Reminds me of the old joke "what's the difference between libertarians and republicans? Libertarians know the legal age of consent in all 50 states"
This trope and this meme are lame and wrong. You people have a ridiculous idea about Libertarians that is nothing but plain prejudice.
I encourage anyone to prove me wrong by reading this Libertarian Party Platform document. Please point out anything about age of consent that is included in the Libertarian platform.
Additionally, prove me wrong by showing any example of a Libertarian party member stating support for adults abusing children in the manner alluded to in this prejudiced meme / trope.
EDIT: Downvotes don't prove anything folks. I issued a challenge here - is nobody going to prove me wrong?
No I am offended by the prejudice behind the joke. It's as bad as Trumptards and Qanon morons calling Democrats pedos.
Probably not a great idea to alienate the Independent type voters ahead of important elections as well. Democrats / Leftists / whatever you are should be courting the votes of those who are not-Republicans rather than driving more division.
Can you imagine being content in life and not caring what Internet nerds think about anything? No? Too bad for you. That's my reality.
Liberty is the most important value/concept to uphold in society and politics, therefore the Libertarian party is the best overall choice to support. Anyone who proposes to reduce liberty for the citizens of America automatically loses my support.
My ethics are clear and I'm proud of my voting record, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. Proudly supporting freedom should be applauded rather than mocked. So it's actually you who should be ashamed for attempting to suppress our freedom with your prejudiced garbage.
I brought this up yesterday, and I'm not even a libertarian. I just have working eyes and those muscles between them run decent enough too. The ideology of libertarianism is so harmful to the corporations that run this country that it had to be astroturfed into the thought terminator cliche of "libertarian = pedo" amongst an entire new generation. They destroyed Occupy WallSt in a different but similar way, by infiltrating all the influential OWS groups and making identity politics a core tenant (if you're white, shut up because your opinions are worthless - thought terminator cliche so 'in your face obvious' that they're promoting exactly what they're supposedly fighting against, but most were taken in anyway) - here's a video of it in action from 2011.
https://lemmy.world/comment/5139983
The corporations that run this country love youth internet addiction. There's never been an easier time in history to spread or destroy a movement simply by spending money. You don't even need a puppet. It's the ultimate power.
Wow I didn't realize that happened with OWS. I just remember being disappointed that the movement fizzled out.
Divide and conquer is a well-known strategy, used endlessly by the brainwashers
WHOOOOOOOOSH
Buddy, the definition of libertarian differs greatly from what your ilk discusses online.
Absolute bullshit. You are making up your own prejudiced definition, even after I provided a link to the party platform that LITERALLY defines the political stance.
In other words, you can't prove me wrong, so you move the goalposts.
Only one? I'm stuck between the US court system and Mormons looking for a wife but I guess Republican Congressmen's Dating Pool is also a possibility.
Libertarians are morons in their own right but the core philosophy of libertarianism (in the political compass sense) is the opposite of authoritarianism, which is where fascism stems from. A group that doesn't want centralized government can't also want a centralized government that enforces sociopolitical ideology.
The more you throw around the word "fascist" to mean "anything right of me that I don't like" the more the word loses meaning and becomes like the "communist" rallying cry of the boomers.
True, but are they actual libertarians, then? Wouldn't they just be conservatives? You can call yourself whatever you want, actions are what define you.
Yeah, I was just being super cynical. The elected libertarians never seem like actual libertarians.
I'm libertarian and I've never heard anyone make that claim outside of these memes I keep seeing. I wonder about the people you all hang around with if this is the kind of things you're hearing from your local "libertarians".
When I was younger we'd make fun of them for hoarding gold and wanting toll roads but then they all switched to shilling crypto Disney dollars and Teslas, and that's a self-own beyond parody. So now, sadly, the memesters have only the one libertarian joke left.
This is correct, it's just classic prejudice based on bullshit. I have issued a challenge to anyone on this thread to prove me wrong, see my comment near the top.
..."Someone shot an RPG at us from the upper top window of the building across the road, requesting air support, over..." ..."They're setting up another RPG, over..." ..."Ah never mind, it's a minor. We'll just hope he continues to miss us"
I do not understand this meme.
Considering people under 18 children is exaggerating, 13 (or whenever you hit puberty) is about the age when people can get a job, get married, and fight in war if it weren't for society brainwashing and labeling them as children, history is with me on this one.
