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."
Gee, really interesting how libertarian reforms are extremely unpopular and can only be maintained by brutal state violence. Luckily they're a democracy and not authoritarian communists where the people have no say!
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
Libertarianism is about individual independence.
I just have doubts over how any libertarian would explain these events in particular, so going to search for some amusement in the few ancap TG channels I remember.
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
Libertarian uses fascist argument
unapologetic, but peaceful and harmless Japan
History of fascist apologism I see
History of fascist apologism I see
That was in a comment comparing Japan to Turkey, so either you really failed to read anything else or you are expecting others to just believe you. In any case you are a clown.
What you said is meaningless. Japan isn't just unapologetic, they're actively denying that they committed war crimes. They're also governed by fascists who actively want to build the military back up, so "peaceful and harmless" for now maybe.
He is raising taxes too though. Gotta pay for the people to repress the reaction to your dogshit policies.
Well, politics are like this. "Stability and anti-fascism" in Russia, "democratic" North Korea, and now a "libertarian" police state in Argentina. Names matter very little.
Can't avoid touching on the subject of this instance:
USSR was also:
"socialist" (with only state-controlled unions and job appointment for 5 years by distribution you couldn't refuse after university),
"Soviet" (with Soviets controlling maybe some local funds and a bit of logistics at best)
and a "union of republics" (which broke apart the moment its central government allowed some autonomy to those),
and half those "republics" are still governed by the same people\families\clans 30 years after.
I've seen Markov chains produce more coherent output. Come back when you've figured out how to have a coherent thought.
All taxes ultimate came from the working class who is the one that produce everything. The rich people getting a bigger tax break,on the rare cases this happens, is just a small correction from all the surplus value they capture.
Individual independence is a nonsensical concept in this context because humans are not independent from one another.
Private property as a concept is incompatible with individual independence, because its existence is itself dependent on some form of collective agreement. "Ownership" only exists when a group of people agrees that it does and sees a need to enforce it.
Libertarianism, in practice, is entirely aware of the dependencies between individuals, and what it really is about is tipping the scales in favor of property owners, maximizing the power of the strong over the weak by removing the state's role as an equalizer and instead turning it into a sole enforcer of private property, at which point it is functionally indistinguishable from fascism.
Private property as a concept is incompatible with individual independence, because its existence is itself dependent on some form of collective agreement. "Ownership" only exists when a group of people agrees that it does and sees a need to enforce it.
I get a feeling that person doesn't know the distinction between personal property and private property.
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation
on a basic moral level this is an evil thing to want to happen.
Fuck poor people they should be drawn and quartered, am I right?
Most humane libertarian
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
lmao so basically admitting your ideology is predicated on tyranny and the dispossession of individuals for the benefit of a powerful few
I just have doubts over how any libertarian would explain these events in particular
Translation: You don't know how to flower up your disgusting anti-individual rhetoric without rightly coming across as a hypocrite and sociopath lmao
And he immediately and unsurprisingly just pushes the actual fascism button
Yes, if you ask a libertarian what they think about unions and they say "that's fine, everybody can choose to associate and bargain within a free market" you might have found a real libertarian! Wow! You will almost never hear that though because they are all fascists
You will almost never hear that though because they are all fascists
This contradicts every time I meet a person who calls themselves a libertarian and knows at least something about that to pass through my initial filters (those who don't apparently think that libertarianism is about capitalism, free love and marijuana).
More than that, one of the most popular branches of ancap is panarchism, which is an idea of a society embedding all kinds of non-territorial voluntary associations, including communist ones.
It might be that you're just talking outta your ass.
Nah, libertarianism and "anarcho"-capitalism are just both joke ideologies that nobody will take seriously for a reason.
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?
age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split
You don't think anyone takes China seriously? You don't think anyone took the USSR seriously?
Ukraine and South of Russia were parts of the USSR and it was buying grain abroad at the same time. Not because of not having grain production of enormous scale, but because it was abhorrently inefficient with typical Soviet quality of logistics.
