Do you even know how insurance works?
Hell, even in today’s statist society subsidies are practically irrelevant. The idea that ‘alternative life-styles’ exist because the state subsidizes them is crank economics used to pander to conservatives - a marketing trick, not real social science.
Actually the opposite is true. In a free society everything would be cheaper, including ‘alternative life-styles’. Absent conservative prohibitions, ‘vices’ would be more affordable…
That is assuming that parental rights are not very highly valued.
No, because the logical implications of your arguments is monarchy.
You’re not advocating anarchy, and you also just appealed to the status quo as if it already is free. The fact that people voluntarily move to various communities does not mean that the communities are free, and it does not justify whatever the community’s laws happen to be. The mere ability to move between different authoritarian-controlled regions is not liberty.
I’m responding to the specific arguments that he made earlier in this thread. Do not mislead people.
And the next point is that such an association is loosely related to a general theory about a free society and libertarianism. You’re just talking about your small conservative club. Such clubs could exist, as relics, in a free society, but would never be the backbone of it.
What people who voluntarily obtain land and rent it out is monarchical? You’re clueless. However, there’s a solution: read Hoppe.
Well respond to mine.
I’m not really suprised by the lack of economic knowledge of most LLs (David_z not included). What I am suprised by is their ignorance to anything that goes against their LL dogma of equality and that nonsense. The LLs on these forums seem to be entirely incapable of any decency. The left is entirely delusional.
Of course they’re free, they just don’t share your particular values. Your notion that anarchy will be an autarchic plot of land for everybody on the planet is pure fantasy.
You’re the mirror image of the Puritans–furious that some people somewhere may be perfectly happy to abide by a prohibition against child pornography.
You mean leftist political correctness ? Conservatives do favour political correctness - the only difference is that they want to lynch a different group of victimless criminals. Of course, the hallmark of conservatism is hypocrisy, so there’s no surprise here.
I’m not a LL. And your only economic knowledge is parroting Hoppe’s fallacies, fallacies designed to pander to conservatives…like you.
You’re not talking about people voluntarily obtaining land and renting it out, you’re refering to an illegitimate claim over an entire city that is NOT based on homesteading or voluntary trade. There is no way for a single person to homestead and voluntarily trade for an entire city, particularly given the pre-existance of people within that city who have their own individual cases of ownership. Hence, an individual’s claim to own an entire city, that is currently occupied by people, is simply the establishment of a monarchy. That individual has no legitimate authority over everyone in the city according to any libertarian theory of rights.
You need to stop telling me to read Hoppe when I have read him and reject his arguments.
No, they are not free. Currently, we can move between different states, but this does not mean that we are free. Are you purposefully missing the point?
The way you characterize the matter is misleading, because what’s in question is not a small enclave of people who prohibit child pornography on their own property, you’re talking about a uniform law for an entire community banning it. You are misusing libertarian theory to justify authoritarianism.
What’s the point of prohibiting something that people are perfectly happy to reject anyway ? Oops. Your whole ‘theory’ turns out to be contradictory ? Never mind. Conservative nonsense always trumps logic.
If you voluntarily live there, then you are no more oppressed than going to work for an employer who requires a certain dress code. You can always pool your resources with other like-minded folks and start your own place that can compete for human and financial capital like every place else. Of course, that is the secret dread of the Left–that it will be outcompeted, hence it seeks nothing less than the permanent levelling of society to avoid all hierarchy of merit or wealth.
This is the love it or leave it argument, which is not a legitimate argument. This exact same line of reasoning justifies the state. But it begs the question of just ownership, and it also begs the question of what rights follow from ownership. I don’t think that just because someone owns something that absolute authoritarianism is justified, but that is precisely what you seem to be argueing. In either case, the argument you just made is not a libertarian argument, it is an argument commonly used to justify the state, and by implication of your own argument, you should accept state legitimacy. Now, don’t go claiming “straw man” on me now - this is a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdum by drawing out the premises implications of your argument and putting it to the test of consistancy.
No, you have to justify a uniform law for an entire community that bans non-violence cultural practises to begin with. You have yet to do that, you’ve just told me I can leave, which is a bunk argument. Quite simply, you’re argueing for conservative authoritarianism and are only helping to confirm my prior accusations in this thread. A uniform law banning vices is not consistant with libertarianism.
These would be really amusing rhetorical statements if you weren’t actually serious. This is a straw man and the same old conservative rhetoric that makes one’s eyes roll.
That would be the shrooms.
Have you been hearing voices in your head lately Giles ? Is it god ? Or something else ?