right I knew there would be people with a gut negative reaction having something to do with "social contract", i just can't seem to get any coherent reasoning on the problem here

I've gotten a lot of positive feedback though, so I'm not sure if they just can't mount a reasonable attack on this or what

Well, it's because libertarians don't have good arguments against the social contract beyond "I did not sign it reeee"

and it's not like I disagree with that argument, of course there should be a signed contract. for a government like the US, it was intended to be voluntary and contractual, and this idea of birthright citizenship is a huge mistake in the implementation, we need to correct it

but on the other hand, these whiney, victim-mentality arguments that you're being subjected to things against your will, are totally BS. you *can* still opt out, you are totally free to do that at any time by renouncing your citizenship. I really don't want to hear you whine about how "taxation is theft"

I'm led to believe that renouncing US citizenship is itself a pretty lengthy and expensive legal process, which seems ironic. But it may in fact be the case that you actually can't opt out of the contract as it exists today.

it shouldn't be lengthy or expensive, that's another flaw with our current system

As far as the border argument, I haven't read yours yet, but it seems to me that the open-border argument is usually advocating for freedom of movement as a fundamental right (or something similar) but I think that also clashes with the idea of owning land and property rights and how those rights play out on the larger scale.

And now I see you already included that in your blog, literally the first quote.

I think you've made a pretty solid argument. If I were going to try and refute it, I'd probably go after something you already brought up where you've consented to be part of a system that in turn creates a law you consider unjust. Would I have to literally take my land and secede from the country to resolve that disagreement?

Would the country continue to recognize my right to that land in such a case?

@BeefSupreme just become an ISIL bride

Boom

Problem solved

@C1PHER that would be a legitimate option if it came down to it. ideally it's something that could be worked out through the system. and yes a rights-respecting limited government would have to recognize the right of any citizen to opt out, for any state to secede, and for their rights to be respected so long as they aren't some kind of aggressive threat to its citizens

Not sure how that would play out if my property is surrounded by the state

Yeah, being land-locked sounds like a pain.

Hopefully I'm not strawmanning, but I get the feeling that most pro-immigration folks aren't exactly offering up their own personal property for the cause. So this line of thinking might be lost on them.

Yeah a lot of people don't even really have personal property, which is another problem I see with that system

I feel like a strict property rights system would have worked better back when people could go West and stake out a plot of land for themselves, I'm not really sure what you do with people living in an apartment in NYC in terms of voluntary participation in a state

you conscript them

another related point here...

"libertarianism" = "liberty"-ism

"liberty" is not radical autonomy, it's freedom from force, it's respect for individual rights.

People need to stop talking about "moral libertarianism", what you're thinking of is "moral anarchism".

Some people fear Stalin. Some fear hitler. But I have seen the devil, and I have looked her in the eye. She didn't weild a sickle and a hammer, nor had a swatistza adoring her arm. No, instead she had a potbelly, a buzzcut, and a pair tit of tits forty years removed from a bra. Behold, Gloria Steinem, the destroyer of worlds.

How are libertarians opposed to a social contract? Isn't that exactly what their beloved NAP is?

I think social contract as in forming larger communities where certain ideals are upheld, which would technically include Libertarians and one of their ideals would be the NAP, but it's not a church or a country so I guess it's okay in the objectivist book

That makes sense. The problem isn't that it's a social contract, it's that it isn't opt-in.

I’ve been correctly labelled as both a libertarian and an objectivist before, and I really don’t know what you lot are on about.
The NAP? It’s a nice idea.
Not some item of faith.
Social contracts are very real, and we trade in the every time we communicate

So apparently shits heating up between Pakistan and India. Mobilizing military along the Line of Control of former Kashmir.

Next wave of “refugees” incoming...

Well they both have nukes so that's a cause for some concern

I'm going to link a video Sargon just did a video on, and it doesn't matter how many stupid people in the comments are... (so so many). It doesn't matter that stupid people like Peter Coffin and Three Arrows shows up to agree with this trash video..
Can someone tell me, how a person, with a functional brain (hopefully) types this,

"While I don't think that Mario games have very strong messages about culture, it is certainly fair to analyze them critically. It is true that Peach is a totally underdeveloped character. She exists to be captured by force and then to be saved by Mario. I don't think that this can really be contested.

The criticism of this is to say that Mario games are a male power fantasy fulfilled by violence against a female character."

Someone kill me....
https://youtu.be/aKaiq1rnSMw (this is a link to the comment from the video, if you want to see it in full)

Okay so this guy starts off by saying he's not an anita beta fan boy then flat out says he's an anita fan boy

2 several dev teams have come forward and flat out said she is a toxic individual IRL including the folks on the Anthem team and her view of the world demonized an overwhelming majority of the gaming community

I looked at most of what people talked about in that comment post.... I need someone to shoot me.....

all Mario related characters are underdeveloped not just peach
when you think about it what do we really know about Mario?
he's a portly Italian American from Brooklyn who is pretty cheerful

not sure where he's getting the violence against a female character though, Peach is not tortured or attacked only abducted and that was by the villain it's clearly set as morally wrong
the SJW argument in these cases always seems to be that there can be no representation of anything deemed immoral at least in regards to women in fiction, they can't be hit, kidnapped or hurt lest the players relate to the villain

what the? the video has been removed on grounds of hate speech?

Hah, that's funny. Even tho it shouldn't have been.....

it says in my country is it just for me or everyone?

I'm in the US, and its also gone for me.