[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.11617

File: 1669062571198.jpg (35.13 KB, 767x512, 767:512, EDXN24YDTNHTFMTYOEYL6AXGPM.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/21/oregon-sheriff-gun-restrictions-measure-114-gun-reform-law-control-high-capacity-magazine/

What should one make of the idea of individual sheriffs in different American locations refusing to enforce city law, county law, state law, or national law? What about law enforcement more generally acting like this? How does this relate to gun politics?

Personally, I view this as equally moral and equally immoral at the same time. This trend is rarely seen in action. What if it spreads?

Many sheriffs and other types will feel motivated by higher principles to make choices such as refusing to enforce hate crime laws and tolerating violence against minority groups that they disdain. Maybe they'll shut down public demonstrations despite free speech law and its guarantees for the same reasons. Maybe they'll work to ban certain books and video games similarly. Other actions will be claimed on behalf of freedom that involve defending 'good people' from 'bad people' (such as the claimed freedom of religious individuals to live cleanly amidst sinners and their liberties to protect their children from sinners).

At the same time, however, other sheriffs will act against the law to actively defend individuals from the government. This case appears to be such a thing to me. A law-abiding citizen should be able to buy, own, and sell a standard magazine. Big brother should not be watching. I've read other cases that also seem to genuinely involve law enforcement flouting the law to support actual freedom such as refusing to enforce anti-drug rules.

Am I being too pessimistic? Too optimistic? Is it unethical for me to so casually argue that gun control laws not be enforced just because I find them stupid? Maybe?

 No.11628

File: 1669271580418.jpeg (37.02 KB, 500x500, 1:1, FgjxNn-XwAEh6bU.jpeg) ImgOps Google

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." *Norton v. Shelby County* (1886)

In so far as the purported laws offend the Second Amendment, they are null and void.  

 No.11629

>>11628
I doubt that any significant fraction of the people calling upon this have any clue on what constitutional means.

It becomes "If I disagree with a law I am allowed to ignore it. Some dead guy said so."

 No.11630

>>11628
I'm inclined to agree. Yes.

Pardon me for feeling saucy, but I'll post-script a little rant too:

I often wish this ethical principle could apply to the entire Constution and all of its underlying legal convictions rather than only narrowly to the Second Amendment and even then only even more specifically to certain uses of the right to be bear arms.

A sheriff ideally has exactly the same right to take away your guns as he or she does to take away your marriage, your books, your mail, your video games, your contraception, your wallet, your car, your apartment, your magazines, your greenery, your religious faith, your healthcare, your cellphone, your foodstuffs,  and whatever else you need that you wish to manage as you see fit in whatever socially disfavored way: none. No right at all. Period.

I don't believe in anarchy, but this country would probably be a massively better place if the size, scope, and power of the government was, say, halved.

That only the Second Amendment seems to matter and only then for certain people bothers me a great deal in terms of this whole debate, since if Big Brother is free to, say, use civil asset forfeiture to steal your house and more but feeble attempts are made to maybe, kinda, not-really, etc defend your firearms that's not a victory.

 No.11631

>>11630
The 2nd Amendment is perhaps the most simple and easily understood right, I'd say is why.

Regardless; for such things as civil assets, you forget that they have a direct financial incentive to violate your rights in those instances.
Same for first amendment matters, really, as they are of course government enforcers, and so get the brunt of redressed grievances and accountability by the public.

 No.11633

>>11631
The extreme selectivity and moral myopia in which something like say a homeless war veteran being murdered by the police out of nothing than supposedly bothering the officers... and nobody cares, least of all libertarians, least of all the news media... yet a proposed measure to restrict AR-15s or such gets 24/7 coverage and a freakout by libertarians that commands every social media site... it horrifies me.

This obsessive selectivity of utterly divorcing gun rights from all other Constutional rights and even then proceeding to only care about gun rights in narrow circumstances (so, Orwellian flip-flops banning on 'bump stocks' and such are A-OK, apparently, to libertarians and others) makes America falling into an actual tyranny look way the hell easier than it should be.