In many countries minors (<18) can be in military service. In Israel and the US it is from 17 years. Why should exactly HAMAS in a population with about half children (persons under 18 years) make a difference?
The problem is libertarian groups themselves don't stand up against anarchists joining them. I remember Gary Johnson getting booed at an official libertarian party gathering for saying he believes in driver's licences.
Also we already know how libertarianism ends, with robber barons controlling everything and people living in company towns. It's a terrible political ideal.
What's wrong with anarchists? I've never seen anarchists defending pedophilia. Anarchism doesn't mean you just freely cause harm to others; quite the contrary.
Oh most anarchists I know are nice people, they just completely fail to understand that not everyone else is. They don't want to oppress, steal, rape, or murder, and so systems to prevent those things aren't necessary.
You misunderstand when you say "systems to prevent those things aren't necessary." These things are absolutely addressed by anarchists. We're not foolish enough to rely on the goodness of human nature to carry us through. There is no state, there are no hierarchies, but people causing harm absolutely can experience consequences under anarchism. Diffuse sanctions, for example. At worst, they can be removed from the community or group entirely.
But more than anything else, it's important to recognize that mutual aid is just as much a part of human nature as things like rape and murder, and the rate at which rape and murder occur are greatly exacerbated by hierarchies. For example, things like masculinity have to go, and we need to stop putting people in positions of power over others and creating such hierarchies.
And this brings me back to the topic at hand. I cannot conceive of an anarchist who would in any way approve of sexually abusing someone young enough to be considered a minor. Above all, anarchists aim to remove hierarchies, and having a grown adult in a relationship with a young teenager -- this would create such a power differential that I can't imagine any anarchist approving of it or hand-waving it away. The anarchists I know very strongly disapprove of such a thing.
The people we colloquially call "libertarians"(1) on the other hand still seem to support the state as well as hierarchies such as those created under capitalism. In fact, most self-described libertarians I know want to do nothing to address the things you mentioned, as well as nothing to address other harmful things such as the social and systemic discrimination against groups like LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others.
(1)yes, a bit of a misnomer since it would make more sense to call anarchists "libertarians," though no one does, unless we append it with "libertarian left," though even this seems like a silly term for anarchism
American libertarians are rebranded anarcho-capitalists. Outside of the US, libertarians are largely associated with anarchism and other anti-authoritarian socialist ideologies. Any left-libertarian (the kind that would identify as just anarchist, not ancap) want absolutely nothing to do with Gary Johnson. Don't put their shit show of an ideology on us lol
Left libertarians are still opposed to a strong central government which is a core issue with libertarianism.
In your ideal government, how would child porn or slavery be addressed? Let's assume there's a community that formed because they think it's a good thing.
I’m a libertarian and I’m not opposed to a strong central government. I think government only works when it has the power to militarily dominate any competing force.
I just think government should be simple, to minimize the number of ways it can break down and end up becoming a tool of the powerful to oppress the weak.
We currently have a set of laws that’s like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.
That’s a lot of complexity for malicious code to hide in. A lot of places for petty tyrants to set up shop and spend their life hurting little people under a government seal of authority.
We currently have a set of laws that’s like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.
Turns out, life is complex. It's either this or you end up having "rules for me but not for thee".
But to this point, what would you have your central government in charge of? I'm certainly for axing parts of the central gov and expanding others (For example, I'd nationalize healthcare and drug production and abolish ICE and the DEA). That is, I'd push for a government more concerned with taking care of citizens and less concerned with penalizing inconsequential things like not being born here.
The reason for the miles long laws is because when you don't have them, a capitalist society will work around them. A recent behind the bastards episode on the hawks nest tunnel ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-the-deadliest-workplace-disaster-in-u-s-history/id1373812661?i=1000632417312 ) is a perfect example of how these sorts of regulations get created and grow.
Shitty people exist and always will. It would be foolish of me to say otherwise. The shitty things they do may still happen in a stateless society. Child porn and slavery are being produced in societies with central government right now and very little is being done about it. In a stateless, moneyless society there would be no incentive for slave labor and I think that would largely/entirely disappear.
