![When you can safely skip the "early life" section [680x625 - 58KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/20L2az.jpg){kind=link}
OK, let's use a slightly less squicky example:
12 year old boy says they are a girl. Parents consent to hormone blockers, kid consents to hormone blockers, doctor consents, insurance consents.
Totally ok, right? Permanent damage to the body of the 12 year old. You can argue they are confused, don't understand the ramifications or suffer a mental disorder - but that's mindreading and to act on those would violate the sacred NAP. They consented to change their gender.
If the idea of kids universally deciding to go on puberty blockers squicks you out, then maybe you aren't as Lolbertarian as you pretend.
Buddy, I'm not getting into a debate with you.
You don't get it, and you want me to spoon-feed you libertarianism.
I'm not going to, because my time is worth more than that.
Go away.
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!
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.
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.
(post is archived)