It's as if your next door neighbor saw a tank literally rolling over your house and going into your driveway before turning, him idly playing video games on his phone the whole time, and he then cried waterfall tears about his mailbox being smashed and screamed his lungs out.

 No.11634

>>11633
People generally care about things that are codified into law more than things that are (supposedly anyway) mistakes.
People also ultimately care more about things that will affect them, personally, over events that happened in places they've never been miles away.

It's just the 'child in Africa' argument anyway.
I could just as easily point to the outrage, protests, and turmoil at the Supreme Court abortion decision by those on the left, and then their lack of reaction to, say, the ongoing shootings and violence in Chicago.

>so, Orwellian flip-flops banning on 'bump stocks' and such are A-OK, apparently, to libertarians and others
I've no idea what you mean about this.
Do you mean they were okay with the ban on bump stocks?

I've not seen nor heard from any libertarians I've known any flipflop on that. Though it's admittedly not one that needs a 2A argument so much.  "Its stupid and will do nothing", really is the main one I encountered.

>It's as if your next door neighbor saw a tank literally rolling over your house and going into your driveway before turning, him idly playing video games on his phone the whole time, and he then cried waterfall tears about his mailbox being smashed and screamed his lungs out.
People will naturally care more about what happens to them, yes.
This is basic nature of all humans, left, right, authoritarian, or anarchist.

They may well say that the initial item is wrong, but ultimately, there's going to be greater emotion to what happened to them that gave them direct personal experience.
I certainly don't consider this wrong in any way. It's a product more than anything of the way we perceive.

 No.11635

>>11634
It would be nice at least if the people that we're talking about stopped lying, and thus if everyone was honest. When America has an openly tyrannical government and fascism takes over completely (seems clearly more like a matter of 'when' versus 'if' given the trends of the past two decades), the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime. And all of those many years of claimed promises of supporting freedom, liberty, property, rights, and so on will flow through your hand like the empty grains of sand that they always were. Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you. Everybody else can rot.

Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked. Which suited those activists fine, and that was that. Selective liberty being liberty that's good enough.

I really don't think that this is human nature. I'd actually argue the opposite that humans are inherently born good, free, and equal. To be empathetic, ethical, and intelligent. I personally view moral myopia and blind statism as a consequence of decades of programming, basically brainwashing, to get America to either not care about each other or actively detest each other. It could be unlearned. I really think.

 No.11636

>>11635
>the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime.
It's certainly a possibility that many will be too afraid to act, and others will support the regime through thick or thin.
But I don't know who you mean by 'should complain the most' or 'fight the most' to judge there.
Certainly the image it creates in my mind would be quite likely to resist, and certainly not be supportive.

>Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you
You misunderstood quite significantly.
People are well able to regard events that haven't happened to them as bad.
There is significant distinction between not regarding something as bad, and not caring about it as much as something that directly affects you.
You've conflated the two together in error. They are quite assuredly not the same.

>Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked.
I certainly do not know that. I've not seen anything at all to suggest that was the case.
Though I would rather obviously regard restrictions to all but 'the type the state likes' to be quite impermissive besides.

Every nation in the world regardless of how strict otherwise they are on firearms has such exceptions for those who work closely with them and pay a significant amount to the right politicians.
I'd hardly consider the UK, as an example, to have libertarian-esque gun rights, because some can lick the boot and pay enough to get the state's approval.

>I personally view moral myopia and blind statism as a consequence of decades of programming, basically brainwashing, to get America to either not care about each other or actively detest each other.
Then I would say simply you are not well versed in history or its atrocities.

I will agree that the modern man has a thin grasp on morality, which is a more natural state.
Though it seems to me that this is a consequence of perpetual undermining of that through claimed empathy, more than not, besides.
Arguments that 'good' is not universal, so it is wrong to judge, have lead to liars and cheats finding little backlash.
Whereas such behavior when it mattered for baser man would result in such ostracization as to leave one completely cut out from society.

