/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

c65f49e0a53431d333eec67cdb028e6cd3da9128fcd6b9fdb781fc9ed6688497.png
[Hide] (49.8KB, 400x400)

>>1102 (OP) 
>Should non-humans have full NAP rights?
No. Animals can have rights when they ask for them.

>Should non-whites have full NAP rights?
All humans are capable of reason even if some are better at it than others.

>Should non-males have full NAP rights?
Still yes.

>Should non-adults have full NAP rights?
Still yes.

>Where do we draw the line at who or what our laws should protect the personal autonomy and property rights of?
All humans regardless of age and race and sex.

>Where do.we draw the line of distinction between who or what should be legally considered as people, or property?
Your body is your property (self ownership). All other property is created by mixing one's labor with an unowned natural resources (homesteading). The only way to transfer ownership of existing property is through voluntary trade (I suck your dick you give me shekels). Most libertarians would argue that things like thoughts and electrons and bytes cannot be claimed as property (i.e. there is no such thing as "intellectual property").

>>1102 (OP) 
OP has been spamming threads for this entire past year about his weird interpretation of libertarianism. He also posted about imperialism being good. He's the 'faschizo'

>>1104
 Non-adults should have FULL NAP rights?
Like babies being able to work?

>>1108
How would you have a country unless you take land and defend it? right now there isnt much unclaimed land around.

>>1109
Imperialism isn't libertarian.

>>1109
>How would you have a country unless you take land and defend it? right now there isnt much unclaimed land around.
You're broken, man.

>>1109
>Non-adults should have FULL NAP rights?
>Like babies being able to work?
What do you think the non-aggression principle is? Of course you can't punch children and steal their stuff just because they're not adults.

"Able to work"? the real question is who are you stop them doing what they want to do with their bodies.

>How would you have a country unless you take land and defend it?
Most people already have land or the ability to buy some in a voluntary free market trade the problem is getting the government to fuck off and leave you alone.

>right now there isnt much unclaimed land around
You can't just "claim" land. For something natural to become your property you need to transform it in some way with your labor (homesteading). Most of what the government considers their property does not legitimately belong to them in a natural rights sense.

>>1108
Just because historyfriend is a fascist and a schizo and a tranny doesn't mean we don't love him.