Why don't libertarians understand indirect harm?

>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.

How does that hurt you? It hurts me. Not you.

>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services

Work harder to pay for your own shit

>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
I'm not going to try and kill you or your kids because I'm not a mentally ill nigger

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
That doesn't hurt you at all
>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
liberty doesn't mean the freedom to X, but the freedom from Y (some form of coercion)
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
Same thing goes for cars and other items that could kill your children if they're retarded enough to swallow them.

You're an idiot

>>128928936
>Not understanding the philosophical basis of rights
>Not reading your political philosophy
It's true that (((libertarians))) who argue for muh inalienable rights as a moral PRIMARY - i.e. as an ineffable ethical/political principle without reasons or context - are dumbfucks who don't understand the first thing about freedom or its philosophical underpinnings.
>“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
>The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
>Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

They are an utopic bunch, generally so smug about their philosophies but most of the times can't see obvious flaws in their "system".

you sound like a smug bluepill bitch

File: is that a challenge.png (265KB, 751x531px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 751x531px

>>128930748
>t. someone who thinks they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do on MY property
Natsocs, commies, """""liberals"""", you're all the same. Give me ONE good reason why you should have the right to control my life, my mind and my possessions.

File: chart11.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>128931412
Because humans developed into societies. That's the reason we don't live in caves anymore. I'm against the gov having too much power to influence on one's life, but not all people act the same way. We are not good and rightful by standard. Look back into history and see how horrendous humans can act when there's no one watching. Having a state is not the perfect solution, but again, there's no easy solution to this problem.

File: the final argument.jpg (173KB, 1217x845px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1217x845px

>>128932529
>Having a state to enforce people's rights, arbitrate conflicts, put down criminals, defend from invaders
Fair enough. The problem of rights-protection is something we can have a proper debate about - I might say a highly privatized system might be the best way to protect my rights, and you might argue that a minarchist, police-courts-army state might be the best way. But this is a secondary question. The important issue is the philosophical one of what my rights are. See >>128930372 as to why my rights are
1. Life - nobody may kill or harm me
2. Action - this includes free speech, free trade, freedom to work, etc.
3. Private property - the right to control the material products of my actions.
It may easily be seen that all these rights are NEGATIVE rights; i.e. they may be held by all members of a society without contradictions. There can be no such thing as the right to violate another man's rights; thus there can be no such thing as a 'right' to employment, housing, free education, etc. as these carry costs which have to be expropriated from their producers.
I'm not an AnCap, I just want to make it crystal clear that RIGHTS, the three fundamental rights, are the only basis for a peaceful (and therefore prosperous and successful) society. If you deny my rights - for example, if you claim the moral right to take my property for yourself or force me to act in a certain way - then you cannot claim those rights for yourself. By announcing your intention to kill, rob or enslave me, you have revealed yourself as a gangster, a thief or a tyrant, a social predator, and then the only course open to me will be self-defence by violence. A society cannot exist on such a moral premise; it would disintegrate into total war - the sort of blind, tribal violence which has characterized most historical societies. Only on the moral premise of rights can human beings live in peace with each other.

>>128928936
NatSoc here to tell you that you're full of shit. Lolbertarians have plenty of problems, but you can eat a dick, faggot. Better them than bleeding-heart leftist gibmedats.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me
You lost me right there at the beginning.

File: 0.81.png (1MB, 666x879px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 666x879px

>>128929169
>>128929479
>>128931325
>>128934758
>>128936657
None of their posts counter your point. That's how you know you've got them.
Can they agree that indirect harm is completely real?
Can they agree that drugs can cause great harm?

File: 1494565162696.png (171KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x1000px

>>128928936
You jews are absolutely relentless, but then again I guess it's necessary when you start getting whiffs of Zyklon B.

File: retard.jpg (43KB, 600x657px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x657px

God, what weak founded arguments.

Where's your reeeeeeddit?

File: Don't Fuck With Me.jpg (71KB, 800x516px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x516px

>>128928936
Cry faggot, let me live my life or look down the barrel of my gun. plain and simple, you do not own me. fuck off!

>>128938176
Taking you pic

File: libertarianism.png (380KB, 790x894px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 790x894px

>>128938176
>>128938538
Do you agree that indirect harm exists? Do you agree that it's wrong to harm others by taking drugs?

>>128938810
FUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

File: bogdanaldo.jpg (98KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x387px

>>128938810
LA VEY!

Libertarians are just children who refuse to grow up.

>>128939730
Canadians are just faggots who refuse to straighten up

>>128939730
No, liberatarians are people WHO ARE NOT OWNED BY YOU!!!

Neck yourself faggot!

>>128929479
It's obv a Lib trying to pretend to be a retard. These aren't actual talking points of the opposition

>>128928936
WRONG

>>128941183

Trying to provoke the answers in case someone else reads them, i get what he is doing

>>128937721
Not an argument,

File: ixJgJ.jpg (49KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x540px

Why don't poor people understand that when you swarm rich people trying to steal their shit that they have every right to kill you?

