![When you can safely skip the "early life" section [680x625 - 58KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/20L2az.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, I don't consent to going away. I worry that you are hung up on the jewish trick of lilbertarianism. Don't have to spoon feed me anything, I was a lolbert for years. You just have to answer a simple question.
What problem does lolbertarianism have with a 12 year old consenting to puberty blockers? Everybody is ok with it, so it's all good, right?
Child is ok with it, but children can't sign contracts Parents are ok with it, and after checkign if their child is ok with it, they CAN sign on contract n behalf of the child - and they checked with the child. Doctor is ok with it, she's getting paid
Everyone involved is ok with permanently maiming a child, so what's the problem? It's a lolbertarian wet dream!
You're still trying to debate me. As I said, I'm not trying to educate you. You were a libertarian for years? Congrats. You obviously didn't understand basic moral principles, basic economic principles, nor how communities enforce rules in the absence of government. You seem to believe that libertarians think that we could solve all our problems through free markets. But we aren't utopians. Shitty people will be shitty people, whether you have a government or not. But when you do have a government, you create a power structure that allows shitty people to commit heinous, generations-long atrocities.
You still seem to believe that laws prevent bad behavior, and that we need a government to keep kids from being brainwashed into taking puberty blockers. News flash, kiddo -- we have a government now, and they aren't exactly working for our children's best interest.
I'm not going to address every single circumstance of how a free society might deal with any particular issue. Libertarians don't propose a one-size-fits-all solution. That's kinda the point. We just get the government out of the way so that we can try multiple solutions and see which one works best.
If you can't imagine how a free society would limit child abuse, then that is a failure of your imagination and your creativity, not a failure of libertarianism.
Not trying to debate you. I am demonstrating that Lolbertarianism is ok with things that are scientifically and demonstrably bad for human beings because Lolbertarianism is foolish.
You obviously didn't understand basic moral principles
There are no moral principles in Lolbertarianism. You can't make anyone follow you or do as you want. What are you going to do, exile them? What if your neighbor invites them over? Exile don't You can't rely on "basic moral" and "basic economic" principles if you don't have any.
Oh, I have many ideas, but it's not child abuse according to lolbertariansim. They consented in good faith to take puberty blockers. Does Lolbertarianism believe in taking away individual sovereignty by force now? That would be a new one. And contrary to Lolbertarianism.
Anywho, it's nice to know, like most Lolberts, that you won't answer the original question. Oh you are more than happy to hold your nose high and not answer the question. Hopefully your silly notions of lolbertarianism will fade before you have to actually do more than navel-gaze upon a situation.
Look, man, you clearly don't get it and you're not intellectually honest enough to do the research you'd need to do in order to understand it. You're just some guy on the internet with not a lot of sense. Meanwhile, there are libraries' worth of material that you could answer these questions and correct your misunderstandings from. But you choose not to do that. You'd rather keep sending me asinine comments on Poal and pretend that I'm somehow supposed to answer all your questions.
As I said, I'm not going to do that, and if you don't want to put in the work, then that's on you. My time is more valuable than talking to some NPC, ok?
I should have added this to my reply to you, but the fact that you are even asking these questions shows that you never really "got" libertarianism. It's why you no longer are a libertarian. You still think that libertarianism is a third path -- as in, there's the way Democrats want to govern, there's the way Republicans want to govern, and then there's the way Libertarians want to govern. And they all have their systems and only one is the best!
But libertarianism isn't a "system". It never was, but you're still caught in the statist mindset.
LOL. Project much? When did I say that Republicanism or Democracy is best? Lolbertarianism is as much a system as any other. You are moving goalposts because you are afraid to answer. You know that lolbertarianism fails absolutely the consent rule.
Sounds like you think it's the third path. It's no path at all.
No, you just...you just don't get it. Your mind is closed and very narrow. I don't think your IQ is high enough for this conversation.
(post is archived)