Child porn is obviously a lot more complex than that and there are several factors in play. First, anarchists and adjacent movement are staunch advocates of community engagement and vigilance. We want to radically change how society functions at the most base levels. If a child is being abused or exploited, it would ideally be easier to spot and act on. There hasn't been a lot of research into what causes pedophilia or how to treat it in a way that would reduce/eliminate people acting on those urges. Research could be conducted into practical and holistic ways to treat their condition. Poverty is strongly linked to sexual violence of all kinds and the abolition of poverty would surely have a big part to play in the reduction of many things, including child sexual abuse. A society formed around the ideals of libertarian socialism present a real opportunity to end the cycle of abuse and that would certainly play a role in reducing child sexual exploitation.
There's plenty more to say about this and there's obviously a lot of detail not covered in my brief comment but there are solutions to this baked into the ideological framework of anarchism and libertarian socialism. I'm not going to say we have all the answers, of course we don't. But a society organized from the bottom up, with a focus on equality, safety and prosperity for all would not only be incentivised to solve these problems, but would be much quicker to act due to the lack of bureaucratic red tape
Child porn and slavery are being produced in societies with central government right now and very little is being done about it.
There's a difference between very little and nothing. In pretty much every libertarian model I know of, if a bunch of child porn producers band together to make the child porn production center, nothing would stop them. The socialist libertarian movement relies heavily on local community action, but that falls apart quickly when the community is, say, a cult.
Centralized gov doesn't have 100% of a solution here, obviously, but it has a lot more power to act, criminalize, and/or force treatment.
In a stateless, moneyless society there would be no incentive for slave labor and I think that would largely/entirely disappear.
I disagree. So long as there's a need for labor, slavery is going to be a possibility. Some jobs suck and in a moneyless society figuring out a way to incentivize someone to take that job will be tough.
There's more than a few examples of slavery in non-capitalist societies.
There hasn’t been a lot of research into what causes pedophilia or how to treat it in a way that would reduce/eliminate people acting on those urges.
Yes, there has. Just because there's not sure fire solutions to it doesn't mean it's not widely researched. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the best treatments for pedophilia is talk therapy? It doesn't eliminate the urges but it lowers the risk of injuring a child. The problem is, like other mental illnesses, we don't have cures only long term care to reduce harm.
Putting that aside, covering a philosophical flaw with "Maybe someday research will solve this" is sort of like saying for capitalism "Maybe someday replicators will solve this".
Poverty is strongly linked to sexual violence of all kinds and the abolition of poverty would surely have a big part to play in the reduction of many things, including child sexual abuse. A society formed around the ideals of libertarian socialism present a real opportunity to end the cycle of abuse and that would certainly play a role in reducing child sexual exploitation.
A doesn't follow B. There's no evidence that libertarian socialism would eliminate poverty. And, in fact, I'd argue that while it may solve poverty in some regions it would exacerbate it in others. One of the benefits of a global economy is that we can take advantages of the growing season in one world region vs another. Libertarian socialism imagines a world of isolated islands which is entirely counter productive general efficiencies with the production of goods.
Think about it this way, You can grow oranges in California. You cannot grow oranges in Alaska. In a world where libertarian socialism has taken hold, how would an Alaskan community survive and thrive? On the charity of other communities? What happens when one community sees that "Hey, I could send my aid to alaska, but if I send it to Florida they have some delicious gator meat and maybe they'll be willing to send me more"... opps, just reinvented capitalism.
One of the strengths (and weaknesses) of capitalism is the global marketplace it creates. Localizing with libertarianism presents the same problems faced by rural communities in the old west. If you can't grow it, you do without it.
There are certainly benefits to libertarian socialism, it allows for very fast actions at the local level. But there's a major downside in that without an overarching government getting every community to play nice with one another is basically impossible. In a lib social world you couldn't stop the an-cap dingbats from creating their feudalistic hellscape.
This comes to another fundamental issue with libertariansim of all flavors. They all envision of world where everyone has the same ideology. That world doesn't and will never exist.
There's a difference between very little and nothing. In pretty much every libertarian model I know of, if a bunch of child porn producers band together to make the child porn production center, nothing would stop them. The socialist libertarian movement relies heavily on local community action, but that falls apart quickly when the community is, say, a cult.
Acknowledging that I don't have a crystal ball and can't say with 100% certainty that an anarchist society would be able to eliminate child porn is a weak point? There is a difference between very little and nothing, but compared to the current state of affairs, very little is extremely better.