USSR possessed simply enormous economic resources and strategic resources, but managed to misuse them to the degree of asking for humanitarian aid and then crash all by itself.
I would say that qualifies as "not being taken seriously".
Aight this person isn't real, its just a troll asking Chat GPT to RP as a lolbertarian
I would say that qualifies as "not being taken seriously".
Then you are a fucking dolt
"Crash all by itself"
Do you honestly believe Western nations weren't doing everything they could to accomplish this short of nuking Russia?
They legitimately unleashed yearly plagues on Soviet Agriculture, and this is all declassified information. That's just one of thousands of actions taken.
Only for dumbfucks like you to, fifty years later, say "It crashed all by itself"
At least admit your side managed to destroy them, holy fuck lol.
Not a surprising turn of events. He just halved everyone's savings and on top of that drastically increased the cost of living for everyone as companies increase prices due to the currency devaluation.
The result of that being massive strike and protest action is entirely unsurprising.. As is a crackdown on it.
This will escalate much further very quickly.
That's supposed to be the bright side? I think many people of those who know the difference would prefer to be shot or hanged than to die from hunger.
Cheating is impolite and also discards yourself, putting a stain on your position and ideology. Be better than that.
You've mentioned the "change in life expectancy in 1950s", which is not the same.
And yes, in "1850-1950" regard for human life among various people holding power in China has been kinda the same, including communists immediately after taking power.
I've visited a lot of socialist countries and one thing I've found is that one truth is universal; "a thief believes everyone steals". I.E., those who see nothing but greed and selfishness in communist parties that see overwhelming support by the population tend to just be greedy and selfish themselves.
If even the famously Chinese backed Harvard can run a study on public satisfaction in China and find 95.5% satisfaction, whereas Washington only gets 38% satisfaction, obviously something is up. Maybe the propaganda you've been fed your whole life.... isn't true, and relies on the racist trope of the hopeless asiatic who doesn't value life.
The life expectancy started to raise before the war ended my man
Living in pre-revolutionary China was literally worse for your health than WW2
Wow the war spend seventy years ending?!
Show
Anyway you unserious dipshit, behold the unstoppable material supremacy of a centrally planned economy
Show
Show
Show
Show
Poland on second place
ShowBOLZGA GUROM URAAAAAA
Show
No but really, being the post-socialist exception in moving towards capitalism makes deprogramming people and educating people that this move wasn't the greatest idea really fucking hard. We've lost so much in the long term and problems of this are piling up more and more every year because of this that I always ask myself and others on restructurization whether or not was it really worth it?
Poland was a country with some of the biggest rates of brain drain in the whole EU, home and apartment prices as well as rents have skyrocketed when during socialism owning your own home was basically guaranteed! All the old fucks have kept the home they've had in PRL and the entirety of our youth (including me!) are either made to walk the plank or hope they'll get to inherit their parent's home to have a life with a little dignity in it. And even then your parents don't die as soon as you hit 26. I myself plan to be a part of that brain drain and run off to China. I'm not even going to get started on the inflation since covid, or gas prices since the war next door. It's all going to shit.
Yes under the leadership of the Communist party which won the war thank you for finally coming to class.
Any comment on the clear superiority of a centrally planned economy?
Show
Yes, a country descending to war led by privatized armies is a bright side
would prefer to be shot or hanged than to die from hunger
Lol. This doesn’t even warrant a serious response
I know you're banned and probably won't read this but my grandfather literally joined the communists when he was a teenager because pre-revolutionary China was so bad and inequality was so rife, his father died from a completely curable disease and had a cousin starve to death.
He's 97 years old now and his biggest regret is he didn't join convince more people to join the PLA sooner.
There's no way he makes it more than a couple of months as president right? He'll be forced to resign.
I have no idea. Depends how hard he cracks down? Round up the left and throw them in prison pinochet style, even kill a bunch of the top organisers? Could do some real damage to anyone that would oppose him properly if he has any competent advice.