 No.11663

>>11636
It all really does boil down to the fact that libertarians in America and gun rights people more broadly seem to have done the least to promote liberty and oppose statism lately. And it all honestly looks so bad that I can imagine betting money that if a dictatorship comes to America it will be the gun rights people and libertarians broadly who actively support the state, demonizing those who resist. We certainly have seen this mindset when it comes to, say, the government banning interracial and LGBT marriage not only silence from most in those groups but active support for state coercion of personal freedom. The passionate, seething hatred for Black Lives Matter and unconditional backing of the police in essentially all disputes involving cops versus ordinary citizens speaks volumes too. Even specifically with firearms ownership, the fact that the 'wrong' type of American (such as, say, a transgender man) gets alienating contempt from standard gun rights activists whether libertarian or not is pretty sickening.

I wish I didn't so feel cynical. But I remain so from keeping my eyes and ears open. A government that's big enough to squash you like a bug is never going to inherently be your friend no matter how sincerely and happily you value how they support your gun rights (your own, not necessarily everybody's, because you're special) while lowering taxes and making pollution easier. And otherwise checking the right boxes. They're still not having your best interests at heart. I really think.

 No.11666

File: 1670556748075.jpg (58.87 KB, 920x623, 920:623, open-carry.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11663
>It all really does boil down to the fact that libertarians in America and gun rights people more broadly seem to have done the least to promote liberty and oppose statism lately.
According to what?
I'd certainly disagree with that notion.
In fact, it seems recent lawsuit victories have renewed significant rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
FPC's been doing some pretty amazing work in that regard.

>And it all honestly looks so bad that I can imagine betting money that if a dictatorship comes to America it will be the gun rights people and libertarians broadly who actively support the state, demonizing those who resist
I'd doubt that very much.
I've certainly seen no evidence of any kind to suggest such a thing.

>We certainly have seen this mindset when it comes to, say, the government banning interracial and LGBT marriage not only silence from most in those groups but active support for state coercion of personal freedom.
The consistent argument I've run in to is that the stae shouldn't be involved in marriage by libertarians.
So I flatly do not believe you.

Also... Isn't this an issue from, like, 2009? If even that.
Certainly the interracial aspect is, like, 1940s or whatever.
Who even cares at this point? It's decades old at this point.  
I can't say I've run in to anyone at all who's talked about gay marriage in forever.
Let alone libertarians, and let alone interracial.

>The passionate, seething hatred for Black Lives Matter
Consequence of destroying the livelihoods of innocent people.
It's unfortunate, but it's the expected outcome, when the primary target of ire seems to be people who've caused no harm.

> and unconditional backing of the police in essentially all disputes involving cops versus ordinary citizens speaks volumes too
Decidedly untrue. Again, no idea where you're getting that.

> Even specifically with firearms ownership, the fact that the 'wrong' type of American (such as, say, a transgender man) gets alienating contempt from standard gun rights activists whether libertarian or not is pretty sickening.
Flat out and unequivocally false.
This is a far-left presuposition, yes. But one flatly false on every frame.
The people who tell you this, I will be exceptionally blunt, are liars.
Do not buy in to such dishonest scum without some basic research. Doing so will net you plenty showing the exact dead opposite, and it's not a particularly hard one to research either.

 No.11667

File: 1670565807472.jpeg (391.75 KB, 1372x1754, 686:877, FitOs-fUUAAkM8n.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>11663
>The passionate, seething hatred for Black Lives Matter
It makes sense for someone who believes that black lives matter to have a seething hatred of the group/movement named "Black Lives Matter" given that it has noticeably increased the homicide rate and motor-vehicle death rate of blacks.  The race riots were quite counterproductive.

 No.11668

>>11666
>>11667
Quite a lot of denialism and silly nonsense to work through here.