Jeffrey Epstein, I really feel that I shouldnt have to say more than just that name but I will. Child porn producers, along with human traffickers and other associated enterprises band together RIGHT NOW to do that. There are plenty of examples out there of the people in power being the very ones that consume or participate in these practices. There is no incentive for those with the most authority in our current societies to put an end to child porn, human trafficking, or the material conditions that are known to exacerbate these things. Centralized governments are the status quo and they fail miserably at combatting this time and again. Every day that child porn gets produced and humans are trafficked is more proof that centralized governments are incapable of handling this.
If there are people who consciously decided to eliminate systems of heirarchy and domination on a national scale, then there are enough of them to act on human trafficking and child pornography. A society built on libertarian ideals would detest the institution of child pornography and act to see it's elimination. Killing child pornographers that would fight to continue producing child pornography is not a controversial or complicated idea. Identify the group, get rid of it. If they won't stop voluntarily, kill them. That's direct action and community defense. Cornerstones of libertarian ideology. I'm not going to get into the cult bit, that's an entirely different conversation.
I disagree. So long as there's a need for labor, slavery is going to be a possibility. Some jobs suck and in a moneyless society figuring out a way to incentivize someone to take that job will be tough.
I disagree with that. I point you to David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs for most of my point. People want meaningful work. It's treated as a privilege in and of itself in our current society. If you cut out all the bullshit and evenly distribute the labor necessary to keep society functioning among those who are willing and able to work, people will work a lot less than they are now and they'll be happy to do it.
There's more than a few examples of slavery in non-capitalist societies.
I'm not advocating for just any non-caoitalist society. I'm advocating for libertarian socialism, anarchism more specifically. It is an ideological school of thought that is opposed to heirarchy and systems of domination. Why would a society that abolished the state on those grounds seek to dominate others through slavery? We have real world examples here. The CNT-FAI, EZLN, and Rojava didn't/don't use slave labor.
Yes, there has. Just because there's not sure fire solutions to it doesn't mean it's not widely researched. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the best treatments for pedophilia is talk therapy? It doesn't eliminate the urges but it lowers the risk of injuring a child. The problem is, like other mental illnesses, we don't have cures only long term care to reduce harm.
That was lazy writing on my part. Yes, there has been research done and some treatments have been developed. I was speaking more in a curative sense. Sure, pedophilia, like depression, schizophrenia, or ADHD may not be curable. But a radical change in environment and material conditions of those affected by pedophilia would go a long way to reducing the instances of people acting on those urges. Paired with further research and development of existing techniques would go even further and potentially eliminate pedophilia. I'm not a psychologist, therapist, etc. and I won't indulge in too much speculation about this because I don't have the answers. But treating pedophilia like a public health risk would be a more useful framework than the one we are currently working under. This isn't pedophile apologia either, people can and have done horrible things because of pedophilia, but our current approach is obviously insufficient.
Putting that aside, covering a philosophical flaw with "Maybe someday research will solve this" is sort of like saying for capitalism "Maybe someday replicators will solve this".
I agree, but I don't think our current model is working and I don't have specific propositions to aid this. But I believe a libertarian society would be better equipped to handle it than our current system.
A doesn't follow B. There's no evidence that libertarian socialism would eliminate poverty. And, in fact, I'd argue that while it may solve poverty in some regions it would exacerbate it in others. One of the benefits of a global economy is that we can take advantages of the growing season in one world region vs another. Libertarian socialism imagines a world of isolated islands which is entirely counter productive general efficiencies with the production of goods.
Mutual aid is another cornerstone of libertarian ideology. Utilizing planned economies, the internet and current logistical supply chains we could eliminate poverty and scarcity right now. Shifting the focus to making sure everyone is housed, fed and healthy over what's the most profitable is all that's needed. Libertarian socialism isn't about isolation, it about building a self reliant community, sure. But there's no reason to think people in a libertarian society wouldn't help out or cooperate with their neighbors, be it down the road, or 1000 miles away. I point you to democratic confederalism and anarcho-syndicalism for ideas on large scale solutions to organization and logistics in libertarian society.
Think about it this way, You can grow oranges in California. You cannot grow oranges in Alaska. In a world where libertarian socialism has taken hold, how would an Alaskan community survive and thrive? On the charity of other communities? What happens when one community sees that "Hey, I could send my aid to alaska, but if I send it to Florida they have some delicious gator meat and maybe they'll be willing to send me more"... opps, just reinvented capitalism.
