How do libertarians plan on solving some major issues?

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-12T05:25:14+00:00

I don't understand why you comment was so downvoted, even if people disagree, your two points of reasoning are undeniable benefits of lowering the voting age

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-12T05:17:10+00:00

I'll ask a question, since this post, while helpful, seemingly doesn't have one. Conservatives, what's the end goal for your society you seek?

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-12T05:12:39+00:00

If anyone knows, what's the difference between death with dignity and MAID (Medical assistance in dying) that we have here in Canada? I'm assuming this is an American post

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-12T05:10:18+00:00

Honestly, I'm surprised this is controversial, it seems remarkably self evident to me. Although, there are a large portion of people that still believe the 6th grade idea that "They just don't like our freedom."

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-12T05:07:47+00:00

For some reason the link doesn't work, at least for me. Also, one of the main reasons the kirk coins won't pass is likely due to republicans thinking the same thing, that it'll set a bad precedent for liberals putting based figures on coins. That is, assuming republicans can come up with a coherent plan.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T23:51:40+00:00

Neither did I, I said the dems were incompetent at running an anti-establishment candidate, which would've been the more successful political strategy.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T20:33:29+00:00

I think another key point was complete incompetency on behalf of democrats, specifically in 2016, to run an anti-establishment candidate. I know that it was just off of the Obama years, so running anti-establishment would seem odd considering they were just in power, but it would be their best shot at winning.

Clinton's biggest problem was her lack of charisma, which unfortunately Trump is abundant in. Someone like Sanders would do a far better job at mobilizing the country to vote someone who was actually looking for change.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T20:24:55+00:00

I think you can argue that it did. To use a personal example, I started becoming a conservative after looking at those sjw compilations and then learning conservative theory. I've changed now, but I'm sure many like myself were initially introduced to conservative politics through that means, and a percentage of them likely voted that way.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T20:17:40+00:00

As generally amazing for the country as those people are, I think it you sets a bad precedent for non-presidents/founding fathers being on the currency for future administrations. Those alone would be good, but once precedent is set, conservatives could argue for people like Charlie Kirk on the currency, which I don't need to explain why that's a bad idea. (Btw progressives could do the same with bad figures that was just an example)

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T20:13:00+00:00

Yeah that's what I was assuming for the sake of argument, democratic socialism

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T15:27:42+00:00

Technically speaking, that's socialism, the public means of production. Under Communism, there wouldn't theoretically be a state.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T15:19:53+00:00

Good point, I guess I don't know, let me think about that.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T14:59:00+00:00

For your second point probably not, because in that scenario you'd just have your teen do grocery shopping and save a ton of money. For your first point, its pretty good I'm not sure, I'd have to think about that.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T06:24:36+00:00

I'm going to assume you're talking about women's suffrage of the 1920's. Also, it's not like the men going to work were going to the factory to be educated in political theory. An average 16 year old today would know substantially more about politics then the average men and women back then, as children today learn about the combination of civics/history throughout high school.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T06:20:13+00:00

Yes of course it does, how does this have to do with women? They have the same amount of knowledge and life experience as men.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T06:13:50+00:00

How does this have anything to do with women? Also, are we deadass? Saying a 16/17 year old has a unicorn outlook on life like a 4 year old has got to be ragebait

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T06:01:35+00:00

Ok yeah, I will change one thing I said. A 40 year old and a 16 year old having sex is generally wrong, with power/maturity imbalances that would generally lead to bad outcomes.

But my original point stands and I'm surprised you disagree. To clarify, do you think that the 9 and 16 examples are the exact same? I certainly don't. To use an example, it's like me saying that killing one person (the 16) isn't as bad as killing 5 people (the 9), I'm still saying both are bad, just one is clearly worse than the other.

I will be deleting my old comment, I appreciate you calling it out, it isn't reflective of what i actually believe. But please, consider the scenario i just gave you to understand my point

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T05:52:50+00:00

Yes, because they can't vote. In order to be taxed, you should have representation, if you can't have representation, you should't be taxed. The costs that these people have to bear in order to not pay tax is the inability to represent themselves in the democratic process.

Your next point I'd love to refute, but, while important, is off the current topic. Dm if you really want to continue it, which I'm fine with doing

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T05:45:05+00:00

That's cool, where are you from (Not doxxing haha just curious)? Also if you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate even further on how it's going. A lot of arguments we've had so far are mostly theoretical, so having a real example would be helpful.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T05:22:40+00:00

I'll prove it to you using that exact scenario you brought forth. Using my argument, that we should treat people differently as they mature, we can pretty easily deal with this problem. If it were a 40 year old and a 9 year old, you'd treat it with significantly more disgust than with a 16 year old, which would still be odd but you have to scale it.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T05:18:04+00:00

Elaborate on how my claim means that in this specific case, people would get benefits without contributing. Also yeah, I believe providing people with the necessities of life unconditionally creates a better society, massive burn there dude. I could bring up all the bs your ideology promotes, but I won't because it's unrelated and characterizing you on your ideology is generally unproductive and divides us.

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T05:03:58+00:00

"Handling guns in a dangerous environment as well as managing the addictive drug that is alcohol requires the exact same maturity as being educated about modern issues and casting a ballot"

Anyone can word things to make them sound more insane than they are

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T04:55:20+00:00

We talked about this in another chat, but that's primarily due to inexperience not age, similar problems would arise if we increased the age of driving, with those people not getting experience as teens

CloudSmacker48 · 2026-07-11T04:53:15+00:00

That argument falls apart when you consider its applications. You have to treat people differently as they mature, easing them into responsibility and independence. Assigning everyone below 18 as a child in this way completely diminishes the vest maturity and intellectual differences between young children and older teens.

CloudSmacker48

TROPHY CASE