>>128928936
>Drugs
Explain how other people's incompetence harms you. If anything it should give you a leg up unless you're one of those parasites that relies completely on redistributed wealth from more successful people to survive.
>If you aren't stolen from I don't get more of your stolen currency.
Sorry, stealing is initiation of force and far supersedes the importance of your suffering, not because the effects are equally negative but because you initiate the force by demanding government redistributes wealth, you are the aggressor, like a robber but somebody else holds the gun because you're even more cowardly than a normal thief.
>Having X harms me because there is a small probability it will harm people who aren't me.
The car you drive in is much more likely to harm your kids than some random person halfway across the country's fully automatic rifle. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed with handguns, and the majority of crimes in general are committed by blacks, so you should take that up with them.

Is this real? Are real people on this earth actually this fucking retarded?

File: birdguy.png (276KB, 380x377px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 380x377px

>>128938810
Indirect harm can exist in some forms, I can grant you that, but jesus fuck all of your arguments are the perfect examples of slippery slopes.

Get this low energy shit out of here.

>>128928936
are you mentally retarded?

>>128928936
>I say you're hurting me therefore you are
>no physical contact
It's simple OP. You have rights and privileges VERY confused. You're ignorant and assertive to a toxic degree. Fuck off.

>>128928936
We know it will hurt you nigger, we just don't care.

>>128928936
I agree with everything except the shit about weapons.

>1 post by this ID

File: get_the_fuck_out_of_my_argument.jpg (83KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x960px

>>128928936
what makes you and, your offspring important? your obviously incapable of taking care of yourself. you are indirectly harming all of mankind by reproducing. dysgenics so to speak.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult

That doesn't hurt you. Libtards always want to blame people over stupid shit.

>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services

GET A FUCKING JOB YOU LAZY ASS WORTHLESS LIBERAL FILTH!!! FUCKING PARASITE!!!


>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids

You really shouldn't be allowed to breed if you are really this stupid.


Your mom is a skank,
Your dad is an ass,
Your brother is a fag,
Your sister smokes grass,

No matter how hard you try,
or whatever you do,
they will always be better than you.

SO FUCK OFF YOU SHILL!!!!!

File: McNuke.png (602KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 793x794px

>>128928936
>Summarizes libertarian arguments as "hurr durr"
>Claims libertarians are intellectually deficient
>But really, I'm going to make a brilliant point you've never considered.
>Dunning-Kruger effect, the post.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids

Maybe you shouldn't be using up oxygen that me and my family could be using, faggot. You're indirectly harming me.

See how retarded it is?

File: Smiling dog.png (324KB, 484x319px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 484x319px

>>128938810
>Putting a jew sign on Ayn Rand invalidates her arguments
>TFW this will convince 25% of /pol/

>>128928936
>why dont libertarians understand indirect harm
>but I dont care about the consequences of fucking direct harm

>>128937721
Actually, they all refuted all the quantifiable arguments OP had. "Indirect harm" is so nebulous an idea as to be entirely useless, which is indicative of it not even being a real thing.

File: 1490847123812.png (444KB, 1080x683px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1080x683px

>>128928936
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
>You having a kitchen knife harms me because it can kill me or my wife's kids
>You having a rock harms me because it can kill me or my wife's kids
>You having a free will harms me because it can kill me or my wife's kids

>>128942721
ty

>>128942916
The poster child of the screw everyone else and it's cool to be greedy philosophy is Jewish?

Well imagine my shock

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
You do not have the right to have me be a functioning adult

>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services.
You do not have the right to said services. No one owes you anything other than non-aggression.

>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
Possibility of harm is not an aggression

My fists can kill you and your kids as well

Everyone has the possibility of attacking others

I know this is bait but meh

File: 0.33.jpg (122KB, 307x461px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 307x461px

>>128941832
>>128941918
>>128941929
>>128941990
>>128942147
>>128942525
>>128942638
>>128942721
>>128943066
It's funny to see them squirm. Can any of you confirm or deny the existence of indirect harm?
Why do you use the argument if you don't believe in it? There are more ways to harm your parents and others who love you than physically assaulting them. Destroying yourself through drugs hurts them far worse than a punch in the face.

File: Hmmm.gif (25KB, 192x224px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 192x224px

>>128930748
Tell me what is the obvious flaws in our "system".

I can guarantee you that 100% of the flaws you point are just the result of you not understanding our philosophy.

>Unlimited freedom is bad!
We are very well aware of that. Libertarianism is all about limiting freedom, not granting it. We are, for example, taking away your freedom of robbing others (taxation) or enslaving others (conscription) or maybe even killing others ("justified" war). Your freedom of censoring others is being taken away from you as well. We are not freedom granters, we are freedom's deadly bane.

>There'd be no laws!
There would be laws, and these laws would come from the bottom, not from the top. The result of centuries of traditions, not the luxury of a group of politicians.

>There'd be no roads!
>tfw live in ancapistan
>want to go to the market
>remember there are no roads
>pic related

>We live in a society! You can't just live by yourself!
First of all, yes I can live by and for myself if I so wish. No one should be forced to practice self-immolation for the majority. No one should be stripped of their own wishes and dreams for the "greater good". If an individual is not causing harm to anyone, then no one should have any demands to that individual other than non-aggression which is already being provided.

Second of all, your laws inhibit voluntary cooperation between individuals which is the most basic foundation of your so-beloved society.

Let's be honest here, "society" is just a dirty term used by you socialists to add some sort of inner personality to what a society really is: a group of individuals. Just like a wolf pack. A society has no form, purpose, dreams or capabilities, it's just an easy way to describe a large number of individuals reunited in the same general area or environment.

It's your turn now. Point the obvious flaws, I dare you.

