After all, you need a mechanism to ensure that a socialist power doesn't rise and abolish those property rights

Law and Order is required.

And putting *muh* before something is not a valid argument.

**muh valid arguments**

the valid argument was above that dweeb

😂

Anarchy is not a friend to the libertarian concept of freedom

The state is

guys what is your favorite type of cheese

for example I love swiss cheese

dick cheese

@Swiss Cheese Stop attempting to derail the argument

I dip money in cheese

and smoke cheese

**like every normal swiss**

rights only exist in your mind and are gay af

fite me

@allhailthebowl. So maintaing a balance between law and order and freedom is a abstract idea?

the first one is less abstract

I think freedom is over simplified.

Maybe they are only in our minds. It is in fact a fake construct in everyone's mind. There is nothing that gives one man any right to rule over another man except the willingness to be ruled. However does that mean that it's a bad thing for society?

The social order I view as ideal has hierarchy. Men have authority over their wives, parents over their children. In some sense the children have restrictions placed on their freedom to choose, same for wives

Well I guess it depends on what we determine what is good and bad for society

Yet, this model gives the parents rights that I view as vital, namely the right to raise their children as they see fit

To deprive them of that right is far more unjust than depriving a child of the right to sex or drugs

The abstractions don't translate over into biological success, so I don't really gaf about them

Am I truely *free* if I have to spend all of my time defending what I have from would be theives or keeping my family safe from would be rapists/murderers?

Who cares if you are free?

Why is this something I am supposed to care about

Maybe you don't. That's your freedom to feel that way. Lol

Well speaking of biological success, I think group dynamics, social norms, and civilizations have their own Darwinian survival of the fittest

why does anyone

Because the opposite of that is enslavement. When has that ever been a good thing?

Civilizations have been creating dysgenic populations since their inception

primivitism>civilization in terms of genetics

The orders which persist are one's that constrain degeneracy, dysfunction, and the excesses of female nature

Again Fury, you are just appealing to some abstraction. Give me something tanglible

They impose rules on the populace, kill rule breakers, and deter future rule breaking. This has a eugenic effect

Letting inferior people live is not eugenic. That is what cities do

agriculture is dysgenic

^

I'm not sure your understanding. Do you desire to be happy and healthy @allhailthebowl?