1) No, yes, yes. *built 2) No they aren't, and only if you want to. 3) Completely untrue, and a direct result of the media lying to you about it - as evidenced by "muh Twitter" when it's on all platforms. 4) And? What do you suggest replacing it with?
5) He was way better than you, and you have very limited "interesting bits", if any. 6) No. 7) The state agrees with and loves this take. Anarchists shouldn't. 8) Yes. 9) No. We should all get fit enough to destroy what destroys us, and not be unhealthy.
10) No it isn't, and fortunately, few people care what you think. 11) Vague statements like this are worthless and require no thought or knowledge. 12) Ancoms are libertarians, and political libertarianism started w/ ancoms. You diss libertarian org tho.
13) But it *can* include organized theft and property damage? Your definition of "free" is deeply flawed. 14) Yes. 15) Not necessarily, and insisting such proves how unsympathetic you are to men. 16) "Voting" and "anarchy" are incompatible, entirely.
17) If you mean workers' unions, this is true in a modern context, but many OG IA were unionists, so... 18) LMAO agreed, but the fact you don't that'sd already happened is hilarious; we already exist under friendly fascism. Sometimes unfriendly, too.
19) Nobody cares. 20) Nobody cares. 21) Almost nobody is "anti-vaxx" and the term is engineered by statists who want universal experimental authority over the people they govern. "Vaxx neutral" is a better term - if you show sci, most of em might take em.
22) I think people shouldn't be influenced by others as to the chems in their bodies (see: vaxx neutral), and should stay clean/sober if poss. Clear minds better fight the state. 23) LMAO 24) Nah 25) It's literally called @timelineearth, you hack. 26) LMAO
To be free to make decisions with negative effects on oneself is good. To actually make the choices with negative consequences is not. Nothing wrong with criticizing someones' behavior - it's literally all you do, and all this thread is.
"Muh NAP" is not the basis of libertarianism, nor is abiding by it.
Certain thoughts can render one not libertarian, at a foundational level, without action, or rights violations, and simply "not violating rights" isn't the foundation of liberty or libertarianism.
The belief in free will, and the meritocratic notions which spring from anti-determinism - THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF LIBERTARIANISM - are the foundation, not muh NAP.
Believing one's value is determinist, and not by their will, is anti-liberty. Can't be anti-liberty libertarian.
Like even NAP as a phrase even came so long after political libertarianism. This isn't a thing. Even in American right-libertarianism, muh NAP ain't the root, and it got on fine without it for many years.
Libertarianism didn't poof into being when the NAP was coined. Ridiculous.