/liberty/ - Liberty

Gold, Property Rights, and Physical Removal

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8001

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

CAPTCHA
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

SHOOT GUNS, EAT BURGERS, BE RACIST! IT'S AMERICA DAY!

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Anonymous 09/11/2021 (Sat) 19:35:01 Id: cf8a5e No. 4612
What are your thoughts on evictionism? It's a proposal to solve the abortion debate from a libertarian perspective. It basically goes like this: since you are the owner of yourself, and you have full autonomy over your property, a woman has full autonomy over her body. Just like how you have the right to evict anyone you don't like out of your house for whatever reason, a woman has the right to evict her baby from her body whenever she wants to for whatever reason. In other words, the act of evicting a fetus itself doesn't violate the NAP, so it shouldn't be illegal to do so. But of course, we all know what happens to a fetus after it gets aborted, it dies. That's the part where you could argue, although the first act doesn't violate the NAP, the second one does, so you could say it still violates the NAP. The problem with that logic, however, is that that would be like saying that kicking out someone out of your property because they haven't paid their rent, and they end up dying of hyperthermia on the streets a few days afterwords, then that means you broke the NAP because your first action resulted in that person dying. I'm sure most people here would agree that you didn't break the NAP just for kicking that person out, even if they did end up dying afterwards. Either way, evictionism tries to solve this by saying we should be looking into ways to save a fetus after it gets aborted. Currently, it isn't possible for a woman who evicts her fetus to give that fetus to another woman who wants it, but if it were possible, it would basically be the equivalent of the fetus being evicted from its previous home and moving in to a new home.
Abortions shouldn't be a woman's choice alone since the kid is only half hers. Much like an eviction, there are notices, in this case, to the father. Only if both parents want to kill their child should the death be allowed. Children are property Their parents property first, and so the nap doesn't apply to them. I've never heard of evictionism, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems
>>4618 >the father You can't store your property inside my house without my permission.
>>4620 >You can't store your property inside my house without my permission. Say you invited me over after a long trip and told me to relax and put my stuff down, take it easy. Some time after a night of drinking and good times, I have to go to work. We both say good by and I leave and that I should come back sometime. Would you have the right to throw out all my stuff on the street while I'm gone? Not even notifying me that you're going to do that?
>>4621 >I should come back sometime. >Would you have the right to throw out all my stuff on the street while I'm gone? Yes, if we don't have a storage agreement. >put my stuff down You leave your cum in a vagina with intention to get it back later? >Not even notifying me that you're going to do that? OK, you can have a fetus if you pay an abortion bill.
evictionism is libertarian autism. It's good autism, but it can never be law. The real question is when life begins. We don't know and we cannot know. For me, it's obvious that God would not put a soul into a rock or a pen or anything that cannot experience life, so it wouldn't make sense to put a soul into an embryo. A fetus there is already a good chance God has put a soul into it. Am I a faggot for using God and the concept of soul to determine when life begins? Probably. But since this answer cannot be found, it will be up to the local societies to decide how to manage the abortion issue. If there was a right answer for everything, I don't think we could be free.
>>4637 >If there was a right answer for everything, I don't think we could be free. Indeed. Personally, I approach abortion like I approach assisted dying -- that is, if a person truly wants their earthly life to end due to some prolonged, hellish suffering, they should be allowed to find someone to help them. However, since an embryo or fetus cannot communicate such consent, it should not generally aborted. I would probably make an exception in cases where the fetus would likely be born in debilitating pain or generally awful quality of life, but that's still a grey area to some extent.
>>4638 >it should not generally aborted Fug, I retarted.
>>4635 Doesn't the very action of sex imply these things? An abortion isn't an exactly an eviction ether. If you had a computer in house that you needed to remove, theres a difference between unplugging it and ripping the cord. Part of being something is the condition its in, but abortion doesn't just remove the fetus, it changes it. >>4637 >it will be up to the local societies to decide There are no local societies, every individual is the law of what they own. The nap ultimately only applies to the owners of things or themselves, a fetus is nether.
>>4640 >There are no local societies, every individual is the law of what they own I mean that a society could refuse to trade with people who performs abortions forcing them to move.
Tyranny didn't work out too well for the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Cambodia so why are Americans embracing it?
>>4884 Reject Democracy return to Monarchy
If liberty will continue to exist, it's up to us to spread freedom. Patriots must be absolutely obsessive about telling people about freedom now. The globalists want to kill you.
My opinion is that you cannot morally evict a person if A) They could not survive the process of eviction and B) They are not responsible for their being on your property. There's also the additional idea which some people might feel is relevant that C) it will eventually be possible to evict them in a way that they could survive. At that point it's just a matter of to what extent the fetus is a person.
The ruling class controls the US by paying off and giving 24/7 media coverage to the corrupt Nazi and Communist presidential candidates and ignoring the 3rd party candidates. The 1% then rigs the elections by hacking electronic voting machines and dumping fake ballots at the voting stations. The elites ensure that the new president obeys the globalists by using blackmail and Deep State threats.
Kinda on the topic tho: can anyone explain me the departurism? which is supposed to be another Libertarian view on abortion contrary to evictionism? always tried to understand it but for some reason I still don't understand on what it differs from evictionism. and also, anyone that thinks it would be better than evictionism?
If Pakistan said that every American must pay Pakistan income taxes, no one would obey the law, but you would still be a criminal. Americans must have this thinking about US laws and taxes now. The USA government is not a democracy and is not legitimate. Americans are bootlicking retards. If toothpicks were mandated or outlawed, Americans would say that the law makes sense. Americans are quick to blame China, Muslims, illegal immigrants, or negros for the US collapse, but Americans never blame their beloved government overlords. Americans don't know history, cannot see hypocrisy and don't understand unintended consequences. Americans think that freedom doesn't benefit them and think that they are exempt from the police state. Americans have never heard of "1984", gulags, concentration camps, Pinochet, Idi Amin, or the killing fields.
(46.78 KB 500x663 lt3j80iykix81.jpg)

