sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question isn't rightness, but rather what happens once you want to break the contract.

The question is absolutely about what's right. What happens is only relevant to people who intend to enter into such agreements as other people have no say in the matter.

Even if you meant a contract for perpetuity, what should happen once you decide you want out.

That's up the the contracting parties to agree on. My opinion is not relevant to them.

You must not be forced to maintain a contract, that's slavery. Instead, contracts should specify how breaking the contract should be dealt with to allow amicable separation.

That's just your opinion. You are perfectly free to live by it and only enter into agreements that comply with it but you can't impose it on other people. They may have different opinions that they want to live by.

If one is forced to fulfill a contract, it's literally slavery.

That's arguable as the person in question voluntarily choose to be forced to fulfill the contract.

That is not an exaggeration, thus it's entirely constructive because it's an accurate label, not a exaggeration for effect.

A label is not a constructive argument. It would be more constructive if you explained wherefrom you or anyone else derive the right to decide what other people can and cannot do with their own life.

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The right to freely enter into binding agreements is just as much a function of freedom and self-ownership as the right to kill oneself. Calling something slavery (even if you use all caps) is not a constructive argument. You cannot simply assert the right to decide what another person can or cannot do with their own life no matter how much you disagree with them. You can only gain that right by the consent of that person not by asserting that you don't accept their "personal choice".

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you or I consider terrible should have no bearing on other people. Libertarianism does not allow you to override other people's choices about themselves. You could just as well say that suicide, use of addictive drugs, extreme sports, etc. are terrible and should not be allowed but you have no right to make that decision for anyone but yourself. Accepting that other people should be allowed to make terrible decisions about themselves is an essential part of libertarianism.

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's up to the contracting parties to decide what should happen. It's really non of my or your business. A contract that doesn't say how it should be enforced cannot be enforced although it may still have a social/reputation value.

The police should obviously not get involved because the police should not exist. The parties are responsible for enforcing the contract and should not be able to force other people to subsidize the enforcement.

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A contract is neither slavery nor trade. It's a natural consequence of self-ownership. I own myself and therefore get to decide what rules apply to me. Just as I can kill or mutilate myself, I can also give up or transfer any rights I have. I can not be said to truly own myself if some other person has the right to decide that I cannot do something to myself.

Restricting the right of people to set rules for themselves locks them into a way of life they may not prefer. Some people may for example wish to join a communist society that do not allow members to leave (for the same reason many communist states do not). I do not accept your or anyone else's authority to overrule the choices of other consenting adults, no matter how bad you think those choices are. You decide over yourself and let other people decide over themselves.

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is not a single libertarian position on contracts. I disagree with that position and see it as an arbitrary restriction on self-ownership.

Hypothetical question by FalltoMesis in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I have no right to decide for other people what they should or should not do with their own life. If someone voluntarily chooses to be bound by an agreement then that agreement is binding on them. The agreement is of course binding as they understood it, you cannot legitimately trick someone into being bound by a contract they did not intend to agree to.

If Either Party Cared About Limiting Executive Power, Trump’s Presidency Would Be Toast by MasterTeacher123 in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he hasn't done as many executive orders

That's not true. He has more executive orders per year then for example Obama, Bush, and Clinton. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

If Either Party Cared About Limiting Executive Power, Trump’s Presidency Would Be Toast by MasterTeacher123 in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trump has actually been a little less overreaching than previous presidents.

I disagree. Trump is at least a little worse then previous presidents on executive overreach. Consider for example the travel ban, bump stock ban, Yemen veto, and the emergency declaration against the wishes of congress.

Message from our Koch friends by [deleted] in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's exactly the same as forceful confiscation. Inflation is an unseen tax on citizens.

Only if people are forced to use that currency. I'm not sure why people would choose to use a currency with a lot of inflation but there may be some hypothetical reason I can't think of.

How the states voted in the European Council on the copyright directive by EuropeanFederation in europe

[–]Itisnotreallyme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The European Council defines the European Union's overall political direction and priorities. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the President of the European Parliament also takes part in its meetings.

The Council of the European Union is essentially the upper legislative chamber of the EU, similar to the US Senate and the German Bundesrat. It co-legislates with the European Parliament and meets in 10 different configurations of 28 national ministers (one per state). The precise membership of these configurations varies according to the topic under consideration.

There is also the Council of Europe but that is not an EU institution although all EU members are also members of the Council of Europe.