You're just rehashing the myth that bartering happens in lieu of currency. This has been debunked throughly from every angle and I won't waste my time going through something that is easily googled.
There are certainly benefits to libertarian socialism, it allows for very fast actions at the local level. But there's a major downside in that without an overarching government getting every community to play nice with one another is basically impossible. In a lib social world you couldn't stop the an-cap dingbats from creating their feudalistic hellscape.
I'm not saying everyone has to play nice together, or pretending that that's what will happen. Sometimes people fight. But in a large area founded on the principles of libertarian socialism, why wouldn't people want to cooperate? Isn't that why they went through the whole trouble of doing a revolution for? In a libertarian socialist world, who would want to live in an ancap society? Free association and self determination are other cornerstones of the ideology. And who, seeing people trying to create and ancap hellscape, would sit idly by and allow them to dominate and oppress others? Not only is it wrong for that system to exist, it's a systemic threat to those around them.
This comes to another fundamental issue with libertariansim of all flavors. They all envision of world where everyone has the same ideology. That world doesn't and will never exist.
I'm not envisioning a world where everyone has the same ideology. Libertarian socialists embrace the complexity and nuance of the human experience. They want a world where everyone is able to explore and exercise their personal freedoms to the greatest extent possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others abilities to do the same.
Killing child pornographers that would fight to continue producing child pornography is not a controversial or complicated idea. Identify the group, get rid of it. If they won’t stop voluntarily, kill them. That’s direct action and community defense. Cornerstones of libertarian ideology.
First, by what authority can a libertarian society kill another? Should there be some sort of trial? Or do you propose we just ride and kill anyone we deem undesirable? And where's the line? Certainly it's pretty easy to argue that child porn producers and slavers might qualify but what of others? How do you deal with the majority falling into fascism and deciding "You know what, the Catholics are a plague on society and we should eliminate them."
I’m not going to get into the cult bit, that’s an entirely different conversation.
You should, because cults are very real things that would thrive under most libertarian models. They also show a real big problem, with unchecked power it's pretty easy to seriously abuse societies members. Even when they technically have the freedom to leave. What happens if we remove all checks to cults? Do we decide to kill them too when the decide not to continue?
Perhaps some facets of libertarianism are really fucked up?
Slavery and child porn are debated by libertarians because the only way to address both is centralized government. However, since most (though not all) libertarians are opposed to any central government, they end up justifying with "well if you want to sell yourself as a slave, why should anyone stop you?".
But yeah, obviously it's us that are aware of this who are the fucked up ones.
Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong, given the lack of liberty that slaves have. And the fact you can use a government to ensure nobody gets enslaved demonstrates the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
The maximum amount of personal liberty does not come from zero government. It comes from having enough government to prevent people from enslaving other people.
Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong
Libertarians are VERY individualistic (shocker) which means no 2 libertarians define libertarianism the same way.
HOWEVER, you literally just have to search for "slavery libertarian" in the google box to find all sorts of fairly high profile libertarians arguing about how slavery can actually be a good thing that we should allow.
For example, from Walter Block: http://www.kspjournals.org/index.php/JEST/article/view/346
You didn’t read the article you linked. In it Walter Block states that slavery violates the non-aggression-principle and is not permissible under libertarianism.
Let us now double down. Previously (Block 2005; 2013) wrote that slavery, in the absence of violence, compulsion, NAP violation was ―not so bad.‖ That was a poor choice of words. It was an inaccurate understatement. The truth of the matter is that under these conditions ―slavery‖ would be a positive good. There, I said it. I will say it again: ―Slavery‖ would be a positive good, under these conditions. Make of that what you will, New York Times and other enemies of freedom and logic. But note that when I assert that ―slavery‖ would be a benefit, two things occurred. First, I placed quote marks (―‖) around the word ―slavery‖ and second I mentioned that under these conditions it would be beneficial. I did not say, and I entirely reject the notion that slavery as actually practiced was anything other than a disgrace, a stark horrid evil. It is my view that the movies ―Django Unchained,‖ ―Twelve Years a Slave,‖ and the television series ―Roots‖ are roughly accurate depictions of this monstrous practice
The only slavery I can think of without compulsion would be some kind of BDSM relationship, so he’s technically correct it’s no problem in that scenario.
Aside from any kind of roleplay, slavery involves compulsion. Slavery without compulsion is like an apple without fruit.
