@Mac_CZ @matrix
State does restrict many rights based on the most arbitrary of reasons. And although I despise almost all of them, the ability to limit entry of people you expect to cause mayhem does seem logical to me.

@LukeAlmighty @matrix Wait, until somebody tells you, that you're expected to cause mayhem, so you're not allowed to do something.

@Mac_CZ @matrix
Don't worry, government tells me that every single day. And I am not even doing anything too outrageous.

@Mac_CZ @matrix
If you truly believe, that state has no right to limit private transactions no matter the public consequences, then I see how my arguments can seem pointless to you.

@LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix So you're saying restricting freedom is alright here. How do you disagree? You can't be pro-freedom and anti-immigration, and that's why you should be anti-pro-freedom

@applejack @Mac_CZ @matrix
Oh yes... every belief is binary set on the most unreasonable extremes...

Now, that the strawman is out of the way, what stance do you disagree with? The stance, that a person should have the right to leave the country no matter what the government thinks, or the stance that a government should have right to refuse culturally incompatible people from comming in?

@LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix
>every belief is binary set on the most unreasonable extremes
Uh, yeah. Duh. Something is either true or it isn't. If you arbitrarily decide to follow some principle and "you should allow X and Y because I think freedom good" you can't make arbitrary exceptions when you want

>what stance do you disagree with
Rights don't exist. They're not real, obviously. Don't slave over things that are inside your head. If it's better to restrict someone's freedom, do it. Overall freedom is good, but only in service to an actually real goal with things that actually exist

@applejack @Mac_CZ @matrix
>rights don't exist
They do, if you define them based on consequences of breaking said rights. Although yes, the common definition of rights is a hippie shit.

>binary rules
That is something I don't believe in, since I define my criteria. Absolute freedom is a dumb criteria. But I do believe, that some rules guarded by the government can lead to more freedoms then if these rules were not guarded.
It is a balancing act, that leads on both sides to no real choice being left if a man wants to survive.

@LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix No, it's all just "because I say so" shit

@applejack @Mac_CZ @matrix
I am starting to see why everyone hates libertarians.

@applejack @LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix
I have the freedom to prevent entry.
Simple as.

@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 @LukeAlmighty @matrix They're not because you never have 100 % of community who agrees with it and you discriminate the ones who want to trade/rent/sell with people from the outside.

@galena @LukeAlmighty @matrix And also you limit the number of potentional buyers, so you're crippling the price.

@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?

@LukeAlmighty @galena @matrix Well, constitution says, that they shouldn't. But yeah, we are not in the conflict here, where's the state, there's oppression.

@Mac_CZ @galena @matrix
Ok...
And sadly, that is almost a rood of my political philosophy. I call any government a mafia, since they have identical buisiness model.
And I try to figgure out, what would be the perfect cooperacion with a best mafia possible.

Idealism of modern politics does cause a lot of problems, that could be avoided if only people in power focused on the important parts. Does mafia care if you wear a seatbelt? nah... Do they care 2 guys want to marry? Nah... Do they care that antifa took over few streets? Definitelly.

@LukeAlmighty @galena @matrix Depends, if they want to buy whole neighborhood cheap, they would be the ones who would sent buses for them.

@LukeAlmighty @galena @matrix That's quite a big difference. In first case I weight the risk and decide myself if it's worth it and for what price. In second case somebody else decides it. Somebody is making decisions about other people's lifes and properties. That's what's the bad thing about it.

@Mac_CZ @galena @LukeAlmighty @matrix This is one of the many directions where the libertarian dogma falls apart. A community is a collective by definition and its existence is denied by libertarians. Well, it's only bad for them. In real life, an airpark community is well served not letting members to sell their properties to corporations or people unrelated to aviation. And it's completely okay even if libertarians don't like it.

@union @matrix @Mac_CZ @galena
Yes, libertarians have a seriously different view of the term "community"

I refuse the term in it's entirety. I will live, talk, and barter with anyone who I choose, and I refuse to be included or talked for against my will. The term community is only ever used to surpress rights of individuals.