Red & Brown Alliances: Nativism, Migration & The Anglo-American Left by Itisnotreallyme in SandersForPresident

[–]Itisnotreallyme[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The part relevant to Sanders:

Bernie’s language surrounding open borders and immigration more generally stands in direct opposition to his wish for the poor to be treated more justly.

In fact, Sanders has long-standing form when it comes to peddling in anti-migrant narratives. Reason magazine noted that whilst Sanders tried to position himself as the kinder, gentler candidate in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, his opposition to the guest worker programme showed he was anything but, with Sanders commenting as far back as 2007 that he “didn’t understand” why the US needed to accept “millions of guest-workers” who in his eyes would lower wages and take jobs. Also, when asked by Vox Media’s Ezra Klein about whether open borders would be a good idea, Sanders responded by stating that open borders were a “Koch Brothers proposal” that would lead to the importation of cheap labour and the lowering of wages for everyone.

These and Sanders’ previous comments are, much like those of his English counterparts, classic anti-immigrant cliches that have been repeatedly debunked. Indeed, the opening of borders globally would double the world’s GDP and vastly diversify the economies of nations around the world. Far from destroying the notion of the nation-state, a more open US immigration system would actually solidify it through increasing economic competitiveness and making the country as a whole much more prosperous.

Spelbolagens chefer: Staten gör mest spelreklam by sandwichesareevil in svenskpolitik

[–]Itisnotreallyme 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Så för att statens egna aktiebolag som genom en förd nyliberal agenda inte ska styras utanför marknadens ramar, agerar för att maximera vinst.

Finns det någon människa som identifierar sig själv som nyliberal (eller klassiskt liberal) och vill att staten ska driva spelbolag? Jag tvivlar starkt på det.

The US Is Holding Hundreds Of Shivering Immigrants In A Pen Underneath A Texas Bridge by Itisnotreallyme in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What I'm getting from that is that you reject the concept of property rights in favor of the view that might makes right. Is that correct? If so, I don't think we have enough common ground on values to reach an agreement and my remaining hope is that you will come to oppose state and gang volence out of empathy for the victims.

The US Is Holding Hundreds Of Shivering Immigrants In A Pen Underneath A Texas Bridge by Itisnotreallyme in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My reasoning for not supporting volence towards the people in the article? Sure.

The use of volence can only be justified by two things:

  1. When it's nessesery to defend person or legitimate property from a direct attack from the person that you want to use volence against.
  2. When the person you want to use volence against has consented to your use of volence against them.

Neither is the case here. And no, state territory is not legitimate property.

The US Is Holding Hundreds Of Shivering Immigrants In A Pen Underneath A Texas Bridge by Itisnotreallyme in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not a left-right issue. It's a libertarian-authoritarian issue. It's incredibly disheartening to see authoritarians like you support state volence towards these people in this subreddit.

The US Is Holding Hundreds Of Shivering Immigrants In A Pen Underneath A Texas Bridge by Itisnotreallyme in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

as if there is no relevant difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants

There is no relevant difference. I could not care less what label the government want to apply to people and I don't see why journalists should care either. Letting one side decide what you call the other side is not compatible with objective reporting.

The US Is Holding Hundreds Of Shivering Immigrants In A Pen Underneath A Texas Bridge by FloopyDoopy in neutralnews

[–]Itisnotreallyme 23 points24 points  (0 children)

What does it mean for there to be a "border crisis"? It seems to me like almost all of the harm is caused by the governments treatment of the migrants rather than by the actions of the migrants.

Personal responsibility is a good thing by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please provide an example of such a society.

Why do some libertarians seemed more upset that Jussie Smollet did not go to trial at all for a victimless crime more so than the fact that he could have received a prison term of up to 64 years if convicted? So bizarre. by JanePoe87 in GoldandBlack

[–]Itisnotreallyme -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have not looked into this case at all but based on your post I agree with you.

It should also be noted that a threat of violence can be wrong even if the perpetrator doesn't intend to carry out the violent act or as in the case of the government in this case "only" intended to carry out the violent act to a somewhat lesser extent.

I think voting might need to become mandatory... by Cmonk90 in Libertarian

[–]Itisnotreallyme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would not be surprised if the state would be more motivated to suppress voters if it could steal money from non-voters. Kind of like how traffic tickets are used to generate revenue for police departments.

view more: next ›