>>128928936
>make thread to call people dumb
>make 3 dumb as fuck non-arguments

enjoy your thread you faggot.

>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
My own functionality is my own concern, not yours.
>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
By the same logic, not letting me steal your shit harms me because I get less shit
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
Practically anything can be used to kill. You are genuinely retarded if you think that a gun is any different from a car or some other thing that can kill people en masse.
>Why are libertaretards so dumb?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 0.6.jpg (258KB, 1910x1000px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1910x1000px

>>128943899
Not everybody believes in the same system of rights as you.
And you've missed the whole point of the thread, which is a specific lie told by libertarians- that harm can only be inflicted directly on an individual by breaching his rights.

Libertarians are class conscious rich people. No more, no less.

>>128944410
It's irrelevant whether it exists or not. It's like the oppression olympics game the SJWs play, you cannot possibly quantify all the possible interpretations of "indirect harm", which means it's useless when forming policy.

File: 56BCDAA5-1A74-423D-8CAE-AAE73B1AE44B-334-0000003E0A1E6403_tmp.jpg (399KB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 2000x3000px

>>128928936
I'm a facist and you are a Fucking shill OP
>why do you Fucking imbeciles fall for this shitty bait???

>>128944789
No libertarian ever said that indirect harm does not exist, it very well does.

We are saying it is not a crime.

If I have a good corporation, I am indirectly harming and potentially destroying many other corporations just because they are not good enough to compete with me thus making them go bankrupt. And that is not a crime.

Sure, you don't believe in the same system of rights as me. You can believe whatever you want, that's one freedom we are protecting.

But the moment you attempt to assault me, then you are going to suffer the fucking consequences, or at least you should if we lived in a libertarian society, but right now you can rob us while being protected by your government buttbuddies (aka cops).

Your free ride will eventually end.

The NAP is very simple. Obey it or perish. If you attack someone, you will be attacked. We don't care if you don't believe in the NAP.

Is this authoritarian? Maybe. We libertarians are very authoritarian, we want to take control of the world just to leave you alone.

File: ron-paul-rising.jpg (100KB, 928x583px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 928x583px

>>128928936
I'm sorry I don't see any arguments here.. is there a point you're trying to make or something? This is pretty shit bait, you should be very grateful I replied

File: average amish girl.jpg (19KB, 236x352px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x352px

>>128944864
It seems very relevant to me. I am not interested in permitting great harm to be done to people all across my country just because the harm is not direct and physical.

It can't be quantified easily, but neither can the harm done directly by crimes like assault and rape. You don't need to measure the harm someone does to know whether they've broken the law.

>>128945135
>No libertarian ever said that indirect harm does not exist
Flat-out wrong. I have heard many libertarians argue that you 'aren't harming anyone else' when you take drugs and destroy your body.

>>128945965
And you aren't, in that specific case of drug usage. There is no harm in simply not giving other people free stuff. What is your point?

>>128945247
This

>>128945798
Speaking about laws, assault and rape are actions that are easily quantifiable (despite what feminists claim). They have specific definitions which can be used to prosecute people who take those actions. Direct action has a certain amount of intent involved with it.

Indirect action does not. Use the example I gave earlier; You are using oxygen that myself or my family could use. You are wasting our resources and therefore are indirectly harming me. What is to stop someone from forming a ridiculous idea like that if you're willing to adjudicate on "indirect harm"?

It's also worth noting that not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

>>128944663
>Let's be honest here, "society" is just a dirty term used by you socialists to add some sort of inner personality to what a society really is: a group of individuals. Just like a wolf pack. A society has no form, purpose, dreams or capabilities, it's just an easy way to describe a large number of individuals reunited in the same general area or environment.

sadly true but it shouldn't be like this, and it wasn't like this in the past

File: Fuck you 34.jpg (12KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 253x199px

>>128946110


It does not cause physical harm to anyone else

FUCK OFF WITH YOUR VIRTUE SIGNALLING SHILL!!!!

File: Outlaw.jpg (37KB, 316x276px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 316x276px

>>128928936
Indirect harm only happens to those without vigilance and common sense.
If you're stupid enough to get hit by a drunk driver, you deserve it.
Why? Because you weren't paying attention to your surroundings and thus didn't see the vehicle being piloted by the drunk. Only an inattentive fuckwit gets hit by another car.

It's not my fault you're a fuckwit. That's your problem. Fuck you.

File: Entertained.jpg (24KB, 500x516px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x516px

>>128946634

File: amish 3.jpg (190KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 600x400px

>>128946403
>Speaking about laws, assault and rape are actions that are easily quantifiable
So is drug possession.
Nobody is saying we should make it illegal to harm someone.

>What is to stop someone from forming a ridiculous idea like that
Nothing. But if it's ridiculous nobody will listen to him.

>>128946750
We're saying it should be illegal to break specific laws

>>128928936
you making generalizations because you're insecure about your life hurts me

>>128946410
It was never like this in the past. Don't fall for the merchant's trick of giving personality to concepts like that of a society, a group of individuals is just that, a group of individuals, it's not a sentient being and the will of the majority is in no way the "will of the society". People who say this are usually trying to gather legitimacy in order to destroy your rights and your freedom.

A group of individuals - also referred to as a "society - will never be sentient, and it will never hold the legitimacy of ordering its own members to practice self-immolation.

