Is it ethic to let my children starve so I'll have more money to smoke crack?

From the Ethics of Liberty, by MN Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

Like I said, he's talking about rights, not ethics

Just suck dick for crack. Sex is a perfectly valid form of currency.

no, he should prostitute his children to get the money for the crack rock

But they won't have the experience to suck a dick proper.

Speak for yourself, Gaylord. Go tell /pol/ that Jews are white. You're the one pushing an agenda. No one knows what the fuck Jews are.

No one on /pol/ even knows what the fuck whites are.

There will never be a time when it is right to ban civilian ownership of a wide variety of firearms. There will never be an event so tragic that it is right to infringe on the rights of others. A million could perish before the barrel of a gun and those who seek in light of tragedy to ban guns would be in the eternal wrong. Any other country, perhaps the case would be different. But as long as the rights of man to bear arms is enshrined in the foundation of this country, in action and record, there will never be a time when it is wrong to bear arms and proudly. Gun rights are being infringed upon in America today. It does not matter how many die. It is irrelevant. Those who built this country rebelled and bore arms against their parent government. The men of their country defended themselves against those who sought to do them wrong. That is the essence of America. We are independent. We are resilient. Let the record show that men alive today still believe that, even as our enemies taunt us with the deaths of their countrymen. We know what is happening. It is irrelevant.

lol

Half of /pol/ isn't even white. Your average commie community is literally more white than /pol/.

this

train them

I don't like Thomas Sowell, but he's right here. The best thing about ideas is they don't need to work to survive.

I had never seen Sowell talking about Rothbard. What does he think of Austrian Economics and Anarcho-capitalism?

He wasn't talking about Rothbard, he was just speaking about people positing ideas and theories in academia.

Considering how much he defended the Bush administration, I don't think he'd be an ancap.

I guess that's one of the reasons I consider Anarcho-capitalism a left wing ideology.

>Is it ethic to let my children starve so I'll have more money to smoke crack?
it's as ethical to do that as it is to ostracize anyone who does it from society until they die

Well I mean, people love to talk about ancap idealogy, but it's never actually been practiced, so it still fits

>Is it ethic
Do you mean ethical?

>Well I mean, people love to talk about ancap idealogy, but it's never actually been practiced, so it still fits
jacobitemag.com/2017/08/04/why-liechtenstein-works-self-determination-and-market-governance/

Liechtenstein has a government.

You don't understand Ancap. It doesn't mean no government. It means no state. A state being a government with a monopoly on government. A state doesn't allow unhappy citizens to secede, or just directly vote out what makes them unhappy.

>> 3500729
> but has never been practiced, so it still fits
In fact, it did. Anarchy is a method, and its record of failure is as great as the record of socialism. Most anarchists (all currents) cannot understand that the State is inevitable. Destroying it won't prevent it to form again. Even fucking Mises, who they worship so much knew that.

Read the speech, user.

Liechtenstein also has a state that collects taxes

The law ain't voluntary, they still have a State working there, with the monopoly of the legitimate usage of the force.

>a population of only 38,000
You could steamroll that with a single division over the course of tea time.

Supposing it's true, its an argument against ancap.

With the word, FA Hayek:
youtube.com/watch?v=m3hSA35ygeo

You still don't understand.
A what is meant by "state" would be a government that will go against the interests of its citizens, if only to keep itself together. What I, myself, want is a government that will allow parts to secede. Why is that, you ask? Because it makes it capitalistic. If the government cannot keep itself together through force, it has to do it through other ways. For example, by keeping the people happy. By being a good government. By making the most out of the taxes. And, yes, there would be taxes. And laws. And if people refused to pay taxes, or broke laws, they would be punished, as long as they were citizens of the government. However, they could, very easily, stop being citizens. They would no longer need to follow the laws of the government, or pay taxes, though that comes with the price of no longer being able to reap the benefits of being a citizen. The police force, for example. Or the roads.
Now, they would still have to be a majority of the people in a certain area, an area that could, conceivably, be independent.
Also, if those people then went back into the land of the government, and broke its laws, they would still be punished.
So?

What do you mean so? Have you no sense of adventure? No love of plunder?

Please give me more questions. I don't think enough Ancap criticizers really understand it very well.
Also, just read the speech I linked.

> If the government cannot keep itself together through force, it has to do it through other ways. For example, by keeping the people happy. By being a good government. By making the most out of the taxes.

That's minarchism, not anarchism.

That's literally not anarchism then

I did read it. I don't agree, because ancap philosophy is the exact opposite of what I want in the world which is the return of empires.

> And if people refused to pay taxes, or broke laws, they would be punished, as long as they were citizens of the government. However, they could, very easily, stop being citizens

So, you want the people to secede from the government, just like US did with UK, right? That's still no anarchism. Mises and Rand talked about that before Rothbard was even born, and they found his ideas of a "anarcho-capitalism" to be retarded.

Not every country needs to be big. And I don't believe that such a system could only exist in a very small country.
I think that my brand kind of falls into both, though I don't use the word Ancap much, since it leads to misunderstandings. People hear the word "Anarchy," and they dismiss it.
It is Anarchy in the sense of no state.

