Lolbertarian

@matrix It's true though.

@Mac_CZ @matrix
It definitelly is not correct.
As a libertarian, I do believe, that the system is intended to serve the role of creating an environment, where people can enjoy their freedoms in relative safety.

I believe rveryone has a right to LEAVE their country. Absolutelly. But we have no duty to accept muslims, that will cause the entire society to collapse.

@Mac_CZ @matrix
When I think about it, that is the same reason I consider prison to be inhumane, since it forces you to live under rules where you have no rights.

It would be better, if state offered an alternative punishment, that would still left you freedom to resume life/leave the country. (For instance slashes with whip)

@LukeAlmighty @matrix And how can you not accept somebody? If I buy or rent a house somewhere, I want to live there. Nobody has the right to tell me if I can buy a house and move into my house. You feel entitled to tell me who I'm allowed to sell my house to or if I can buy one?

@Mac_CZ @LukeAlmighty @matrix If the land owner refuses to sell it to you, you're not allowed to squat on his land. If a community refuses to allow you into their land, they have every right to deny you entry and physically remove you if you trespass. You're not allowed on private property without permission.

@galena @LukeAlmighty @matrix TFirst part is true, second not. No community can tell anybody who he can invite to his property or to whom he sells it.

@Mac_CZ @LukeAlmighty @matrix If every person in a community tells you to stay out and no one invites you in, and you come in anyway, you're trespassing.

@galena @LukeAlmighty @matrix Yes, because in that case you don't own or rent anything there. That's not the case we are talking about.

@Mac_CZ @LukeAlmighty @matrix That is the case I was talking about. You can not own anything there to begin with if no one is selling to you. This is how closed borders are compatible with a libertarian society.

@galena @matrix @Mac_CZ
Not to mention, we can be talking for days about how to justify each rule according to slight differenced in interpretation....

But let's be honest. Immagine you own a house with 7 apparents.

You live in 1, and antifa dipshits offer to rent the rest. Would you realy care that they pinky promise, that there won't be any noise, drugs, property damage or violencs and that they will pay rent?

Same goes to state. If there Is even 1 thing the state has as a duty to the people, it would be to keep people from pointless attacks.

@galena @matrix @Mac_CZ
The state literaly rents it's own territory to each and every person under it in exchange for taxes.

And every landlord should have the right to refuse people, who will destroy the property or drive other renters away.

@LukeAlmighty @galena @matrix We don't have feudalism anymore, if you didn't notice.

@Mac_CZ @galena @matrix
Now that is something I will need a HEAVY burden of evidence for.

So, what did change the essence? The name? The rules lords choose for themselves? Or is it the fact that some of them stay in the official power only for a time?

I honestly do not see any difference between what we have, and what you claim we don't have...

@LukeAlmighty @galena @matrix That's for different debate. On paper we don't live in feudalism and government doesn't own everything.

@Mac_CZ @galena @matrix
On paper, the czech republic has borders, and right to tax everything within it, as well as choose arbitrary rules to any thing or being inside these boarders.

They can literaly take away your ability to leave your house, and you have a duty to pay to them, but they do not own you?

REALLY?