"What the fuck, I summoned libertarianism out of the frictionless void where it usually resides and it immediately oxidized into fascism on contact with air."
But if falsely egalitarian/radical liberalism is offered insistently as an ideological alternative to the disarray of present day society, it is because the front of the stage is no longer occupied by utilitarianism (from which so-called egalitarian liberalism is scarcely distinguishable), but by the excess represented by rightwing libertarian ideology (the extreme Right in fact). This ideology substitutes the couplet of liberty and property for the Enlightenment's triplet, definitively abandoning the idea of giving equality the status of a fundamental value...
In the right-wing libertarian version, ethics disappear because human beings, if they make their history properly, are authorized to make it by behaving as if they were in the jungle: they are not responsible for the consequences of their acts, in particular any inequalities they intensify, which are even welcome. Yet, without responsibility there can be no ethics. It matters little then that some, many even, of these right-wing libertarians claim to be Christian believers. Their religion is, in reality, amoral and tends even to become a simple social convention, hardly more than the expression of a singular community.
- Samir Amin, Eurocentrism
Without responsibility, there can be no ethics. And without ethics, there is no way for libertarianism to seperate itself from fascism as an ideology.
That's just because you don't understand the NAP. When you're NAPping you're supposed to find the original instigating aggression. How do you find that? Easy, you take the side you don't like and point at something they did that hurt your feelings.
Tear gassing protesters is just a legitimate response to the initial aggression of blocking traffic. But wait, isn't the blocking of traffic a response to the aggression the government did by throwing the country into poverty overnight? No it's not. Why? Because it just isn't.
Place a pinkie on the wrong part of the lawn? That's a nuking (NAP also seems to ignore any concept of proportional response, at least from what I've seen)
Ah, ancaps are weird. Part of them actually likes Latin American dictatorships and this kind of thing exactly because of the state not pretending to have any mandate but force.
Source - I'm a libertarian (not culturally of that group of ancaps, cause they tend to be fans of something far away and not try and build a working system at least among themselves ; makes them similar to tankies in the sense of "we can't build our utopia without killing all the problematic people first").
Source - I'm a libertarian
Why the fuck would you ever admit this you fucking dork
Source - I’m a libertarian
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think Megan's Law applies to Lemmy, you don't need to say this
ancaps, cause they tend to be fans of something far away and not try and build a working system at least among themselves ; makes them similar to tankies
Your ignorance is so cute. You don't even know where you are or who you are talking to! You should stick around and read more about who "tankies" are, and maybe ask questions.
I know where I am, just enjoying my life which involves tickling kitties and making fun of tankies.
Myself I prefer dogs but it seems our lives are rather analogous since I also like making fun of lolberts. You and I aren't too different you see.
And you appear to think that's a joke, while in fact one can't pick a better ideology to be smarter.
To learn to sing you have to sing, no other way.
It doesn't really matter where you start on that "political compass" or something, only the attitude.
Which is why saying I'm a libertarian was a bit stretched, I just fit there more by some formal traits. I had my moments of obsession with many other ideologies and I'll surely have those in future.
I didn't pick being a marxist and an ideology cannot be treated like a fashion statement as you've said. It also isn't something you can just pick and adhere to as if it's a club. And the "political compass" has always been a terrible "tool" (more so of a toy) to describe any leanings. You can't apply a label to yourself by yourself, someone else must do that for you by seeing you for who you are. I've been called a commie a few times, but most of the time people don't even know what a communist is or what they stand for. So I am able to talk commie to normal people (whatever a normal person is) without outright saying I'm a red and so I avoid their redscare conditioning and can have an engaging conversation.
You remind me of myself. I've been a "libertarian" too, not the popular type we like to make fun of here, but the guy you are describing as yourself. But I kept progressing in learning and educating myself, studying history and what existed in the real world, so applying dialectical materialism before even knowing what it was. It was until I've decided:
"Okay enough is enough, time to learn my enemy for who he is and what he stands for so that I may better combat him!"