This is Ron Paul's opinion on abortion. Thoughts?
>>5326 Just a thought: human life is not that important
The reason the US was successful is because Americans believed in freedom. By ignoring history and supporting tyranny, Americans have joined the dark side. Why did the USA fight Nazis to become Nazis? Why did the USA fight Commies to become Commies? If tyranny is wonderful then why do people try to escape from North Korea? Tyranny failed in the USSR, Germany, and Cambodia so why are Americans embracing it? Those who are defending tyranny are selling chains and failure. Americans say that they love freedom, but when the elites push debt, wars, and the police state, Americans agree with the 1% that the USA needs more debt, war, and tyranny. Insanity.
>>5330 The nazis didnt fail. They revitalized the economy, kicked out the banking cartel, reunified the German people wo were scattered, and restorted their sense of pride after years of persecution. Then they built up the greatest war machine Europe had ever seen, seemingly from nothing, and with only the poorest of allies they had managed to hold off the attacks of the entire rest of the world, which the international bankers had thrown at them. The facts are that nazi germany was a huge success, and all the people who it had "victimized" were the people who had up till then been the victrimizers of Germany and it's people. Even then, the alleged "mistreatment" that the Jews, Gypsies, Slavics, Homophiles, and Disabled had all suffered were grossly exaggerated, misrepresented, and wholly manufactured, to the point that the lion's share of whatever most people have heard was pure fiction, sustained only by the hearsay of shifty jews with a communist bias or fame-seeking bent that causes them to straight up make shit up. Never do we hear the far more common testimony of those honest jews who reported no genocide attempts at the camps or who actively deny the claims that the germans were carrying out genocidal activities in those camps. It's strange that the death camps in the west were disqualified as having been death camps, and redefined as internment camps once they were investigated by forensic scientists. Yet the ones in the east, behind the iron curtain, were only investigated by the USSR, who were known to say anything in order to get an edge on the world, they knew that the myth of the holocaust could keep them and their ideology going for a century (and it has, see cultural marxism). Keep in mind that at the time most people living in the west during the cold war had thought the USSR was prosperous and free, a good contender for the USA. In fact, they were deprived and totalitarian, solely because the soviets were lying their asses of to the rest of the world about what was happening in their country. What is the criticism of the nazis, then? that removing the international bankers from power over your economy and doing state central banking sets the world against you? Well no fucking duh it does, we all know this pattern, when you end the fed, the rest of the world, with countries still being run by the cabal, will all be set against you. Hitler did the smart move and begun his preparations for war immediately, knowing that the German diaspora would be endangered once this happens, he did what he could to get as many of them protected under the reichsflag as he could before the hostilities inevitably broke out. If he wanted to kill the Jews, Gypsies, Slavics, Homos, and Disabled, he'd have just sent them to prison and had them shot or hanged, insteasd, he dealt with the threat they potentially posed towards his people by sending them away, to internment camps, were they couldn't act as spies, saboteurs, or assassins. Hitler knew there were comminists among them, terrorists and agents, who had caused all manner of deat and destruction throughout Germany for years before He took power, yet he aso knew from his more positive experiences with these people, notably his past with jews who had shown him kindness and hospitality, that there were also good people among these groups as well, and so his plan was to put them at arm's length, or send them away from the country. His plan wasn't to kill them. Did people die at the camps? yes, a whole lot of them had died. But most of them weren't killed, those who tried to escape were killed, of course, they were internment camps after all. But most who died in the camps hadn't died of being shot, tey died of disease, they died of starvation, they died of exposure to the elements. But they weren't killed by being shot or gassed (at least until the soviets arrived and "liberated" the camp's prisoner population, so that they could blame the Germans for shooting them to death, even among the victims who were shot in those camps, most were shot with Soviet rifle bullets, not with the bullets of German weapons). The things that killed almost all of the camp prisoners who had died was the very same thing that was killing the Germans in the cities: disease, famine, exposure. The Nazis had a free market economy, they had an armed populace, they had all sorts of things that existed in a free society, were they completely free? no, but neither was America at the time, or anyone else involved in the war. But they were one of the freer nations involved in the second world war. Simply being of the international central banking scheme and having their own economy was enough to set them far ahead of those who had not. So, what was your problem with the NSDAP?
The analogy is this: You offer to bring a kid into your home, you tell them you're a good person and you'll take care of them and raise them right. You get the joy of having a child and having your life changed forever. The kid has many such offers from different people but they choose your offer. You've now formed a contract with the kid. He has lost the opportunity to accept many other such offers in favor of yours. If you kick the kid out onto the street that's a breach of contract and if your breach of contract necessarily results in the kid's death then you're liable for his death. By choosing to become pregnant you have accept the contract with that kid. If you're going to abort the kid you're breaching the contract resulting in his death. That kid could have been born to a less sadistic couple of parents but he relied on your offer. Abortion is premeditated murder in any reasonable libertarian perspective.
>>5364 To restate, abortion isn't legal eviction. It's hiring goons to break into your renter's apartment, throw him out on the street in the freezing cold completely naked, and change the locks so he can never get back in to even get a jacket. And doing this after the 3rd month in violation of a 9 month lease which the renter is current on. You can't evict someone if they have a valid lease to your property.
>>5365 Abortion is a distraction.
>>5367 Fucking this. The whole Roe v Wade shitshow is just to distract us from the controlled demolition of the economy.
Americans increase the debt and then scream inflation only exists because of foreign countries.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply