>ancaps will defend this

So, pol.

Are you ok with selling children? Will you disavow ancapistani degeneracy?

AnCap ideology would be perfectly sound if everyone entered this world as a mature, self-reliant person [spoiler](and AI weren't a thing)[/spoiler].
Unfortunately, this isn't how the world works and these absurd consequences of sticking to the NAP till the end are simply not desirable.

File: 1503513582428.png (211KB, 1834x1366px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1834x1366px

>>138759557
>blatant shilling
Saged and hidden.
>cherrypicking something that makes sense and making a meme as if it doesn't
Just shows how consistent and rational Rothbard was. Even the worst cherrypicked shit you can come up with is in fact truthful enough to have some resemblance to adoption systems all over the world.

Rothbard was right and this is why the current systems of adoption all over the world function very similar to what he believed. Even through the government controlled adoption systems you still have to buy the children, and not feeding your child and giving ti to adoption is not a crime, parents are not legally obliged to raise a child.

>>138760766
this
>>138760804
>shilling

Hi NAMBLA

File: the.jpg (24KB, 460x150px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x150px

>>138759557

>>138759557
It beat the "blame white males" approach that nearly ever other political party is doing. After Charlottesville there are a lot of squirrely white self haters. Why? Simple. They can't just go around killing random white people. You just never know which ones are armed or able to fight. I predict pure chaos and open and clumsy false flags by Leftwing Whites who put on as white power types in the next couple years. That's how crazy the Challenger of Justice has driven them (pun intended.)

>>138761207
obviously
>>138761115
wow, baby's first copy and paste shilling

File: C6jEu.jpg (204KB, 738x863px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 738x863px

>>138760993
Reminder to anyone thinking about posting in this thread: put "sage" in the options without quotation marks.

Also, reminder to OP, your delusional commie ideology doesn't work and never will. No government can centrally plan the economy, no little aliance of commies can centrally plan the economy. Without private exchange there's no allocation of resources at all, that's why all alleged anti-capitalist countries from nazi germany to the USSR had somewhat functional markets.

>>138761484
>everyone I don't like is a commie

Wew lad, the absolute state of ancapistaners

>sage
Yes goy, lets destroy any kind of discussion and reasonable exchange of ideas here. Pol is an ancap safespace

File: 1490643990007.jpg (260KB, 1920x1896px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1896px

>>138761680
>hide your flag
>hide what you believe in
>"haha, you assumed I'm a commie shilling, you silly"
Woah, I literally got BTFO. Since your first pic, you literally exposed none of your opinions and made no logical argument, and your best tactic is hiding yourself. wtf I hate libertarianism now

>>138761899
you did shill

>everyone I dislike is a commie

Is not an argument.

You're a minority here buddy, and your diversionary tactics and butthurt shilling are not arguments

File: 2f7.jpg (28KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 601x508px

>>138762080
>make 6th post without providing an argument
>still claims to not be a senseless shill
yfw
>"Rothbard thinks parents should have the right to give up raising their children!! LOL!!1!"
>"that's what most of planet earth agrees with"
>"your a minotiry here buddy and you are the one shilling wew the absolute state of ancapistaners"

>>138762392
>doesn't give a single argument
>keeps deflecting and dumbposting
>p-pol is an ancap board, everyone who dislikes ancapistan is a commie shill

>not a shill

kek

>>138762612
>no u
Fucking hilarious. How old are you? 15?
>make a thread yourself
>only believe you exposed gets debunked at the first non-shill post
>don't expose anything you believe in after that
>point out how people can't make arguments against what you believe in since you just kept yourself hidden
Are you legitimately retarded?

File: 004.png (131KB, 543x692px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 543x692px

>>138762612
At this point you are just afraid.
You know you can't push further any criticism of a libertarian economist because you know that I know them better than you. Your actions against them are just pure shilling, you have no legitimate critical point of view. You post something superficial and emotionally appealing, but that deep down makes no sense. To someone that actually has read all of them it's easy to shut you down.

>>138763211
He's either leftypol or a stormfag, either way brain dead

>>138762983
>>138763211
being this triggered, holy shit

and still not an argument
>>138763828
>ancaps actually believe this

>>138764903
roads and kids

>“Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return.

>“Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”


Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York University Press, 1998)

>>138767108
So, are children property or not? The 3 passages you posted seem to claim both.

>>138767108

I do think Rothbard was wrong about children.

I would say parents have a duty to their children because they essentially forced them into a state of vulnerability.

Babies and young children cannot take of them and will die pretty quick without assistance. As the parents were responsible for the creation of the child they must take care of the child or find someone else who will.

>>138768305
>Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer?
>Not on libertarian grounds. For surely it is better for the child to be a live victim of sexual abuse rather than unsullied and dead. Rather, it is the parent who consents to the death of his child, when he could have kept him alive by such extreme measures, who is the real abuser14
.
Walter Block

https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf

>>138768718
look at this now >>138769391

And look how that part starts
>Do libertarians improperly support the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)?

Now this is one thing that isn't advertised a lot, isn't it?

File: 1493045945287.png (32KB, 676x548px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 676x548px

>>138767108
>>138769391
>>138769984
Keep defending your capitalist Jew, cuckboi.

>>138770179
I'm not the one shilling for these degenerates. Monkey boy was, but funny how fast he left, right?

>>138759557
lolberterians worship the material jew

>>138759557
>Suggesting a black market for children doesn't already exist.
>Implying that not feeding a kid wouldn't come with consequences outside of legal ones even as things are.
>Implying locking a kid in a room and letting him starve without allowing him to search for or get food through some other means wouldn't violate the NAP.

>>138771004
Now explain this >>138769391

probably the dumbest shit Rothbard ever written,
nobody can move a child's body or speak with his voice better than him so he's the legitimate owner of his person, not his parents (see Hoppe's argument about property)
Now the child has never asked to be born so coercing it into living was a violation of the NAP, it so follows that he has the right to respond adequately and kill his parents if they're faggots to get the inheritance

>>138769391
Did the child consent though? Frankly, if it's between keeping their child alive and doing ANYTHING distateful or letting them die 9 out of 10 parents would be willing to do anything to keep their child. Is it ethical? Not really. Should it be LEGAL? Well making it illegal would do nothing to solve the issue of parents selling their children for sex which is a problem that has always plagued humanity and will never stop doing so.

>>138774043
Kek
>>138774779
I wish Gary Johnson would make this argument on a debate. Can u imagine?