libertarianism
About us
An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.
- Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
- Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
- In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
- If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
- Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.
Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.
Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism
Rules
1. Stay on topic
We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.
2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.
Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.
3. Stay constructive and informational
In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!
4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.
This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report
view the rest of the comments
There's nothing trollish, undereducated or blind about opposing the idea of "cutting some slack" to the most twisted and dangerous elements that is trying to invade the society.
On the other hand, an attempt to compare gays/women to pedophiles certainly does warrant raising a brow.
If you're planning to continue with apples & oranges tactic, you may as well stop now - I won't waste time on manipulations that are meant to support pedophilia apologetics.
Fuuuuck, what am I doing here. Again, I really am not trying to defend pedophilia, but your stance is just based on being pedantic and arrogant.
"The most evil." Right. If you think someone having pedophile tendencies is the most evil someone can be or do....... you know nothing about the world.
Good discussion, though. I wouldn't want to be friends with a pedophile, much less being in their shoes. But adults fucking dolls, you know, those made out of plastic and rubber, shouldn't be regulated by people like you.
Im feeling disgusting defending this as well, but need to remember that working to avoid harm and critically analyzing two sides means thinking through the eyes of the other party. Im just happy ours is a philosophical discussion.
To counter the other person, whats more evil - fucking a kid or a small sex doll dressed as one? If my wife pulled out her old high-school uniform and fucked me its perfectly ok, but when she got it at 15 it wouldn't be. Fucking a sex doll is ok, but its illegal if they pretend its underage (pretty sure no one keeps one around for 18 years). The arguement is literally do we allow someone to fuck a piece of silicon that resembles a kid in their own home where we would have no idea and couldn't stop them anyway, or just tell them to "hold it in" until they find another way?
Where is this illegal? And if it's not illegal everywhere, then do the places in which they make it illegal have real, universal merit to do so?
Of all your arguments, this is the most puzzling all things considered. So, if you fuck a doll of a middle-aged woman that was made 4 years ago, are you committing a crime because the doll is technically 4 years old?
Sorry to first one, typo. Should have been a question, not a statement.
The point with the last is that silicon isn't a person - you can't say "this one is ok but this one isnt".
Ah, sorry. We don't disagree, then.
If someone fucks a fleshlight, some religious people might see it as immoral, but in the end, they're just fucking an object.
Give the fleshlight the shape of a doll, and then the same people who didn't have a problem before, all of a sudden they do. Why? I surely don't want my fleshlights to look like kids, but I won't judge anybody who do - and never harms actual kids in any way.
(Can companies make sex dolls that look like Margot Robbie already, please?)
Id like one that looks like a cardio bunny... especially if they can spot me as well. Double bonus.
Y'all seem to have reached an impasse here in the realm of pure morality, so lets try something a little more grounded (and surely less controversial!) Political application. I won't even slippery slope, I promise.
Lets suppose your favored political party has gained power (however briefly) and is able to push through legislation banning the consumption of any media depicting an immature person in a sexual context, regardless of whether it involved an actual child.
What would enforcement look like? You can't simply follow the traffickers or CPS reports, as criminals could simply create the media for themselves on a private harddrive (say by drawing a picture or writing erotica) so law enforcement would need some way to investigate any citizen's home and private spaces for potential contraband.
Do you think that there is a government currently on this planet clear enough of corrupted elements to avoid abusing this power to target their own political enemies?
Good way to move to a more productive area of discussion, but sounds like they just want to block you.
You're asking me to solve a problem definitely well above my AND your paygrade and you know it. I can provide a few solutions, but they will be neither easy, nor to everyone's liking. There's also problem of the diversity of the world - what works for one US' state, won't for their neighbor. What may be accepted by one European country, won't be by their neighbors.
I see no merit in such a discussion, it's a waste of time.
The question as stated in OP is, in contrast, very straightforward and I'm happy to provide my opinion. Which I did, and am glad to defend.