Frankly, no, after oceans of seething hatred against LGBT people, disabled people, non-Christians, non-whites, and others by U.S. gun owners that's been dumped on me and others for years personally... I'm not going to buy the empty talking points of them being some kind of 'vanguard for liberty'.

One point does stand out a lot, still.

Is there one single human right or civil right that you types support and will defend for the vulnerable and weak against state power that does NOT involve guns?

The right to vote? To health care? To marry? To freely excerise your religious beliefs? To publicly organize? To have sex without prudes peeking in and telling you what to do? To a free press? Anything like that?

To be honest, if you're 100% behind Big Brother stomping on my face for eternity with the one extremely convenient theoretical exception that you might consider (and, again, this is solely just an intellectual consideration) letting me be armed if I was actually able to do that... I find it genuinely laughable that you're going to pretend to be a friend or ally of mine in any sense and pose as supporting my human rights and civil rights.

Where have you types been in any of the major efforts to help people against coercive oppression in the past multiple decades whether being against gay marriage bans, abortion bans, book bans, interracial marriage bans, contraception bans, video game bans, bathroom bans, restrictions preventing voting, restrictions preventing free religious exercise, and all the rest?

Why does none of the Constution matter other than the Second Amendment?

It all still shocks me. Even after years. Really.

 No.11670

File: 1670596268253.jpg (65.92 KB, 800x698, 400:349, many-lum-laisins.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11668
>Frankly, no, after oceans of seething hatred ... by U.S. gun owners that's been dumped on me and others for years personally... I'm not going to buy the empty talking points of them being some kind of 'vanguard for liberty'.
Huh?  Gun owners don't constitute a monolithic bloc.  There are lots of different people who own guns.

>Is there one single human right or civil right that you types support and will defend for the vulnerable and weak against state power that does NOT involve guns?
I dunno what you mean by "you types".  But as for me personally, the answer is yes.

>The right to vote? To health care? To marry? To freely excerise your religious beliefs? To publicly organize? To have sex without prudes peeking in and telling you what to do? To a free press?
Yes to all of the above.  (But the right to health care doesn't include the right to force other people to pay for it.)

 No.11671

>>11668
>Quite a lot of denialism and silly nonsense to work through here.
Because you've insisted things that are observable untrue.

Shall I just declare all leftists corrupt communist pedophiles, demonize my enemies and insist anyone who calls me out is engaged in "denialism and silly nonsense"?

It seems extraordinarily unproductive.

 No.11672

>>11668
>Frankly, no, after oceans of seething hatred against LGBT people, disabled people, non-Christians, non-whites, and others by U.S. gun owners that's been dumped on me and others for years personally...
I'm sorry to hear about your ancidotal experience.
I've met nobody in the gun community who opposes gun ownership of anyone, regardless of sexuality or race.

Though perhaps this is an issue of our definitions of "hate".

>Is there one single human right or civil right that you types support and will defend for the vulnerable and weak against state power that does NOT involve guns?
Sure.
Freedom of speech, for instance.

>The right to vote? To health care? To marry?
These are not rights.
They do not exist without institutions.
Thus calling them natural rights is antithetical to the concept, as such rights are preceeding states.
>To freely excerise your religious beliefs? To publicly organize?
Sure.
Those exist without states.
>To have sex without prudes peeking in and telling you what to do?
You've got to create your own privacy, and ultimately, they've the same right to freedom of speech as you.
If they're trespassing, by all means, but that's not really to do with having sex.

>To be honest, if you're 100% behind Big Brother stomping on my face for eternity
Nobody's suggested anything of the sort.
You're just ignoring what we're writing, at this point, for the sake of your own prejudice.

>. I find it genuinely laughable that you're going to pretend to be a friend or ally of mine in any sense and pose as supporting my human rights and civil rights.
That's a you problem.

I find it exceptionally irritating you refuse to engage with what we've stated as express and universal principles, instead preferring to make things up about me that I've certainly never suggested nor have any interest in.

