and welcome

;p

Thank you.

ur welcome :)

Any plans later?

Hm, no i dont rlly have any soon :/ except stare at my computer screen for 15 hours

how about you

Kind of similar, but more work related.

oh dang

<:dab:533433336966807572>

that sucks man

I enjoy it.

oh nevermind then

what do you do

I mostly just research things to work with.

thats sounds very fun

<:Ancap_Smiley:538150164800733204>

@Deleted User everything I've heard about them has been good

<:fry:550907996163670017>

I think they use the libertarian label to gain support and independence from the two parties but they didn’t endorse Ron Paul or give him one dime. They also endorsed mitt Romney in 2012 and have given billions of dollars to republican candidates. They’re against a strong border or legalizing drugs. They don’t seem libertarian to me.

That sounds very libertarian to me

Minus the support for Mitt Romney

How do you prevent monopolies in a libertarian society?

You don't. You just do your best to support only large businesses you agree with and maybe try to compete if there's a glaring flaw with the monopoly. Monopolies aren't inherently bad. I mean, if you have a good business that's satisfying a huge amount of customers, you're bound to end up with the monopoly status.

The problem with a lot of modern "monopolies" is that they use government power rather than market competition to solidify their status and prevent competition, which gives them room to engage in asshole business practices.

irregardless of the interests of the majority populace of course

in a libertarian society a malevolent business or entity would lose all means of acquiring capital, as they have no centralized coercive means of enforcing a monopoly... but now they do thanks to our (((elected representatives))) and their lobbyists

communism attempts to refuse this by restricting the means of accruing capital, however all this does is further combine the lobbyists and statists into a oligarchy (functionally speaking) for the purported purpose of "preventing capitalist tyranny", but through seizure of the means of production, achieves the same monopolitical malevolency as a corporatocracy if not worse, thanks to the restrictions placed on individual means of exchanging (often necessary) goods and services...

Plus there are degrees of libertarian. Not every libertarian thinks the state should be abolished. The state could hypothetically serve a purpose that prevents unjust monopolies while allowing legitimate businesses to hold a top dog spot.

or simply by not allowing any further laws to be passed besides the constitution etc... for better or worse of course

"worse" imho still being better than globalistic new world order governance, but thats just me

Anything that slows down development should be seen as something bad right?

Pretty new to libertarianism but I think there should still be some form of a state

Give it time, you should eventually see that voluntarism is the only consistently moral solution

If a person is born with a rare disease and has to take a medicine that costs thousands of dollars per year, who pays for it?

Probably the parents, potentialy assisted by charitable organizations. In a society that's voluntary enough, the person would likely have the legal option of suicide before taking responsibility for paying for their own rare disease.

If possible, it might be good to show the evidence of the disease prior to birth so that the development can be halted well before birth occurs, mimimizing the likelihood that parents would be faced with an undue natural burden.

A voluntary society probably wouldn't want to force parents to pay for childcare, but it would be hugely unethical to simply let the child suffer and die after birth just to avoid them being an involuntary burden on anyone.

Give the parents the choice as early as possible whether or not they want to assume responsibility for a child with a rare disease. That way if they're required to shoulder the burden, it was voluntary and not just a random natural dice roll that forced them into an unforseen debt.

Frankly, I'm not sure how a voluntary society would handle orphaned, abandoned or abused children. Litigation against the parents might sometimes be an option, but you would need to fund any sort of foster care program. Ideally, that could be done through donations, but if that doesn't work you'd need members of the society to step up and assume moral responsibility for these unfortunate kids. Probably there would be some combination of the above methods.

Another alternative might be child insurance, whereby prospective parents could pay into a system that would help support their child in the event of unforseen circumstances. Parents who don't get this insurance would risk being shunned or facing a lawsuit or something if they child is harmed due to their lack of foresight.

Lots of market-based options, really. If a state wanted to step in, they'd have to find a way to accomplish their goals without taxes or authoritarian force.

Oh boy, that post was longer than I anticipated.

TL;DR use your imagination. the only limit is the consent

Personally this is one area where I think some stretching of government power might be justified, seeing as how no one can consent to being born. If a parent wants to have a child, they should properly account for the well-being of the child, otherwise that could be seen as acting against the consent of the future child. I mean, would a reasonable person consent to being born into a family that hadn't accounted for their well-being?

"legal option of suicide" shouldn't even be a phrase that exists lol

You mean it should be so universally understood as a human right that the law shouldn't step in? Or suicide should never be an option that's permitted under the law?

Personally I think it should be understood as an individual right. If society won't even let us die on our own terms, then we're basically the chattel of society.