@Svantovit @matrix @Mac_CZ
Branding is the oposite of what I want...
We need a punishment, that will make people regret and dread their actions, but will allow them to trstore their lives.

Whipping will cause a hell lot of pain, but less long term damage then even 1 year in prison + an entry in crime database. Branding is the polar opposite.

@LukeAlmighty @matrix @Mac_CZ How? You give someone 50 lashes on their back, they'll be marked as a criminal for life. It'll be obvious every time they take off their shirt. How is a brand the size [like a giant letter] of that same 50 lash scar any different? The pain? Okay, take off 20 lashes if they take a brand on their chest. Let's say 'R' for 'rapist.' There are certain crimes one should carry forever, the heinous kinds.

@Svantovit @matrix @Mac_CZ
Because at the point you're talking about rapists, it does not matter to YOU, since YOU want them to never gat a job...

I was talking about the fact, that people who get 2 years for somthing minor loose their job, family, friends and after 2 years, good luck finding a job with a criminal record. Brand would make this even worse.

I do not care about your petty revange.

@LukeAlmighty @matrix @Mac_CZ

@Svantovit @LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix So you don't believe in redemption?

@Dice @LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix Dude, when did I ever say that?

@Svantovit @LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix >There are certain crimes one should carry forever, the heinous kinds.

@Dice

And? If you violently violate someone else’s freedom, is having a letter burned into your skin not the least you could do? Fine, the village can give them a “redemptive brand’ after so many years of not re-offending that covers it up.

Seriously, niggas. This is shit that is easily covered up with a shirt. You act like I’m putting this person on a list. The reality is part of his punishment is the fact that, everyone he removes his shirt in front of will know what he did. That’s called a deterrent. You want a good wife someday? She probably won’t want to see an ‘R’ on her ‘forever man’s’ chest.

@LukeAlmighty claims he wants the opposite, but the scars of 50 lashes would have the same effect. Would it not? Every time he takes off his shirt, that punished criminal would be exposed to those around him. Where’s the redemption? You think they’d move closer to him after seeing those scars? The scars of the whip would have the same effect as branding. The only difference is that people would have to come up to the ex-convict and ask, “So…what did you do?”

@Mac_CZ @matrix

@Svantovit @LukeAlmighty @Mac_CZ @matrix >The reality is part of his punishment is the fact that, everyone he removes his shirt in front of will know what he did. That’s called a deterrent. You want a good wife someday? She probably won’t want to see an ‘R’ on her ‘forever man’s’ chest.

Same for the lashes

@Dice

Did I not say exactly that...?

@Dice @matrix @Mac_CZ @Svantovit
Ironically enough, lashes would bring out sympathy, while branding would make the person untouchable.

Obviously, the problem is, that anything less then lashes will never be accepted by society as an alternative punishment, but the entire problem with system is that there is no road to redemption, especially with current system, where you DO have a list of crimes you already "supposedly" paid for.

Let's be honest. Someone comes to your workplace, seems nice, and has a clean criminal record... but you notice serious scars... Or a guy enters with R branded on his forehead, and gives you paper with the exact crimes he did.

Who will get the job and sympathy?

@LukeAlmighty @Dice @matrix @Mac_CZ

I consider the fact that he’s not in prison being railed by Konkey Dong to be far more sympathetic than such a violator of human rights deserves.

That being said, I’m a very sympathetic person and I do believe in rehabilitation over punitive measures. Not one single time have I suggested branding the violent criminal on any visible skin.

The fact that your scenario includes a potential interviewer seeing his scars indicates that your solution is more barbaric than mine, as I never suggested these brands be visible without the removal of a garment.

Re-read everything I’ve written. Your analysis of what I’ve typed hinges entirely on a snap judgment you made at the very beginning.

@Svantovit @Dice @matrix @Mac_CZ
You are comparing a brand that is always on you to a peace of paper...

Ok, I get it... Well trolled.

@LukeAlmighty

Are you genuinely illiterate or simply a moron?

@Dice @matrix @Mac_CZ

@Svantovit @Dice @matrix @Mac_CZ