>Where have you types been in any of the major efforts to help people against coercive oppression in the past multiple decades whether being against gay marriage bans, abortion bans, book bans, interracial marriage bans, contraception bans, video game bans, bathroom bans, restrictions preventing voting, restrictions preventing free religious exercise, and all the rest?
Same place as always, saying the state is an immoral institution, and rights must be respected.

Your hostility is unbecoming.
You spit in the face of anyone who does not 100% agree with you on every single thing, fight side by side with you on every single thing, and you're shocked you feel alone.

Stop making assumptions without any basis and you might well find you're in good company.

>Why does none of the Constution matter other than the Second Amendment?
You're the only one who thinks it doesn't.

Maybe if you engaged honestly and openly with people instead of insisting they're the devil, you'd see that.

 No.11673

File: 1670607117141.jpg (34.55 KB, 601x482, 601:482, WK1mpDe.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11672
>>The right to vote? To health care? To marry?
>These are not rights.
>They do not exist without institutions.
>Thus calling them natural rights is antithetical to the concept, as such rights are preceeding states.

Primitive forms of health care have been practiced even by hunter-gatherers before the formation of states.  I'd say that it's wrong for the state to over-regulate health-care and criminalize medically useful drugs.  When the gov't makes it illegal for you to buy a life-saving medicine, I'd say it violates your right to health-care.  

As for marriage, I think there's a "right to marriage" in the sense that the gov't generally shouldn't be able to arrest and imprison you for marrying the 'wrong' person.  That's the background of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) --- an interracial couple were arrested for living together as a married couple in Virginia after getting married in another state.

 No.11674

File: 1670607729232.jpg (60.71 KB, 718x600, 359:300, FZLCcJYWAAYbZNt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Acting like this hasn't always been how LEOs operate is silly.

Selective enforcement is a staple of so many ethics courses that LEOs undergo.

Fuck the state, arm yourself, train, and help people find out if they fuck around.

 No.11675

>>11673
>Primitive forms of health care have been practiced even by hunter-gatherers
The ability to procure and practice health care does not equate to the right to it.

You can procure and learn to use a unicycle.
You don't have a right to unicycling.

But ultimately I do agree with your point; There is, I would argue, a right to own the property involved in Healthcare.
So I guess, it's a bit of semantics.

>in the sense that the gov't generally shouldn't be able to arrest and imprison you for marrying the 'wrong' person.  
Yeah. Like I said, the state shouldn't be involved in it at all.
It's down to a freedom of religion thing, really.

 No.11676

I suppose if you have an Orwellian redefinition of terms such as "civil rights" and "human rights" so that a Big Brother government putting you in jail for, say, refusing to make a mandatory public prayer... or refusing to let the state stop you from treating a medical patient... or refusing to let the state stop you from voting... all of those things the right-wing likes so statism isn't against "rights". Yes, it makes sense.

Then, by all means, far-right extremist ideology is soundly supportive of "human rights".

I'd have to ask then really what makes a libertarian different in practical terms than a neo-Nazi given that both individuals think that people outside of their identity group don't deserve freedom. The neo-Nazi might just openly worship the state while the libertarian might demonize the state's opponents as corrupt pedophile feminist communist losers or whatnot who qualify under the redefined concept of 'human rights'. What practically does this distinction mean?

That you types will very, very reluctantly let me and people like me have firearms if we promise not to hurt your feelings too much (such as transgender people whom you think are gross and perverted looking being alongside you at gun ranges) isn't that great of a sell. We also need to live. To be free. To be myself. To be human. To breathe. You know... absolute bare minimum ethics of not being persecuted.

It's kind of astonishing that libertarians are allowed to consider everyone who even slightly disagrees with them as inferior subhuman parasites with there being no possibility of compromise or otherwise engagement. What even is the point of all this? When reality and terms such as "human rights" only have meaning based on what a random sampling of activists today think, encyclopedias be damned? When if you're not right-wing you're automatically evil? Same if you're one of any number of minority groups? Automatically 'the enemy'?