What you were trying to convey is probably the conservative concept of social belonging. People used to be more connected in the past, they would care more about each other and voluntarily assist those in need. This is what libertarians are trying to recreate.

Libertarianism and conservatism need each other, they crave for each other. Because there is no way to perform conservatism without freedom, and there is no way to have freedom without a strict sense of moral, virtue and social belonging. Most great libertarian authors are conservatives.

>>128934530
>I'm not an AnCap, I just want to make it crystal clear that ancaps are right
naturally

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
you went full retard first argument op

>>128946750
>So is drug possession.
>Nobody is saying we should make it illegal to harm someone.

And I don't think Drug possesion or use should be illegal because "indirect harm" caused by drug use is unquantifiable. If someone wants to run the risk of harming themselves, so be it, but don't expect others to take responsibility for it. That is a foundational aspect of libertarianism.

>Nothing. But if it's ridiculous nobody will listen to him
Laws need to have consistent logic. You cannot have laws based on nebulous ideas because they can be, will be, and do get used in ridiculous, unintended ways. This is why people obsess about the wording of laws to ensure they are as precise as possible.

>>128946750
>Speaking about laws, assault and rape are actions that are easily quantifiable
>So is drug possession.
drug posession is not an axtion, or even an indirect action, against anyones consent

Libertarianism can only work when there's a strong cultural regulatory agency (ie, the Church) exercising soft-power in place of the government.

Most modern libertarians are just drug-addled degenerates who want to sleep around consequence-free, feel no obligation to family or society.

They're almost as autistic as Communists.

>inb4 YOU DON'T OWN ME REEEEEEEEEEE

You're part of civilization. We all have rules and regulations. Follow them, or get the fuck out and see how far rugged individualism, voluntaryism, amorality, and capitalizing on one of the most anti-social traits of humanity gets you.

>>128937721
>Can they agree that drugs can cause great harm?
They can, but that's only to themselves as long as they don't harm anyone else. If you believe that drugs should be outlawed for the harm they can bring, then you should agree that cars and guns should be outlawed too if you wish to remain consistent.

>>128928936
The fundamental flaw in libertarianism is that they believed that people's choices have a value in themselves. They don't; if people are degenerates, laissez-faire lead to a degenerate societies, while government intervention might be less bad if those who govern are based.

And that's why based individuals should try to do in a degenerate society: prevail to eliminate the degenerates and make society better. But no, because of their retarded NAP even if you have enough power to crush the subhumans you let them live and proliferate.

File: b12.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>128947272
Are you able to quantify the harm done by an assault or a rape? Has this ever even been attempted? No- we know these things are harmful, and we outlaw them.

>Laws need to have consistent logic.
It's illegal to own or use drugs. Simple. There is no harm at all in making law in this way. Every country in the world has laws like this.

>>128947795

> while government intervention might be less bad if those who govern are based

Yup, just need to vite int he right people to manage the Deathstar so we can enforce what other choices people make for themselves...

More and more i can't wait till there is revolution.

File: c63.jpg (536KB, 1340x1500px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1340x1500px

>>128947336
Nitpicking.

>>128947691
>If you believe that drugs should be outlawed for the harm they can bring, then you should agree that cars and guns should be outlawed too if you wish to remain consistent.If you believe that drugs should be outlawed for the harm they can bring, then you should agree that cars and guns should be outlawed too if you wish to remain consistent.
That just means it's more complicated than 'ban anything that can cause harm'.

>>128947691
Without central authority, what is harmful is arbitrary. You can be fine waiting for a bus with your kid while some naked nigger is having a bad drug trip, screaming and shitting himself. I'd rather have strong drugs banned, the junkies sent to rehab once and executed at second offense.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
And this affects you how?
>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
Entirely not true, in a true libertarian government services wouldn't be provided, and even in a non-libertarian government not paying taxes doesnt change jack shit
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
jej

>>128947874
>Are you able to quantify the harm done by an assault or a rape?

Yes and that's why we have laws against it. It's evident what the harm is in the case of assault and rape because you have a victim; someone being harmed against their consent. It is not evident who is a victim in the case of drug use without ambiguous ideas like "indirect harm", which can be interpreted an infinite amount of ways.

>It's illegal to own or use drugs. Simple.
Why? Point to the logic behind victimless crimes through quantifiable means as it relates to libertarianism.

>>128948223
>>128948223
I would rather have guns legal so we can legal fear for our lives when said nigger comes along

Indirect harm is a slippery slope. There is a theoretically perfect lifestyle that if an individual deviates from would cause everyone's insurance premiums to rise, therefor we should slowly regulate what you can do with your body for the sake of everyone else.

Drugs now, then ban smoking later, then ban sugary soft drinks, then rationing food altogether to stop obesity.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
You have no right or claim to demand anyone else be a functioning adult.
>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
You don't have a right to anyone else's money, commie.
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
Weak bait, try reddit.

>>128948720

Where does it end?

Truth be told, when this nationalist/Globalist this is resolved, its going to be libertarians vs authoritarians again...

Honestly, im looking forward to it.

>>128928936
> drugs
I've never seen a libertarian who supports drugs. You can use it as long as you do not harm anyone. And this rule isn't everything. LIbertarian communities could ban those who use drugs. These guys could form their communities where it is allowed and both communities could trade without anyone being really annoyed by the intolerance of the other. This is what should happen.

