Message from @Samaritan™
Discord ID: 678541854140137472
"gives them a platform" isn't a phrase anyone to the right of Sargon can use without cringing
A right winger would never talk about it being bad to platform someone esp not ancap spergs
I cheer when White Nationalists, Fascists and Communists get deplatformed by private corporations
It just isn't how anyone other than a progressive thinks
You don't have a right to their platform, they are a private company
How is this not a fucking parody
yet another example of a ancap begging so hard to be ass raped by big corp
You cannot be a real persono
Govt. is not restricting your speech when Twitter bans you
Thermonuclear you dont have the right to clean water, the Water companies are private companies
What if a corp has more power than a gov?
If they do the exact same thing tell me how that isn't equally bad
<:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>
```The primary objective of Bill 64 is indicated in its title, a Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital, and then stated specifically in Section 1 that capital punishment, "...should be the last melancholy resource against those whose existence has become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens" and "...no crime shall be henceforth punished by deprivation of life or limb except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished."2 With these directives included in the introduction, the bill aimed at curtailing the widespread and indiscriminate use of capital punishment, which had been common under colonial law, while insuring a more uniform dispensation of justice throughout the commonwealth.```
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-64
@Ethreen42 The difference is of consent. You can choose to not do business with the company. You cannot choose your govt. in any practical manner.
Castration was a big improvement from capital punishment.
I don't consent to being de platformed
what if there's a monopoly, or a cartel?
>ancap talking about consent
this is too good
Can people below the age of 18 consent @Thermonuclear
@Samaritan™ Consent is about something to which you have rights. You don't have a right to someone else's private property in the first place.
Imagine thinking you have a right to others' private property and then calling me a leftist instead
did he just dodge that question? at least stand for your positions...
Is it possible for someone under 18 to consent though? @Thermonuclear
@Greasy >What is there is a monopoly?
I don't see a problem in that
They are having trouble 'bleaching' BKP content from #palaestra_debates
See he is totally a leftist
Real ancaps say that there wouldn't be a monopoly without state intervention
He's definitely trying to discredit the banner he flies under.
Lol.
I'm not an ancap and I know that
Well if you're saying Twitter and co are just private corps and not public platforms they should be regulated to uphold the American constitution, since they actively censor and stop information they dont like from reaching Billions of people
@Samaritan™ Leftists have a problem with monopoly. They want to use the state to break them. Libertarians don't care about monopolies, they are a result of the efficiency of the rational actor.
The fact that he won't say no to can kids consent disturbs me
>monopolies
>efficiency
lmao
Libertarians think monopolies are only formed because of state intervention
@Jeremy So far I have only received bad faith ramblings and ad homs, not a single response to any of my arguments
Thus it cannot be a monopoly, because they are simply more efficient. The use of force is required to prevent market entry, @Thermonuclear.
@Samaritan™ No, that is a cucked position. The true position is that it is irrelevant whether monopolies are formed or not.
He's not a real Libertarian.