Like I said before, I'm cynical. America is teetering on the brink of becoming a fascist dictstorship. And gun owners are building up stockpiles to protect themselves against Jews, liberals, moderates, transgender people, disabled people, feminists, atheists, and the like. As in the groups who would be the enemy of a tyrannical regime. And every single measure to reduce human rights gets libertarian approval (with the singular exception of some people having guns) while movements for human rights, such as Black Lives Matter, get fought with the advocacy of naked statist power to crush such movements. Ugh.

I don't even particularly like Black Lives Matter that much in a lot of ways. I just have the moral standard that I don't want people to be smashed into pieces by the government with their property rights and everything else taken away just because I don't like them. This applies to all people in all America in all political contexts. Call me a pedophile leftist retard loser, I guess.

 No.11677

>>11676
Huh?  Not sure how any of that relates to other posts on this thread.

>>11676
>I'd have to ask then really what makes a libertarian different in practical terms than a neo-Nazi given that both individuals think that people outside of their identity group don't deserve freedom.
Well, that just false that libertarians think that liberty should be conditional on membership in a particular identity group.

 No.11678

>>11677
I stand by every paragraph. It's just the honest truth. Facts are facts.

As for the second point:

Not being able to get married if you're not cisgender and straight.

Not being able to vote if you're disabled.

Not being able to practice medicine or get it in any reasonable or reliable way because you happen to be living on an Indian Reservation and thus as a tribal person are drowning in state mismanagment.

Not being able to practice your free speech in public if the state perceives your message as a threat due to what group you're in.

Not being able to serve a government job position if you're not cisgender and straight.

Not being able to refuse being a part of mandatory Christian prayers and related services due to your own beliefs being different.

I can go on. It's all identity politics. It's all based on the idea that some groups of human beings are better or worse than others. And it's all wrong. This right-wing ideology of authortiarian conformity from libertarians and others is just wrong.

 No.11680

File: 1670633619876.jpg (211.57 KB, 1080x841, 1080:841, EYqRsRqVAAAxzGn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11676
Who here has suggested you should go to jail for refusing to make a public prayer?

Again, you're arguing with ghosts...

>Then, by all means, far-right extremist ideology is soundly supportive of "human rights".
Why're we being lumped with the far right, exactly?
Is this just the usual fare of "EVERYONE I DISAGREE WITH IS A NAZI!"?
>I'd have to ask then really what makes a libertarian different in practical terms than a neo-Nazi
Oh. I guess it is.

>given that both individuals think that people outside of their identity group don't deserve freedom.
Libertarians don't think that.
You're just making stuff up.

>That you types will very, very reluctantly let me and people like me have firearms if we promise not to hurt your feelings too much
Nobody's ever said this.
I will more than happily personally link you to the 3D printed firearm community, tell you where you can buy an Ender 3 for dirt cheap, and recommend PLA+ as a better-preforming and still just as cheap alternative to the typical lot.

You're projecting this bullshit onto someone who has the stance that machine gun vending machines is a genuinely great idea.

Stop arguing with ghosts.

>It's kind of astonishing that libertarians are allowed to consider everyone who even slightly disagrees with them as inferior subhuman parasites
Considering you're the one who's decided to label people you know nothing about as Neo-Nazis, you really, really do not have a leg to stand on in this one.

You're the one demonizing your enemies.
Nobody here's done that save for you.
We've told you what is actually the case, and you've insisted on some insane boogieman where every libertarian actually wears a KKK hood.

You might be a whole lot less cynical if you treated your fellow humans with an ounce of consideration and empathy, frankly.

 No.11681

File: 1670633646812.jpeg (48.18 KB, 600x694, 300:347, FiutRa-WQAAIi2H.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>11676
>you types
What exactly do you mean by this?  We are individual posters here.  Many of us have unique political views.