And then after a while I've had my
Showmoment. I've realized that everything I was standing for as this libertarian championing human freedom, expression, progress and development towards that in a scientific and realistic way was what the dirty pinkos were standing for as well. I've learned along that journey and the only thing left for me at that moment was to accept that I might just be a dirty pinko too.
Show
I wonder where you will end up, but please never tell yourself you are going to avoid certain material or knowledge just because you dislike the people behind that. Hell I believe communists must be studying fascism to better understand what it is and how to defend ourselves against it. For example I dismiss Mein Kampf not because Hitler wrote it, but because it's a shit work with nonsense inside. Largely a waste of time that will not help in understanding Nazi germany, a better alternative would be study Lebensraum and how it parallels to Manifest Destiny and such.
Learning about this stuff can not only help you develop but also prosper. I have hope you won't side alongside fascism, seeing as you already dislike whatever the fuck Milei is doing.
I’ll surely have those in future
Once you've realized that you can't join an ideology as if it's a club or fashion statement, you can't really adhere to it. You will stand out and be an outcast in said group, and among libertarians you are one. I know that because I've been that libertarian outcast too.
I wish you best, and I hope you stick around. Just be know the bears tend to be bullies as they've engaged with the talking points you might present a million times already. Hell most of us live in the imperial core, we engage with this shit on the daily. I suggest you engage in an earnest way to suck out genuine answers of who we are.
Show
Well. I already don't have problems with putting myself in some unexpected kind of footwear. And it's even been ML.
Libertarianism is a joke because it's never cleared the low bar of it existing in a meaningful capacity in the real world. You can say whatever about gorillion dead 1984 Animal Farm and whatever tired cliches, at least there have been and continue to be ML states in the real world. The most libertarians have ever managed was one American town before they were overrun by bears.
That just means it's a less viral ideology. It's a different dimension of something being a joke or not.
"Tired cliche" is a characteristic of some art or amusement. Facts usually become more, not less solid over time.
I too enjoy making fun of tankies but Im not usually so brazen as to come into their house to do it.
How do you make that conclusion from not looking at the name of the instance?
Libertarianism is not a coherent ideology based in political reality or science. It's an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism, that is the values of democracy, freedom, liberty, etc. There is no such thing as stateless capitalism. Capital depends on the state and will always increase state power as more capital is accumulated. They like the dictatorships because the state is acting purely in the interest of capital while embracing the ideological misdirection of bigotry. That is the dictatorship is free to grind workers into paste with the use of near unlimited state control and power while the wealthy and petite bourgeois explain it all with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and nationalism. It uses those things to nudge workers away from class consciousness. They're not actually hypocrites because ideological consistency is not the goal nor does it matter in the pursuit of power. They have the material edge and being hypocritical only helps them.
This is why we can't take you seriously. You're stuck on why your fellow libertarians are hypocritical, you don't understand what's actually happening. You're stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society. Since your ideology has no explanatory power in the real world, your only recourse is clinging to models like the horseshoe theory. You don't have a deep understanding of your own ideology let alone that of tankies, they just exist as points on some graph of extremism in your world.
Libertarianism is not a coherent ideology based in political reality or science. It's an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism, that is the values of democracy, freedom, liberty, etc.
To further this point, the original libertarian theorists rejected the enlightenment's triplet of "equality, liberty and property" for a couplet of just "liberty and property". The basis of libertarian ideology is a rejection of equality as a fundamental value.
As for why actually existing libertarianism is indistinguishable from fascism/right wing authoritarianism in practice, it is because it is fundamentally not an ideology compatible with any concept of ethics. The core of libertarian thought is an abandonment of social, political , economic, and ultimately societal responsibility for others. However, without responsibility there can be no ethics. And without no ethics in an ultimate "might makes right" world where capital is in control and equality is abandoned as a fundamental value, what prevails? We all know what.
