Tyb
Kek
Suave
Buying and selling human beings is the anti-thesis of the axiom of capitalism which is absolute individual rights FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS.
The whole libertarian program of 'free markets should include buying and selling fetuses and babies' doctrine is ADMITTEDLY based on needing to view fetuses NOT as people, but as 'parasites'. Walter Block tried to square the circle by defining people as 'parasites', his own words.
Not every ideology is or should be COMPLETE.
The radical anarchistic libertarians who try to construct a 'complete' libertarian program, are expected to output inconsistencies such as defining people as people and as defining people as not people but as parasites.
Except what you are calling 'state rights' is not a positive right or positive program at all, but a NEGATION of the rights of human beings are born with.
To 'extend' a negation of rights from the state to the people, is literally to eradicate the rights the people by permitting everyone to negate the 'born with' rights of everyone else.
You don't defeat evil by universalizing it.
>We live in reality.
You could have ended your post with
"do what thou wilt"
and it would have been more transparent.
Some 'thoughts' OUGHT NOT 'become reality', because then the mind would seek an infinity that the body can't cash.
>So requiring women to give birth to and raise children they don't want
It's NOT requiring taxpayers and NOT requiring any law enforcement and NOT requiring any 'external' compulsion to kill fetuses and babies.
>shitty life
>unwanted
>poorly cared for
It's interesting that the LOUDEST intellectuals who talk about INCENTIVES, which in a state enforced mass abortion/fetus harvesting INCENTIVIZES 'unwanted pregnancies', suddenly contradict themselves and pretend that there are no incentives related to unprotected sex for a couple who 'don't wants the outcome that results.
It's like there is this mental block where the very problem they say happens when LINEARLY extrapolating events from a 'hampered economy' to a 'free market economy', is completely contradicted where suddenly all the mass harvesting of babies IN A HAMPERED reproductive society will somehow remain elevated and all the millions and millions of aborted children will all have otherwise been conceived in a free society.
The problem of 'unwanted babies' skyrocketed AFTER "Roe vs Wade", because everyone was conditioned into believing that unprotected sex has no responsibility, that PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT CHILDREN AT TIME T=0 will still have irresponsible sex because they can just abort the fetus for the benefit of what we now know is a satanic cult of baby traffickers.
>transferring responsibility
Did you know that there was a time when ALL cases of 'unwanted babies' were taken care of VOLUNTARILY by churches, and orphanages, because the INCENTIVES were so against irresponsible sex that voluntarism could accommodate and absorb all newly born human beings?
You pro killing ideologues need to learn the history that a satanic cult corrupted narrative has distracted and blinded you from seeing.
>So it's fine for […..] but not the slaves?
What slaves? The context was a free society, no slaves.
You can't argue against a context by denying the context itself.
Calling this a rigged vote.
You're committing to many what seem like "I don't give a fuck" logical fallacies, so consider our correspondence finished.
Without a benchmark of consistency, there is no possibility for 'synthesis', which I suspect is your intention all along.
You can reply and post if you want, this is my last post to you.
Unions should be legal because inherently they are voluntary organizations.
There only needs to be a RECIPROCAL legality that employees of any company are not REQUIRED to join a union or pay a union. I.e. "Right to work"
On the other hand, Unions combined with pro-Union legislation, is a destructive combination, for then it divides every income earner from each other, and unions will push for higher wage rates to PRICE OUT competition willing to work for a better price.
Carlin had too many pro-nihilism jokes.
His 'role' was to demoralize the public.
Anon guessing he was a clown asset.
The politically connected 'scientists' like Fauci ARE THEMSELVES 'HUNTERS'.
>That kind of defeats the whole purpose of the union
The economic purpose of unions is to raise wage rates above what otherwise would occur, thus pricing out (making unemployed) non-union workers.
I knew it, the vote was rigged.
>there is no god
prove the universe is such that a single source code of it all, I,e. God, is impossible, thanks.
And do so without using red text, thanks. It's bad manners.
Nice satanic inversion of scripture.
"God does not exist = I want to be God"
>We are all equal.
Actually we're all a little different from each other. We're not ants. We are all extensions from the same unified One Source of it all.
>Your notion of God and "His will" is not superior to others.
Which is itself a logic that THAT 'notion' right there is superior to the 'notion' you falsely project onto Anon, thus contradicting its own logic of no superiority anywhere.
How can there be no superiority in a logical invocation of it?
You may have a voice circulating in your head that there is a 'superiority [there] and inferiority [here]' but BOTH 'sides' of that dialectic are sourced from within you.
Anon does not put Anon as 'above' any other. That's Anon's actual belief, along side your projections.
>So maybe stop being a "Your God Supremacist" unless you think YOU are God or something.
You're all but declaring one side of your own dialectic to be ruler over not just the other 'side' of your psychology, but over Anon as well.
Ultimately Anon does not require to prove anything to anyone, Anon trusts in God as the benchmark, and Anon admits to being INCOMPLETE.