I did mention extremist propaganda, and I should note that I expect fags to be made to comply with bans against extramarital relations like everyone else.
As for predatory monetary practices, I do mean shit like lootboxes and camhoes, and I also oppose the overpricing of software.
You're being just as intellectually dishonest as a communist here. What you appear to want isn't actually libertarianism, and if you wanted libertarianism then you would have to acknowledge the LIBERTY of others to do stuff YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Libertarianism is a solipsistic ideology. It does NOT care about the health of the community AT ALL because the needs of the community is subordinate to the rights of the individual.
IS THAT A PROBLEM? Sure. It's why libertarianism fails.
What you seem to want is HEINLEINISM.
Which is fine. But don't call it libertarianism, cuz it's not.
Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
In distinct contrast, a society in which the right to exclusion is fully
restored to owners of private property would be profoundly unegalitarian, intolerant, and discriminatory. There would be little or no "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one
would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and
exclusion implied in the institution of private property, if only towns and
villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until
well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. There
would be signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and, once
in town, requirements for entering specific pieces of property (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users,
Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus), and those who did not meet these
entrance requirements would be kicked out as trespassers. Almost instantly, cultural and moral normalcy would reassert itself.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
I did mention extremist propaganda, and I should note that I expect fags to be made to comply with bans against extramarital relations like everyone else.
As for predatory monetary practices, I do mean shit like lootboxes and camhoes, and I also oppose the overpricing of software.
Then it's not libertarianism.
You're being just as intellectually dishonest as a communist here. What you appear to want isn't actually libertarianism, and if you wanted libertarianism then you would have to acknowledge the LIBERTY of others to do stuff YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Libertarianism is a solipsistic ideology. It does NOT care about the health of the community AT ALL because the needs of the community is subordinate to the rights of the individual.
IS THAT A PROBLEM? Sure. It's why libertarianism fails.
What you seem to want is HEINLEINISM.
Which is fine. But don't call it libertarianism, cuz it's not.
Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
Hoppe called himself a libertarian. That's not the same as being one.
The guy spent 25 years growing up in German before coming over to the United States and beginning to talk about liberty. I'm going to stand with his actual libertarian critics and question whether he really understood the concept.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?