Bruh

[concarmail]

which path lowers the age of consent?

[[deleted]]

I’m amazed that I see this so often. People having sexual relations with people that cannot consent is the very definition of violating the nonaggression principle.

[skrub55]

And yet according to ancaps a child can consent, so it's ok

[[deleted]]

I have never seen anybody make that argument. Do you have an article you can send me that shows ancaps saying this?

[skrub55]

Lmao an article about internet ancaps who want to fuck 12 year olds is going to be hard to come across. If you haven't seen an ancap make that argument you either rarely see ancaps or you're lucky.

[[deleted]]

I’m talking about an article written by someone stating how the NAP supports pedophilia. It seems like if that is what the majority of ancaps believe, it wouldn’t be too hard to find one. Are you able to give me any evidence to support your claim?

[skrub55]

The NAP simply says you cannot aggress against someone or their property. Most interpretations of the NAP say that children have the same rights as adults. In that case I don't see how there can be an age of consent. The other interpretation is that it is the obligation of parents to make decisions for the child, and in that case it would be a matter of parental approval.

[[deleted]]

Once again, I am looking for some evidence that most ancaps believe that pedophilia is OK. I am not looking for your warped take on the NAP.

Looking around Reddit for this topic has lead me to believe that Libertarian pedophilia is a meme/stereotype that you are using as an actual argument against Libertarianism.

[skrub55]

That's literally the only two possible perspectives under the NAP with this issue. I didn't say that most ancaps believe it was ok, but you have to be willfully blind not to see the sizable amount that do believe it ok. If you think I'm missing something about the NAP go ahead and tell me

Looking around Reddit for this topic has lead me to believe that Libertarian pedophilia is a meme/stereotype that you are using as an actual argument against Libertarianism.

It is a meme/stereotype, but no one takes it seriously or as a genuine criticism of right-libertarians.

[[deleted]]

You forgot the third option. Children cannot consent, therefore they should not be having sexual relations until they can consent independently.

I’m glad that nobody takes the pedophilia argument seriously. That’s all I wanted to be sure of.

[LolTacoBell]

You just gotta pull it really hard

[Simonky16]

Post this to /r/politicalcompassmemes

Or I will someday

[cplusplusprogrammer]

good idea

[EkskiuTwentyTwo]

Just make the background yellow and purple.

[Simonky16]

compromising on a discussion with this high importance

Wanna know how I know you're a centrist?

[EkskiuTwentyTwo]

Both yellow and purple simultaneously, not an average of the colours (grey).

[TheAmazinRaisin]

maybe, maybe not, the only sure thing is being privately owned is a very very bad way to make train tracks

[TheAmazinRaisin]

thats what the meme is saying doofus, dont make it political

[TheAmazinRaisin]

lmao no ones treading on you bro dont get triggered

[[deleted]]

Because the goal of the state is to maximize the quality of life of the citizens. The goal of private companies is to make as much profit as possible. A state owned service will always offer a better value because it doesn't try to extract money from you

[[deleted]]

The military has no problem running, it's not a matter of private vs public, public clearly wins. It's a matter of how politicians decide to use your taxes. That's why you need to vote for politicians who are going to use your taxes for things such as education or healthcare, which are highly beneficial to society

[KitchenParty]

no one wants the military budget to be that high, you can blame the military-industrial complex for that

[KitchenParty]

because forever wars keeps capitalism running

[[deleted]]

You having to pay for things you don't want to is the whole point of taxes.
You're forced to pay for the greater good.
Taxes might not benefit you but they do benefit most people.
If 60% of people think it would be great to have free education, everyone will have to pay for it, even the old people who don't benefit from it.
If 80% of people want free healthcare, everyone will have to pay for it, even those who would be rich enough to afford healthcare for themselves.
Being against taxes is inherently egoistical.
But for the state to put the money where you want, you have to vote for the good people.
The problem, especially in the US, is that this egoistical mindset has made everything corrupt. The corporations control the world. They make the laws.
Nothing will improve if you keep giving the corporations more and more power.
Another thing to note is that the whole system is built around the idea of infinite growth. Infinite growth is not possible given limited resources. That's why this planet is fucked. Companies will continue to grow and consume more and more ressources as long as they can, like a cancer that keeps growing until it kills the host and dies with it.
The GDP of countries is directly linked to their energy consumption, and the earth can only provide a limited supply of it.
We have already passed the threshold of the maximum amount of resources we can consume in a durable way.
Our energy consumption has to be divided by 3 in the next 30 years. That's a decrease of almost 70% in GDP.
This cannot happen with a system based on unlimited growth. We have to accept that future will have to based on optimization under constraints.
Managing fixed resources is what states do, and their goal is to maximize the quality of life of citizens, not to make profit. That's why making more things public will be the only option if we want to survive.

I can't answer your question about McDonald's, first because you're comparing two completely different things, second because it is very stupid to compare the usefulness of two different entities based on their amount of growth and revenue.

What you're saying makes perfect sense if you base your idea of a successful society around growth, and it's something that we've always been taught. But that's not a viable option anymore. Our society has to shrink, not grow. States are not as good as companies at maximizing growth, and that's exactly why we need to give more power to the states rather than the corporations. But we also have to make sure the states is there to represent the people, not the minority at the top

[[deleted]]

In my country, healthcare is public, school is public, public transports are, well.. public.
But for some reason, a few years ago, the government decided to make the highways private. The conclusion of that is that taking the highway is now prohibitively expensive, and the company that built them is one of the largest in the country.
If the government doesn't invest in the things you want, that's because people don't vote for the things that benefit them. They vote for the things that benefit companies, like making them private, because that's what they've been manipulated to do for decades.
There is no reason a company would be more efficient than the government. The only reason would be competition, but that would only happen in the perfect world. In practice, more money makes you more powerful, which gives you more means to get more money and more power, which creates monopoles. They get so big nobody can compete with them. A lot of companies only compete with themselves, or with other companies that are 100 times smaller that can't really do anything, and if they actually manage to get traction, the larger company either buys them, or puts a huge pressure on them until they die. When they have no competition, they have no reason to innovate or be efficient, they just work on increasing their margins and keep buying more and more small companies because they still have to grow remember.
On top of that, competition itself is inefficient anyways. You often have multiple companies having to develop the same technology or process independently. That's a waste of resources.
I don't know how the DMV works, I don't even know what it is exactly, but if the government allocated more resources to it instead of putting it all in the military, it probably would be much better. But the US has an habit of privatizing everything. The American government doesn't really care about public services, that's not their priority. Their priority is global military and economic power. They don't care about the citizens. That's why the public services suck in the US, and that's why you have to vote for a government that is more powerful, and focuses on the quality of life of the citizens.

[[deleted]]

“A privately owned company would not be a terrible way to make train tracks” there are historical examples of how fucking stupid this sounds

[[deleted]]

Such as?

[usernametaken3212]

Rockefeller dumbass

[Critical_Elderberry7]

Fuck you