>>128948720
Personally, I would like to see things like insurance got he way of the dodo. The only reason we need insurance is because the costs of things are so prohibitively high. This is largely because we don't have a free market and competition to drive down prices.

>>128928936
tell your kids and self not to commit niggerish crimes. Besides murder is already illegal. '
Your retarded argument could be used against automobiles, scissors and hammers too. Piker.

>>128947432
theres no such thing as youre part of a society and therefore must obey aka social contract, none individual was born consent or legitimizing any form of state, those rules and regulations exist sole to expropriate people of their earning, rights and property. Anarchy is order.

>>128948197
Who's the semen demon?

>>128928936
All hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are not harm, they are an imagined potential for harm that you've decided are plausible enough to elicit threat response. Sort yourself out, faggot.

File: 0.3.jpg (23KB, 480x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x363px

>>128948594
>you can quantify the harm done by a rape
Okay, what number is it?

>It is not evident who is a victim in the case of drug use without ambiguous ideas like "indirect harm", which can be interpreted an infinite amount of ways.
That's why the state is the prosecutor.

> Point to the logic behind victimless crimes through quantifiable means
I said it can't be quantified. Neither can the harm from any other type of crime.
The action is equally as explicit as a direct crime. The harm is equally as impossible to measure.

File: AnCap Gas.png (273KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 793x794px

>>128947432

Bring it bitch

>>128928936
Sounds a lot like microagressions. Growup.

>>128928936
Please kill yourself because literally any action you take will create indirect consequences, hence why they are irrelevant when morally analyzing an action.
We understand indirect effects. We just don't agree with your basic bitch interpretation of their existence.

>>128947795
There wont be a libertarian 'society', there would be only billions of individuals and each one living acording what they think is right while not violenting anyone else rights (property, life and freedom). Yes there would be individuals that would do drugs or anything that may cause harm to themselves just like today and it would be their lifes to decide not you or any "based leader" if you want to be a boot-licker thats fine, just live with other like minded people no one would denay you that, only if you violeted other peoples right.

File: Benelli M4.png (104KB, 1004x353px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1004x353px

>>128947432
>Cultural regulatory agency
>>128949656
I'm here to help defend based leafbro's property and rights. Molon Labe, motherfucker.

File: caster.jpg (87KB, 550x350px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 550x350px

>>128947432
>or get the fuck out and see how far rugged individualism, voluntaryism, amorality, and capitalizing on one of the most anti-social traits of humanity gets you

I basically live this life. It's been far more of a boon than actually trying to work with you fucking mongs.
Most of you are a hair away from functional retardation. You support a system that causes all the problems in your life out of a fear of chaos, not realizing that chaos only happens to those who do not plan.
Basically, you want a parental figure to figure everything out for you so you can grow old while paying taxes and sucking the metaphorical dicks of the psychopaths who use you as a tool of their own making. And what else can we expect from you though? You attended their education system for 12+ years, and know nothing else.

>>128928936

Denying indirect harm is how Jews and finance bros justify fucking up other people's lives for the lulz

>>128949557
>Okay, what number is it?
Quantify doesn't mean numbers, it means it can be measured. The damage caused by a rape or an assault is evident in that it violates another person's autonomy intentionally. You cannot accidentally rape or assault someone, or it's not rape or assault, by definition.

>That's why the state is the prosecutor.
Why do we need a prosecutor if there is no quantifiable crime? Just to MAKE a crime where there isn't one?

>I said it can't be quantified. Neither can the harm from any other type of crime. The action is equally as explicit as a direct crime. The harm is equally as impossible to measure.

That is simply incorrect. See what I said at the start of this post.

>>128950301
>chaos only happens to those who do not plan
>doesn't know about non-ergodicity because licking the butts of his bosses doesn't require literacy

>>128950719
>thinks throwing around a fancy word makes him literate/informed
seriously, blow your brains out
you are exactly why there is evil in the world

>>128930372
If man is to live on earth, he needs to exist within society, as humans are social species incapable of making it on their own. This means any action attacking the ethos of a society, the glue that keeps people together, is an action against every individual part of such society. Hence, to preserve itself, a society has the right to curb those who go against it. And suddenly you can justify why others can control your life. The major point is that you don't live alone, something you guys seem to forget.

>>128938810
Only if you agree your homosexuality harms me and take steps to eliminate it.

>>128928936

>ITT: Faggots who haven't lurked in /lrg/

next thing you're gonna tell me that "lolbertarians" want to sell heroin to their 5-year-old sex slaves.

>>128928936
The only valid point you have is drugs, because drugs are degenerate anyway, regardless if one is a libertarian.

As a nationalist libertard, I just want everyone except those I approve of to fuck off and not get anywhere near me.

>>128950719
...I don't have any boss BUT mortality.
I don't work for any master.

To that effect, I am master of no one else. I do not seek control over others. I watch my 6 and keep vigilance over my environment at all times. I have and will continue to learn human psychology to better understand and thus better plan my route through the minefield of life. So far, my mine detector is extraordinarily accurate, but I still have backup measures to deal with the errant missed mine.

You will never be anything more than just passing through if you don't take control over your own existence. Outside of absolute catastrophes like meteor impacts, or freak health issues often due to genetics, your life and mortality are yours to command up until you reach mortal limit.

>>128951154
This isn't true. People don't NEED society, but it's extremely beneficial to live in a good society. It's also incredibly detrimental to live in a bad society. An authoritarian society is a bad society.

