1."Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception."
2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."
3."Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it."
4."This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored."
5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."
6."Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified."
7."Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties."
8."Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels."
9."Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags."
10."In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment."
11."The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration."
12."A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions."
How do you feel about the age of consent?
That really was unfair, age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split.
How do you feel about free speech, due process, victimless crimes, freedom of conscience?
I thought that my phrasing made it clear I've already supported the joke you are trying to make, to the extent it's worth doing so.
Now let's get back to totalitarian dictatorships, genocides and hunger. These are kinda worse than a few pedophiles.
So now you're trying to play off your characterization of child abuse as an "issue" over which people can be "split" as a joke
For somebody who can't get jokes without an "/s" - surely.
For others a sentence starting with "that really was unfair" and equating copyright and age of consent is clearly a joke.
Other than that I don't need to "play off" anything for ya, we're not in any connection which would make it important.
Now let's get back to totalitarian dictatorships, hunger, genocides, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, due process and all that.
"Age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split" doesn't come across as a joke without an "/s" because it's functionally identical to an argument a libertarian would unironically make. If that doesn't tell you it's a thoroughly unserious ideology, I don't know what would.
Freedom of speech? You mean like the Western kind of
that coddles Nazis instead of throwing them in a pit?
Totalitarian dictatorships? You mean like Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan, the military dictatorships of South Korea, Argentina or Brazil, Pinochet's Chile, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain?
Some French communists would unironically make that argument in 1960s.
It also coddles tankies, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, those included.
deleted by creator
Let's add McCarthyism to that list and point out that there's still technically a law that forbids communist parties in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954
Not sure about average US citizen, but I know how average and even well off Soviet citizens ate.
You do realize that lots of food produced in USSR would just rot not reaching anybody purely because of logistics being fucked up? People wouldn't die from hunger caused by poverty there in its fatter years, yes, here you are right. But, say, army would get plenty of malnourished conscripts (actually most of them), it was as normal as in XIX century.
You are trying to prove that USSR was as bad as everyone else? With Afghanistan and all?.. I may agree, so?
The key word here is "can" as opposed to "will be as a rule".
Again, are you trying to prove USSR was as bad as everyone else? In general yeah. Only designed the way that it failed.
Their billionaires are almost officials. Their properties and power can be taken away any time. They can receive orders and they will follow them.
deleted by creator
jeez, they read your wall of text and not mine :(
i wonder what i did wrong? maybe if i quoted them directly they would have engaged more :/
deleted by creator
Good.
Which just means that key party figures are the real billionaires there. And they live and behave like such more or less.
deleted by creator
"The billionaires can be punished for doing bad things."
"I dunno, sounds pretty good to me."
deleted by creator
Where do you sit in regards to this split?
Against copyright, for age of consent.
In general libertarianism is voluntarism taken to the extreme, with no "general good" and emotion allowed to interfere. So common arguments for all variants are such:
Libertarian arguments for copyright are based on you accepting the agreement while buying or receiving something. If you don't, then somebody has done that before you and violated it. Fruits of a poisoned tree.
Libertarian arguments against copyright are based on you and the authors having no other option but to use what's given with such an agreement, and with you being deceived while told you are buying it (which would mean you can copy all you want), and in case of any technology patents with laying claim on a resource which isn't depleted by sharing.
Libertarian arguments for age of consent are that children are not conscious enough to consent. That part is common, then variations follow. For some it makes them property of their parents, who can decide anything for them, but if after becoming adults they consider it a violation, they will be in their right to treat it as such. For some - without that "but". For others it means that some axioms need to be chosen so that parents could, well, feed and teach and discipline their children, but couldn't abuse them. For others it's going to be managed by a community which will ostracize parents mistreating their children.
Libertarian arguments against age of consent are obvious - they are alive so they can consent.
Holy shit, you tried to play it off as a joke earlier and now you're just saying that there's an actual argument against the age of consent.
It was a joke to equate this to copyright.
I have to say it was well done of @Great_Leader_Is_Dead@hexbear.net to give you the rope to hang yourself with by asking that question. Previously, you tried to say the question was a joke to begin with, but now, instead of saying something like "It wasn't a serious question, of course I don't think there are two positions to take regarding the age of consent", you post a diatribe where you do say there are two equally valid positions regarding the age of consent.
You continue to treat these two as mutually exclusive. Ask me how I can say you've never designed a working thing in your life.
Your comment about me somehow contradicting myself doesn't make sense, because those statements do not contradict each other. Is that clearer?
They do contradict each other if your initial argument was "My statement was a joke" and you answered that question with a serious reply.
Unless...did you mean that the only thing that was a joke in your statement was equating copyright with the age of consent, and you're in fact totally fine with libertarians being "split on the issue of the age of consent"? Because holy shit.
Of course they are, they're an earnest fuckin lolbertarian
Probably also believe in the 'complex nature of the debate' around driver's licenses and libraries
Honestly, they come off as a naive clown trying to hold it together, they're far too eager and in depth on some of their replies, and they believe in the 'virtuosity of the conversation' around those items, ignoring that the frothing fash parts of their little ingroup which just hate minorities, poor people, and want to fuck kids
ed: nevermind, saw their comments on taxation and benefits, they need to be ran thru a woodchipper feet first
i just thought of something, whenever someone says something is complicated or, shudders nuanced, i think they are sorta thinking about the concept of infinite regress.
like you can go to an arbitrary depth on maybe anything, whether it is productive or not does not i think really change whether a person can state their opinion or not.
it's almost like the folks who do not answer and speak the discussion indirectly are metagaming, they wanna have their cake and eat it too
Fuck off and die you freak loser