knowledge

They kinda did. Supporting xenophobia and pushing a limited and straight worldview with prosecution for alternative explanations in people sure killed plenty, many of them literally.

>The church was just the only group who cared

Alchemists also sometimes found their place near rich and powerful people. They weren't keen on sharing knowledge, i admit, but it's better than imposing standards to human interactions based on your organization's behalf, Today, you'd call that a conspiracy.

>Without the church, or something very similar to it

Only if schools, private libraries, institutes and similar things can be considered 'something similar to church".

>That's true literally everywhere, across all history and all institutions

True, it's just proportions differ. You'd think that in an organization devoted to knowledge preservation and civil discussion there'd be more civilized people. Oh, it actually wasn't its purpose.

>Was tried for being a pantheist and rejecting the virginity of Mary

You could always fabricate some heresy to remove someone who questions the commonly accepted dogmas.

>the punishments for heretics tended to be far more extreme

You know, you aren't helping your points here.

>Few if any of them pay for their lifestyle completely themselves.

Then in case of these degenerates we agree. There's not much point in arguing semantics, it's boring and unproductive at best.

>And even for those that do, the state's actions have still removed most of the consequences of their behavior, meaning it is still subsidized and not reflective of the actions they would take in a free system.

I agree, though only to a point. i'd disagree if you said something like "gays wouldn't be gays because everyone would hate them and decline them services" because that's putting too much trust in people's tastes and morals, while "being gay wouldn't be as popular and the ones that are would be more modest in their actions because of both public opinion and cost of more extreme pleasures".

>And in spite of their myriad flaws, their views are far more in line with the cause of liberty than the left ever was.

Only because left is antithesis to liberty and conservacucks are pussified centrists incapable of holding anything true. Just like liberals, they are populists that follow common claims and are modest in them only because they cannot decide which ones are more common, accepted and agreed upon.

>you didn't address or even acknowledge anything I said on the civic religion.

I didn't make an argument here, i just stated my doubt and offered to not start speculation on future events. no need to take it as offense.

>Which, once again, is a feature and not a bug

yes, we can call it differently from our perspectives but its got some limitations that i stated. I still think that for me that delegating setting boundaries to other people is irresponsibility that only shows your inability to uphold them yourself but you're free to do and act otherwise.

>>93254

>while "being gay wouldn't be as popular and the ones that are would be more modest in their actions because of both public opinion and cost of more extreme pleasures" would be true.*

>>93119

>shitty leftist copy of right-wing meme

Like clockwork.