>>128951154
>thinks society requires violent coercion
>thinks libers don't want to live in a society with rules
wew, lad. I couldn't have written a more shallow non-understanding of libertarian philosophy if I spent 7,000,000,000 McBuckaroos on the finest child sex slave/writer combos.

>>128940468
Ownership is not a black or white thing.
Also, talking about ownership of human beings is non-sensical, because the whole concept of ownership requires a degree of control you cannot have over conscious beings.

>>128951154
>If man is to live on earth, he needs to exist within society, as humans are social species incapable of making it on their own.
But that's just false. The American West was conquered in large part by men who sought self-sufficiency by means of their farming, and people of all sorts have made their lives away from any society. Even then, societies aren't some entity that has to be fed to survive, it's just the accumulation of interpersonal relationships of individuals, and thus is not sufficient reason to claim they have power to force you into anything.

>>128951548
Dogs disagree with you as long as their masters allow it, commie.

File: co.jpg (219KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1024x1024px

>>128950483
>Quantify doesn't mean numbers
Yes it does.

>it means it can be measured.
How are you measuring it without putting it into numbers?

>The damage caused by a rape or an assault is evident
And? We don't bring evidence of harm before the court, we bring evidence of law-breaking.

>Why do we need a prosecutor if there is no quantifiable crime? Just to MAKE a crime where there isn't one?
To prosecute those who have committed a crime.

>That is simply incorrect.
Quantify means put into numbers.

>>128928936
because it doesn't exist for the things you mention?

if you interfere with my right to bear arms you deserve to DIE

>>128951405
>>128951629
>People don't NEED society, but it's extremely beneficial to live in a good society
Says the guy speaking in English who was brought into this world by 2 parents in a state of complete vulnerability. Sure thing.

>>128951466
So you agree with me. I can control part of what you do. No problem here.

File: don't bait me.png (30KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 625x626px

>>128939730
>Respecting people and their property is childish
>Extorting and killing people is mature

You fucking retard

you having a car means you can smash into my house and run over my kids.

you not doing drugs means that you havent experienced altered states of conciousness and are less likely to have empathy or understand me and drug users.

you being a whiny little bitch violates the NAP and now i can kill you.

fuck off

>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services

you are not going to pay taxes either you fucking retard

>>12892893

why do you hate freedom?

>>128946444
Some addicts will leave their dirty needles, not everyone is a responsible user.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
Are you entitled to them being functioning adults? No? Well then even if there is such a thing as indirect harm, they have no moral responsibility to avoid it.

>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
Same as last. You do not have a positive right to these services.

>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
And you are harming my kids by having arms, which can kill kids, we must remove them for my chillum.

Why are you so retarded?

>>128928936
You do realise that everything in the world is connected one way or another? If you wanted to undo this "indirect harm" you would have to destroy all life on Earth.

>>128951751
>How are you measuring it without putting it into numbers?
Because it's conceptually evident that rape and assault have a definite victim who is being directly wronged.

>And? We don't bring evidence of harm before the court, we bring evidence of law-breaking
And laws should be based on prevention of evident harm

>To prosecute those who have committed a crime.
You still haven't established why drug possession or use should be a crime in the first place.

>Quantify means put into numbers.
Quantify (verb): express or measure the quantity of. We have solid logic to say that rapes an assaults are criminal. We do not have solid logic to say the same of drug use/possession.

>>128951852
>Says the guy speaking in English who was brought into this world by 2 parents in a state of complete vulnerability. Sure thing.
How is that a counter-argument? Are claiming family is the basic unit of society, so therefore we are always in society as long as family exist? Otherwise this point is irrelevant because women deliver babies on their own, not thanks to the society fairy.

File: 15400344_1533373683356198_4388763305998227147_n.jpg (21KB, 649x960px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 649x960px

>>128928936

You're asking the wrong questions. For starters, taxation is theft. Secondly, you have no right to the fruits (or the lack thereof) of my labor. If I want to waste my life high as fuck until I die, that's my right. You have no right to force me otherwise.

As for weapons, obviously you know nothing about libertarianism or else you would know that Rothbard objects to nuclear weapons altogether on the grounds that they can't be used without harming the innocent. So assault weapons can only be used in a fashion that they don't threaten you or your kids or else you can kill that mother fucker for putting your lives at risk.

>>128951852
>Says the guy speaking in English who was brought into this world by 2 parents in a state of complete vulnerability. Sure thing.

Says the guy who thinks society is the same as family. I'm guessing you're a collectivist of some description.

>>128952522
A society exists the second there are relationships between people. You are born in society. Your family has the right to control part of what you do for the same reason the rest of society has it. They depend on you, you depend on them; so they wish you don't fuck it over.

>>128952667
Family is a component of society, yes. And its existence is sufficient to speak about society, yes. Society is defined by the existence of human relationships, no matter their kind.

File: 0.2.png (22KB, 544x367px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 544x367px

>>128952517
>And laws should be based on prevention of evident harm
Which doesn't need to be immediately evident in the courtroom. It needs to be evident when you're making laws.
Btw

>>128944410

But what hurts your parents more is when they find out you are a liberal retard who is also a faggot. That's worse than being a meth head. That's why you should go kill yourself you fucking liberal sack of shit.

No one loves you and never will.