Once again, I clarify that Ancap is a bad name.
And, no, I don't just mean the US. Right now, it is not at all what I want. And it, itself, doesn't allow secession.

>Not every country needs to be big. And I don't believe that such a system could only exist in a very small country.
Not that guy, but look at the video I posted here

state = monopoly on legitimate violence
there is a monopoly on legitimate violence in liechtenstein, therefore there is a state
your special definitions don't hold sway to anyone else

>Not every country needs to be big.

But a powerful one does.

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (Mises, Liberalism, pp. 109–10)

Is tha

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (Mises, Liberalism, pp. 109–10)

Is that what you want?

That is the ideal, yes.
Not every country needs to be powerful.
State is the word chosen to define the type of government that I have defined. However, many recognize the word as meaning something else. So, let's make a new term, let's say it's a mostate, meaning a state that will do all it can to keep itself alive, even if the citizens do not want to be a part of it. Most countries in the world, now, are mostates.

Either you consider Mises an anarchist (and knowing how much he hated anarchism that would be fun) or you're a classical liberal with a more radical approach like him

>Not every country needs to be powerful.

Of course not, it makes empire-building rather difficult.

>Not every country needs to be powerful.
Not him. Yes, that's correct, but weaker countries are also more vulnerable. A stateless country could be easily conquered, or a new power could emerge and create a new State.

The problem is the gold standard is a shitty currency system as still requires 3rd parties to hold the gold for you.

If Mises was alive today he'd be a cryto currency freak as you can literally move that shit anywhere in the world without a third party or government getting involved..

Yeah, that's all I really am, but I consider myself to also be an Ancap, since I want no mostate, to make governments more capitalistic.

It's a thing that literally only works today due to things like the UN guaranteeing sovereignty. It used to be that if a nation was weak then it was practically begging to get conquered.

90% of ancaps seem to be retarded ivory tower theorists. Most of them loathe communism, but they don't realize that they're making the same mistake communists do - they advocate for a system that would only work if humans miraculously became smarter and more altruistic on average. Actually ancaps are probably even more retarded on this issue than commies, since at least some commies believe in state communism - which, while it doesn't work well, at least does work well enough to not immediately collapse.
I have yet to see even a single good argument for why in an ancap society, a state wouldn't rapidly reform.

Where do you think the appropriate line is between legal and illegal weapons? Do you think private nukes are ok?

I'm saving up for my McNuke using my Shit Coins.

>Do you think private nukes are ok?
Are nukes "arms?"
Then yes, they are okay.

If the government can own them, then the people should be able to own them too.

>the government is doing something wrong, therefore people can do it too!

Get out.

If owning guns and nukes is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Nothing wrong about owning a gun or two, but you're retarded if you think it's ok to have you're own nuke.

...

Look. In the future people will have 3D printers that can make chemicals weapons which they will load up on drones to spray people that violate their NAP.

Like VX, Anthrax, and that shit that makes your skin fall off.

You’re not going to magically get rid of nukes, they’re here to stay. Might as well put some of them in the people’s hands to even the odds.

What is the difference if it only used for self-defense purposes?

>What is the difference if it only used for self-defense purposes?
>if
That's a big if. The fact is, some percentage of the population are sociopaths who WOULD use a private nuke to blow up a city for fun. I have no doubt of that.
I sometimes think about that. It does seem that one way or another, powerful weapons technology will continue to proliferate. We might be in for some interesting times.

It is ethical, but not moral according to Rothbard.

No. Nukes go far beyond the parameter of an individual's responsibility. An average infantry soldier has no access to them, which I would contend is the standard model which the 2nd amendment dictates. Nukes aren't a weapon of defense, they are a last resort which no country truly wishes to provoke.

>support for Communism
Another one that ignores everything Economic Science has developed for the last 130 years.

>The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon.

(...) Marxists (...) hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx.

This Rothbard guy wrote almost three thousand pages about Economic History, and it was only a tiny part of what his work was supposed to be (gladly he died at only 69).
I don't think he read Adam Smith, Marx, the physiocrats or anything about history of the economic thought though.

You're point?

No, I'm Patrick.

Good goy

'White' is a skincolor not a race.

Why is anarchism even a thing? How can you be so stupid you thinl that everyone will just get along of you get rid of the government?

>An average infantry soldier has no access to them, which I would contend is the standard model which the 2nd amendment dictates.

I must have missed the part of the 2nd Amendment that says that, you might as well argue that it only allows muskets.

>Are nukes "arms?"

Yes.

It's just Jews wanting lower taxes. Look at all the names: Rothbard, Kirzner, Mises, etc.

>How can you be so stupid you thinl that everyone will just get along of you get rid of the government?
Government didn't prevent people from killing each other and anarchism does not indend to be perfect.
However , I agree that Anarchism is a retarded idea that only people who don't know a shit about economics endorse.

Little children yes, as they are not yet ration beings

So, if my dad has Alzheimer I can kill him? He's incapable of reasoning.

first ask yourself, what is the profit in that?

According to Praxeology (which most of ancaps see as the only reasonable method) I don't need to have a reason.

Humans are too complex and the possibility of the action is enough.