The worst thing about libs is their definition of consent

Yeah.

It's not great.

Almost as bad as their obsession with the material.

Money buys happiness rite?

😂

not always

but it can

depends why you're sad

>excuse me sir, but this 6 year old boy have explicitly stated that he doesn't mind, I've got it on paper
>it's not slavery! my workers consensually agreed to work twelve hours a day without health insurance and safety restrictions for a bowful of rice a day

<:ancap:402195844218093570>

again

if they agree to it

then yeah

😏

im not an ancap

I dontbelieve in slavery

No it's not!slavery(tm) if you pay them just above the minimum for slavery.

Based, I also think that there's no such a think as economic violence

Fractions of the dollar.

Well, Congolese did agree to the conditions of Belgians
The fact that they had guns pointed at their faces doesn't change a thing

Sounds like consent to me.

Gunboat diplomacy is always on the menu as long as you don't use your guns.

Just blockade the port. You're not doing anything, just sitting in the water.

Enjoying your freedom to line up all of your navy around the coast, cutting people off from supplies.

It's not wrong though, you're just standing.

And it's definitely not a blockade.

>hey, they have a choice, then can choose to starve

Yeah just grow food lmao

i they're being thretened by guns than it is *in fact* a violation of the NAP

Nope.

They're gunboats.

That aren't doing anything.

Just sitting there.

Yeah, but if they are threatned by starvation it's not a violation of NAP

And I'm not even talking about the gunboat scenario

Sieges aren't an NAP violation because all you've done is line people up *just* outside of the other parties' property limits.

Just a hair outside, so it's not a violation.

That's how libertarian economy works - you can choose to live in poverty or choose not to live at all

^

It's an exploit or be exploited world.