Indirect harm? You are such big pussy and need to be gagged to teach with a tampon.

Damn. I HATE it when /pol/ gets a liberal infestation. It's worse than getting craps.

>>128952577
I would disagree with Rothbard on nukes because I believe their primary function is never to be used, they exist as a persistent threat and deterrent against violence because nobody wants to be hit with one. It's the same reason a polite society is an armed society, criminals don't want to into crime because they fear being ventilated. Nuclear countries don't want to into war because they fear being vaporized.

>>128953534
Wow if I care about parents whose children die of drug addictions I suppose I must be a homosexual.
Grow up

>>128951728
Poor wording on my part. I should have written free will.

>>128953425
Which doesn't need to be immediately evident in the courtroom. It needs to be evident when you're making laws.

Precisely, which is why you don't use nebulous ideas such as "indirect harm" while formulating laws so it isn't an issue in the courtroom.

Also, didn't you blame someone for nitpicking earlier in this thread? You seem to be awfully caught up on the use of "quantify" while ignoring the ideas being given. Would it be easier for you if we use a different word? How about "assess"? What about "evaluate"?

>>128953369
Family is the perfect example of an organic organization of individuals, each family works different than the other and each is lead (to the opossition of comanded) by parents or some other sort of parental authority figure whos very different from the state (wich you might not have said but imples its the same as society), no one thinks a father may abuse its children or be a control freak but the state somehow get a free pass for abusing it citizens and controlling everyone life.

>>128953369
>Family is a component of society

A component does not a system make. A family does not a society make.

>You doing drugs hurts me

lmfao, everyone get a load of this faggot. Thanks for letting me know I could stop reading immediately, though.

>>128953925
No, but you are an idiot.
You want people who breed inferior stock to have their stock live and breed even more inferior stock.
You want de-evolution. You allow empathy to control reason rather than the opposite.

>>128947874
>There is no harm at all in making law in this way.

There is no harm talking out of your ass either apparently.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1837&context=facpub

>>128953925
The crime associated with that scenario is not drug use, it's negligence (child endangerment or something).

>>128953925

Wow. I was just trolling. But I guess you are a fag after all.

Go KYS!!!

>>128954048
>Precisely, which is why you don't use nebulous ideas such as "indirect harm" while formulating laws so it isn't an issue in the courtroom.
Yes, you use the objective measure of drug possession. That is what you put into law. But the creation of the law is justified by the observations about indirect harm.

>You seem to be awfully caught up on the use of "quantify"
Another word would be preferable because it would be less confusing. I thought you were arguing that since you can't measure in numbers the harm someone caused, that means it's stupid to care about it.

>>128953911

Whatever your beliefs, it's sort of beside the point here. OP is referencing 'indirect harm' that Rothbard opposes through his criticism of nuclear weapons.

>>128954104
A society is a set of humans who have some relationship with one another. A family is a type of society. You're simply evading the point now.

>>128954080
You could be describing countries, cities or municipalities right there. Families often control much more of your life than a government.
And society and state is the same thing, as what grounds the existence of the state is political authority. In every grouping such authority exists.

File: 1489186510888.png (127KB, 257x250px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 257x250px

>>128928936
>Every time I talk to one of these retards it is "durrrrrr..... you aint hurtin nonebuddy yuk yuk" do these people not understand that actions go beyond direct consequences?
The fuck are you on about?

>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult.
What? I could OD and die in my basement and it wouldn't affect you one bit, except maybe having to pay less taxes to support my failed ass.

>You not paying taxes harms me because I get less services
Why should you get services that you do not pay for?

>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
I can kill you and you kids, with a 2x4, should 2x4s be banned?

>Why are libertaretards so dumb?
Libertarians are unironically the smartest political group in the US, whereas stormfags are one of the least intelligent.

File: drug legalisation support.png (61KB, 550x402px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 550x402px

>>128954564
I must be. All heterosexual people are indifferent to the suffering of others.

>>128928936
>You doing drugs hurts

What a fag

>>128944410
you sitting on the internet spouting non-sense like a retard indirectly harms me because the computer you're shitposting from is wasting energy that could have benefited some way

an argument that can be construed to support any idea is not an argument

>>128954442
I was referring to the manner of making law. It should have been obvious I wasn't saying prohibition has never caused harm.

>>128928936
>You having an assault weapon harms me because it can kill me or my kids
By your logic, owning a car, a bat, a knife, or any other of a million different every day items harms me.

>You doing drugs hurts me because you are incapable of even having the chance to be a functioning adult
So does being obese. When are we going to make obesity illegal?

>>128954619
>Yes, you use the objective measure of drug possession. That is what you put into law. But the creation of the law is justified by the observations about indirect harm.

So, if laws are based on prevention of evident harm (such as in the case of a crime with a victim), what objective harm is used in determining if drug possession or use is a crime or not?

>Another word would be preferable because it would be less confusing. I thought you were arguing that since you can't measure in numbers the harm someone caused, that means it's stupid to care about it.

I was using it somewhat metaphorically. I meant we can see obvious harm in a rape or assault, but we don't have obvious harm for someone possessing/using drugs because the only person who could potentially be evidently and directly harmed is the person consenting to using the drugs. This is doubly so in the context of Libertarianism, where people are expected to shoulder the responsibility of their mistakes.

File: 7807.jpg (38KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x360px

>>128955171
Is it nonsense to point out you have no argument?