Just like communism may mean ancom, ansyn, trotskyism in various kinds, stalinism in various kinds, libertarianism may mean minarchism, ancap, panarchism, georgeism and so on.
It’s an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism
It's not. It's just voluntarism put over anything else. Hence age of consent arguments, for example.
It's actually the most coherent ideology, because any compromise for practicality would make it a part of some other existing one.
That's also the reason for very little of it existing in reality.
This is why we can’t take you seriously. You’re stuck
It's ok, I'm not taking your particularly seriously too, one really shouldn't, it's all a mix with pieces of gold very rare.
However, I'm not stuck in general.
You’re stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society.
There's no "actual" model, a model by definition is a simplification allowing you to analyze a phenomenon spending a fraction of energy needed to recreate it.
And that's the problem ML has - instead of producing one model after another, some for one use case, some for another, some being discarded, some being used further, ML just has one model based on Imperial Germany as a dogma and puts it over reality.
I don't need a deep understanding of something which may or may not fit. I don't even theoretically, potentially have access to source of any "deep understanding".
It's like algebraic solutions vs numeric ones.
And that’s the problem ML has - instead of producing one model after another, some for one use case, some for another, some being discarded, some being used further, ML just has one model based on Imperial Germany as a dogma and puts it over reality.
Insane projection since Marxism-Leninism is to be adapted to one's conditions and not just an emulation of what happened in 1917 tsarist Russia. Lolbertarians on the other hand advocate for set in stone solutions like allowing "privatization", "free speech", "small government" and other assorted dogshit regardless of where and when it's being applied. Cut your losses short and stop making a fool out of yourself before you start spouting garbage about mud pies or "human nature" and instead go read marxist theory if you care to talk about it.
Stalinism isn't an ideology btw, Stalin was just a Marxist-Leninist.
That's the Stalinist point of view. Cults of personality, nationalist propaganda, banning abortions and so on are not exactly ML.
Cult of personality
Oh okay, you're operating on a 9 year-old's epistemology
I bet you also believe the clapping story.I'm still stuck on this, this shit has me fucked up. So the people who supposedly are in a cult of personality...steadfastly refuse to give the subject of their adulation credit for being a theorist? This is the first I've ever heard of a personality cult where the orthodox view is "Nah, our guy didn't create anything particularly unique or worthy of deliniation."
any compromise for practicality would make it a part of some other existing one.
That's also the reason for very little of it existing in reality.
...so why are you a libertarian? In your own words it doesn't exist because it does not actually address the practicalities of the world.
If I knew that my political ideology isn't compatible with the real world, I would find a better one.
No ideology is compatible with the real world.
And I'm not a libertarian. It's just the closest known point so I called myself that.
A distributist would be closer, just you are likely not aware of such a thing.
No ideology is compatible with the real world.
Show
You do realize ideas are what governments use to rule, set laws, decide on ways to manage resources and the like? Right? And a set of ideas is an ideology? Just because libertarianism is disconnected from reality does not mean every ideology is incompatible with it, particularly marxism which grounds it's theory and practice in material reality. Hell even fascism is as dangerous as it is because it is something that exists within material reality of capitalism in crisis! Returning to the theme of the original post of Milei who is doing precisely what he is because his ideas are widely unpopular with the majority.
Also you are jumping from label to label, when you and I seem to have agreed that ideologies are not fashion statements. And so you can't really in all seriousness do that? It also seems you have been applying your original label to yourself by only yourself when really you don't even seem to agree with yourself whether or not it fits you. You seem very confused from my point of view.
It's basically a political ideology grown from Catholicism, so all the usual.
It’s an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism
It's not. It's just voluntarism put over anything else. Hence age of consent arguments, for example.
Voluntarism is capitalist apologia, yes. The very premise is that society is a collection of independent individuals, exactly the premise which is both prerequisite for and produced by capitalism. Voluntarism takes this state ideology and proclaims it as an eternal, natural truth which cannot be escaped; the only problem, claim the libertarians, is that the state is interfering with the free expression of this ideology — which is exactly the reverse causal direction.