>>11678
>Not being able to get married if you're not cisgender and straight.
Note that Contemplative Armadillo specifically said that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.  And I mostly share in that sentiment.

>Not being able to vote if you're disabled.
I don't think that's a mainstream libertarian position at all.

>Not being able to practice medicine or get it in any reasonable or reliable way because you happen to be living on an Indian Reservation
I am not very familiar with issues of tribal sovereignty.

>Not being able to practice your free speech in public if the state perceives your message as a threat due to what group you're in.
Libertarians support freedom of speech for everyone.

>Not being able to refuse being a part of mandatory Christian prayers and related services due to your own beliefs being different.
Libertarians are definitely opposed to state-enforced religious practices.

 No.11682

>>11678
>Not being able to get married if you're not cisgender and straight.
Libertarians do not believe the state should have any involvement in marriage.

>Not being able to vote if you're disabled.
Libertarians are not in favor of states prohibiting individuals from voting.

>Not being able to practice medicine or get it in any reasonable or reliable way because you happen to be living on an Indian Reservation and thus as a tribal person are drowning in state mismanagment.
Libertarians are not in favor of state overreach in either medicare, or the Indian Reservations.

>Not being able to practice your free speech in public if the state perceives your message as a threat due to what group you're in.
Libertarians are not in favor of state censorship.

>Not being able to serve a government job position if you're not cisgender and straight.
Libertarians are not in favor of the state making unfair prejudicial determinations in anything, especially hiring.

>Not being able to refuse being a part of mandatory Christian prayers and related services due to your own beliefs being different.
Libertarians are not in favor of theocratic rule.


>I can go on
You can. But you'd still be flatly, and unacquiviably a liar.

These statements are flatly untrue.
They are lies, plain and simple.
I have no idea why you'd lie so blatantly when such information is genuinely painless to verify as false.
But hey, here we are. People on the internet do weird shit.
You get all kinds of people.

 No.11683

File: 1670634317331.jpg (39.28 KB, 696x392, 87:49, FGC9_WIP_Photo-696x392.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>11678
To drop the pretenses a moment here, since you'll probably just do the usual thing of quoting nobody and speaking past everyone until you get banned again;

I do not give a shit who you are.
I do not give a shit what you believe.
I do not give a shit who you want to fuck.
I do not give a shit what you want to do with your life.
If you're the kind of guy who wants to sit in a cave with a stick up their rear, that's your right as far as I see it.
Same if you want to better the world. You can do that if you want.

Everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation, gets the same rights.
I do not care.

Frankly, I extend that to any sapient. And the day AI gains that aspect, I'll damn well be advocating for them too.

I don't like the shitty mischaracterizations you're throwing at me.
I'm not the demon you depict.
I have never said anything to justify any of this vitriol you're shoving at me.
But beyond that; I hate hypocrites.

Above all else, hypocrites are inexcusable. They fail by their own standards, regardless of mine or anyone else's.
So when you sit here and cry about prejudicial treatment and bigotry, while showing clearly you're more than happy to engage with that same level of bigotry to your fellow man, I find myself with little sympathy for you.
You've treated people who've done nothing to you like shit, insisting they believe things that they've expressly advocated against.
You can't cry for compassion and understanding while demonstrating you have no interest in either, yourself.

 No.11684

>>11617
Police activism?

I generally take that no state owes their subjects/citizens consistency.  But if states did, I would be mostly against police taking the liberty of deciding things without overt consent of the governed.

 No.11686

>>11684
Thinking about it more, I suppose you could assert police need only be loyal to the government when properly in line with the constitution, therefore they have the right to not enforce unconstitutional laws.  Government is only legitimate when appropriately upholding the formational social contract citizens consented to.

But I gather the actual role of the state is to apply correcting force to subjects who might follow such logic toward dissidence.

 No.11694

I feel like the idea that cops can choose which laws to enforce is fundamentally contradictory to the idea that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]