>>128955625
But you don't bring harm before the judge. You bring a crime.

>>128954989
>Libertarians are unironically the smartest political group in the US, whereas stormfags are one of the least intelligent.

This.

indirect harm is a poor argument to base your conceptualization or ideals upon; because it is far too generalistic. anyone and everyone that teaches and creates life that is not directly beneficial to me is by virtue of it not being helpful; either benign or harmful.

ergo the mere existence of people that can hold better jobs or are smarter, stronger, faster, etc are all indirectly harmful to me specifically.

why are you so stupid?

>>128955908
You're talking in circles now. We already established that crimes are determined by laws and laws need to be based on preventing evident harm. That means if someone is brought before a judge, it is ultimately because they broke a law that was intended to prevent evident harm. If the law does not prevent evident harm, then it serves no purpose in being a law and it should not be a crime to violate it, which would mean the person is never brought before a judge in the first place.

>>128928936

To answer your question from a philosophical standpoint indirect harm is considered a meme in libertarian ideology because it can only be avoided positively claimed rights. i.e. a right that gives someone else a responsibility

For example if youre talking about the indirect harm of living in a society of idiots being countered by the right to education, that gives someone else besides the person being educated the responsibility to pay for that education.

In youre case your right to live in a society without drugees gives someone that isn't you the responsibility to not take drugs.

This is different from say right to freedom of speech where me saying whatever i god damned want doesnt require you to do anything.

Essentially if you want to destroy libertarians you have to prove positively claimed rights are OK, which is something libertarians stands against.

>>128944663
Fair enough
How can Libertarianism / Ancap prevent big companies from controlling the society the same way (or worse) than the state do? There will be "down-top" justice? How can I know this justice system wont be rigged like any other one, with money? How about a large company buying a fuckton of lands, preventing people from living there, or living there using their rules?

I want concrete examples. Something that already happened, or that is 100% logical. Please don't come with communist-like utopian ideas.

>>128956429
Maybe you didn't imply it as much as I thought. But it's importance you realise you don't need evident harm in each individual case to bring someone to court.
You just need someone to have broken the law.
The law-makers ban drugs because on the whole, drug usage causes harm; not because there is always evident harm due to the presence of a victim

>>128957047
>But it's importance you realise you don't need evident harm in each individual case to bring someone to court. You just need someone to have broken the law.

The question isn't if it DOES happen; it certainly does. The question is if it SHOULD happen. I can't find any logical grounds to say that it should. All it seems to do is fuck people's lives up and any evident harm done seems to fall under another category of crime (such as the child endangerment scenario you mentioned earlier). That tells me there isn't actually evident harm with drug use, which necessitates nebulous arguments of "indirect harm", which cause more problems than they fix (misuse by individuals, misuse by authority, etc).

>>128957616
Are you saying people whose children take drugs must just have been criminally neglectful?
Even if they have, are not drugs still being harmful?

> there isn't actually evident harm with drug use
Read a book

>>128958254
>Are you saying people whose children take drugs must just have been criminally neglectful?

Yes. Drugs should be treated the same as alchohol; not illegal in itself, but can get you in trouble if misused; DUI, child endangerment, etc.

>Even if they have, are not drugs still being harmful?
No more harmful than a slew of other things people misuse; food, alchohol, firearms, medication, spraypaint, etc

>>128958662
I'm talking about the parents of someone who took drugs.

>No more harmful than a slew of other things people misuse; food, alchohol, firearms, medication, spraypaint, etc
Their association with child neglect is a strike against them, not in their favour. If they had less social utility they would be banned

>>128959397
But child neglect is also bad.
By the way would you agree that stopping crime before it happens is good?

>>128959397
Assuming the child is not an adult, that would be child endangerment and a judge will determine the sentence accordingly. If the child is an adult, then that makes them a consenting adult and there's no victim.

>Their association with child neglect is a strike against them, not in their favour. If they had less social utility they would be banned

My point is that there are a lot of things things you would ban outright if the presented potential harm to people, not just things with social utility. Alcohol has no social utility and we tried prohibition once. We see all the same problems with marijuana that we saw with prohibition of alchohol; mass incarceration, massive amounts of spending for busts, court fees, etc. There's a whole private prison industry built up around this prohibition.

There are lots of things that can cause harm that we use daily. The vast majority of people still get along and the misuse is really unusual compared to the totality of society. You don't restrict everyone's freedoms based on a tiny minority.

>>128956671
>How can Libertarianism prevent big companies from controlling society?
Tell me how a company can control society in a libertarian society, especially the same way or worse than a state

>How do I know down-top justice is not rigged with money like any other?
Justice will be subject to free market, and considering how corruption is something you REALLY want to avoid in your justice system I'd say there is a good chance that non-corrupt courts and militia will prevail over corrupt ones

>how about a large company buying a fuckton of lands and preventing people from living there?
They'd be really stupid to "buy a lot of land" if anyone can take any land they want as long as it is not taken by someone else, so there's that

There is also no way anyone can "buy all land" because of the way market prices work

It ultimately comes down to this: Do you believe that a group of individuals voluntarily cooperating can surpass any obstacle? If you do, then none of these scenarios you brought should be an issue to a determined community. If you don't, why do you believe in States then, which are but a group of individuals that possess the monopoly of strength and are able to force whatever comes up their minds on millions of people? Sounds much worse.