“Truly, one must be destitute of all historical knowledge not to know that it is the sovereigns who in all ages have been subject to economic conditions, but they have never dictated laws to them. Legislation, whether political or civil, never does more than proclaim, express in words, the will of economic relations.”
You must rip out the idealism which has rotten your logic if you want it to have any connection to material reality. Start scientifically from the world as it really exists, and from history as it really unfolded, not from your abstract models of independent individual exchanges, which so happens to justify the status quo or an intensification thereof.
You need to investigate how society is in fact a web of interrelations and dependency; ie the very opposite of non-interacting isolated individuals. There is no society without dependency. A theory that starts with an assumption of independence is absolutely useless.
Source - I'm a libertarian
For your sake I really hope you're not legally allowed to buy booze yet
Tankies don’t even believe that. We would prefer to not kill anyone, but reactionaries (like yourself) always try to fight against us which is why you go into the pit. Also Utopianism is anti Marxist.
The revolution will only need to be as violent as the bourgeoisie will require it to be.
Low energy comrades: the CIA is very tricky. They might try to ingratiate themselves into our community and tear it apart. They're masters of deception
The CIA:
Libertarians are just fascists with nonce aesthetics.
Fascism is a bullshit ideology that only cares about the supremacy of the fascists themselves. Outside of that it has no real principles, only whatever ad hoc opinions will further their supremacy at the given moment. When someone is not amplifying their fascinating they will whine about much freeze peach, when protests challenge their grasp on power they will use every coercive measure of the state to repress it.
This is not true though.
Fascism only sounds incoherent if you take it at face value, but it is integral to protecting and preserving the liberal capitalist order during times of crises. Italy and Nazi Germany served the role of crushing left wing and working class movements in post-WWI Europe following the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. Fascism saved “international capital” in Europe from falling into the hands of the “Leninists”, and continued to do so well into the 21st century.
I don’t take fringe ideologies (like national bolshevism, lol) seriously because they fall apart at the slightest scrutiny under materialist thinking, but fascism - fascism is well grounded in reality and should be taken extremely seriously by everyone who considers themselves on the left. There is a reason why fascism as an ideology historically succeeded while many others never even got off the ground.
Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order is essential reading to understanding how liberalism invented fascism to preserve private property ownership and wage relations during the turbulent years following WWI, and provided compelling arguments, using contemporary political and economic records, to show that both liberalism and fascism are two sides of the same coin whose functions synergistically protect the capital order.
The causal mechanism for the libertarian to fascist movement is idealism. Libertarianism is a completely idealist rules based worldview that only bears tangential relation to reality. It somehow creates a peaceful and morally justified hierarchy for a given body politic. Because it is a hierarchical worldview the only people who would willingly adopt it are those who preceive themselves as benefiting from the system, aka being securely on top already or would be on top if the system were adopted. When they gain power and the world doesn't conform to their idealized view that must mean that someone broke the rules, cheated, and therefore those malefactors fall outside the Civil body politic. Because ypu now have an external enemy you are now justified in using any method necessary to defeat and reestablish the "rules based order." This is how you can get a cognitive dissonance free genuine movement from libertarian to fascists
Dude went from get the goberment out of our lives to full on nazi dictatorship in a week.
He should ask Bolivia how that went. cw su*cide attempt
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
looking forward to all the lolbertarians in the US and abroad talking about this guy to do the 'ol collar tug and look side to side.
EDIT: Free shipping to my home in less than a day!
5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."
Is just flavor text when
2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."
Alright you piggies, that's enough time spent with snouts in the slop. rottingleaf is banned, comments left up for anyone who wishes to continue dunking.
comments left up for anyone who wishes to continue dunking.
Thank you I was afraid I'd miss the fun.
Just saw that, they went on to mention there's a split in libertarian ideology on issue of copyright and age of consent.
Why are they always like this?
........ 