This is not at all a debate in libertarianism. Libertarians recognize the role of a limited small government to protect individual rights. Like please pull up one example of this debate going on in a libertarian space.
Libertarians don’t believe murder should be legal and crazy shit like that. Libertarians believe in a guaranteed freedoms like freedom of speech, economic liberalism and are often social progressives who believe in gay marriage and drug legalization.
The bill of rights was brought to you by libertarians.
I'm curious what the downvotes are for... Are they saying there's no helping them or even the thought of helping them is bad?
Of literally all the kinds of people in the world with all the kinds of mental issues they could have, I've never seen more vicious hatred of a group than pedophiles. Not to defend them, but it could be as simple as having a sexual attraction but literally never acting on it, yet still I see "kill them, drag them by their genitals, let dogs eat them alive and pee on them" etc... that kind of absolute dehumanizing hatred. Even the sociopaths that are literally destroying the world get by with less violent hatred.
Again, not defending pedophiles, I just think that if it's an issue of mental help then they should be helped, not hunted.
The implication of sexual attraction being a mental health issue is fraught.
Before you let someone drag you down that slope it's important include consent. Someone underage can't consent to you dipping your balls in their mouth. Same for peanut butter and your pet.
Folks like to conflate pedo and by extension homo and trans as a mental health issue. Then they try to make an argument about how a trans teen can't consent to gender care because they're underage. As if fucking a kid is the same as a kid saying they need help.
The "pedo and mental health" comment smells like this kind of bait. It doesn't look exactly like a Nazi, but it kinda smells like one.
I definitely understand what you're saying, but there have to be people who find children attractive but don't act on it so consent isn't really the issue there, but we still have the problem of how society sees those people and the possibility of the mental anguish those people must feel. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be "the worst human trash in the history of the world" while also not behaving in that way. :(
I guess it's more of a "them" problem as they aren't acting on their attractions, maybe society shouldn't be involved in that one? I don't know... It just bothers me when I see that kind of hatred when there's no way 100% of pedophiles actually act on their attractions.
Quick reminder of the thread so far.
Dark humor shitpost about liberts and idf saying 12 yr olds aren't kids.
Mild honest defense of libertarianism that either misunderstood or is gleefully playing straight in a shit post about dead kids.
A dog whistle about pedo healthcare.
Your thoughtful question.
Me honestly answering it with a dash of pissposting.
You asking about the hypothetical ideal innocent pedo and now I'm wondering if you're shitposting too and I fell for it.
No definitely not shit posting lol sorry if it seemed that way.
I didn't want to really reveal anything, but this is a personal thing as I know someone who is in this situation. And no I'm not reporting them, that's not only a literal death sentence for them but I've known this person long enough to know they'd never hurt anyone. They opened up about seeing pictures when we were drunk a long time ago and so it bothers me when I see the hatred because I think of my friend so I'm just getting a feel for what people think.
This is a textbook case of ideological reasoning.
Instead of reasoning that X is true or false based on evidence that it’s true or false, one reasons that X must be false because if it were true it might encourage thinking Y, where Y is unacceptable.
Literally the definition of ideologically-motivated reasoning.
I like that we're getting into debate and philosophy in a shitpost.
There's this idea that valuable discourse only belongs at universities and in lofty state office. I say it's here in the shit that we're shaping tomorrow's culture.
I'm classifing pedophilia as a mental illness yes but transexuality and homosexuality is of course not. When I stated pedophillia I meant the sole attraction to children alone not actions that's immoral and a crime. I want pedophiles to be able to address this early on and be able to seek treatment.
Also, what does my comment have to do with nazism at all? I am lib-left. "Smells like one"? For suggesting pedophiles should get mental help? Forgive me but is this a serious accusation or a joke that went past my head entirely?
Yeah, you gotta take some risks. There's no magical fix to bad shit. We just do our best and try to do better.
Very nice of you to link that, I don't see how this disproves my opinion, as murder is still mentioned on multiple occasions
"assassination" is the crime against humanity, although pretty sure it's "only just" a war crime. Although when not carried out by a govt agent, since we're talking a hypothetical libertarian society and solution, IDK if 8t can be called that.
Why do you believe that killing (or whatever we call it) a slaver is either a crime against humanity or a war crime?
I mean, if libertarians didn't openly discuss the age of consent and the differences between pedophilia and ephebephilia, maybe people wouldn't think they're all a bunch of pedos.
