ACist redux: "consistency" is better than "not starving children to death".

Yak,

Will you please compare/contrast the right of the government to force a parent to feed a child with the right of a government to limit who is allowed in the country?

This is incorrect unless women who hand children over the social services have them forcibly handed back.

Shocking to hear yak the resident pedophile come out in favor of kiddie marketplaces.

CONTACT US

Mises Institute
518 West Magnolia Avenue
Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501

stupidity explained

Really fantastic display of self awareness too.

Jesus **** this is so dehumanizing and devoid of empathy and compassion.

First, believing that a woman has absolute autonomy over her own body and that no person has a right to any part of it without her ongoing consent is hardly inconsistent with libertarian principles. Second, to the amazement of libertarians everywhere, lots of people believe that drawing arbitrary but useful lines that work out for most people most of the time is a better solution to complex problems than just rolling with whatever barbarism gets deduced from arbitrary principles of property rights. Shocker.

The real issues here are the matter of expediency and the prospect of damaging the internal organs from malnutrition. Would be much better if you were able to put your invisible hand over their mouth and nose for a few minutes. Who owns all that oxygen in your house anyway?

Don't worry, not all would be sold to rapist pedos and brothels. Some would be sold into slavery peeling shrimp in Thailand for 16 hours a day while getting beaten. Others, I guess, would be sold to paramilitary organizations looking for more soldiers. When the free market speaks, it knows best where the child belongs.

Like you're right regarding arbitrary but useful lines but that ignores that women aren't actually legally obligated to take care of children between birth and 18.

If only there was a thread devoted to ACism...

can someone explain to me what "AC" means? i can't seem to figure it out

Anarcho capitalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Lol

No one is telling the sheriff or anyone there how to live their lives. There are no demands, no hostages, no ransom, no one is being ordered to do x, y, or z, other than to mind their own business. If everyone just left them alone, they would either go away, or exist peacefully.

That is, unless you believe government has some sort of divine right to order people around and lock them in cages without consequences. Then, in that case, lolu

There's no demands? YallQaeda is even dumber than I thought. Pretty sure there are demands bro. Comically stupid ones but I bet they're extant.

Cages!

Bring on the AnCap stupidity

I guess I'll just move into BuccoFan's basement bedroom and just live there peacefully, minding my own business. Let me know when I can come pick up my key bro.

Other than "leave us alone" what are their demands?

Ya, since I totally assume the right to kill you or throw you in jail if you don't comply with my divine edicts. Come on over.

Yes, the act of "not forcibly locking someone in a cage for many years for burning things on their own land" is sheer lunacy! Any civilized society MUST lock these savages up.

You might also remember when Montius spent hundreds of posts grappling with whether lethal force was an acceptable response to an unprovoked candy bar theft. The candy thief was who did the initiation of force, so, hmmm, what axiom says it's wrong to kill him? There are a lot of premises that need to be fleshed out before we can even begin to tackle that, it's like a goddamn zen koan.

You know they didn't like, buy that wildlife refuge, right? They are trespassing on someone else's property. Somebody spent money to build it. It wasn't the Bundys. Now the Bundys are squatting there, so if you're allowed to call a truce with no-backsies at any time, lemme know where you keep your car keys.

That's your best argument against anarchy? That someone, somewhere, MIGHT shoot you over a stolen candy bar?

First of all, don't steal people's stuff. It's wrong.

Secondly, no one is actually saying that they want to hurry up and end the state so they can snipe little kids who think it's funny or don't know any better and steal a candy bar. Just like no one is excited to get to anarchy so they can FINALLY starve their kids to death, or sell them into a labor camp.

So go on and ignore the actual atrocities of the world, happening right now. Governments locking people up, or killing them for celebrating Christmas in public. Or speaking out against the government. Or non violent drug possession. Take your pick. Just re assure yourself that anarchy would be a million times worse, because of some looney tunes fringe case you THINK would be widely popular, but in reality, everyone (especially ancaps) frowns upon in the real world.

Just like the government trespassed, and continues to trespass on private ranches to arrest them. These people didn't just decide to randomly squat on someone's property.

And I must have missed where the government bought the property. Or is stealing/claiming ownership or eminent domain the same as buying from a consenting seller?

Their reasoning is that government is overreaching by throwing people in jail for burning things on their own property.

Also, no one is legitimately using or owning the building, since nothing the government does can be reasonably considered legitimate. For all intents and purposes, the building is/was unowned.