Can any libertarians debunk this?

You aren't born inside a rental home. You can leave the landlord.

The government brutalizes you.

You can leave the country too.

Land taxes can be avoided, just don't own land.

You get free housing

No. My country is my place of birth. No one can deny it from me.

You can choose wether to rent or buy, and you have have a wide variety of those who you can choose to rent from. You could even live rent free with family. Meanwhile, gubbermint forces you to pay taxes. Its all about freedom of choice.

What happens if you don't pay rent?

>I didn't sign a contract to be born.
Well, if you don't like living, you can always kys.
And if you don't like your family, you can always run away.
And if you don't like a landlord, you can always kill him.
And if you don't like your state, you can always join an insurgent organization or create one and overthrow the government.

All of these things are noble causes. But states are just powerful landlords. If your landlord owned 4 million square miles of land, he could use his rent to pay for a police force. Then hey presto, he is now a state.

You break the contractual agreement and face the consequences. You broke the NAP.

People have a right to life unmolested. If there is not enough land left to live then I have the right to kill someone.

You are free to leave the country and live off the grid away from civilization too.

Just like you broke the law by not paying taxes. You can always move into the ocean if you don't like it the same way I can move into the street if I don't like paying rent :^)

governments can kill you legally, private citizens cannot

>People have a right to life unmolested
>I have the right to kill someone.

>Yep, I'm ok with this
You uhh debunked yourself?

You didn't sign a contract with the Government though. They are violating the NAP.

Voluntary exchange

Big brain. Just dont be a communist bro

If there isn't enough room to live unmolested then my rights are violated. Only violence or mutual cooperation will resolve this.

Libertarian property acquisition:
1) Self-ownership.
2) Homesteading/First-use
3) Voluntary contract or restitution.
That's it. The State's ownership of a scarce resource is by simple decree and fiat.
mises.org/library/anatomy-state
youtube.com/watch?v=H7ilSNa0Cgs

Attached: 1584672003728.jpg (2426x2676, 711.16K)

Attached: (((landlords))) BTFO.png (917x596, 594.31K)

>If there isn't enough room to live unmolested then my rights are violated. Only violence or mutual cooperation will resolve this.
I have a solution.
The government breaks up large landholders and redistributes land in order to make life better for everyone.

There were taxes on landowners because landowners were farmers. Nowadays it doesn't make sense to tax property -merely for existing- and the idea behind housing taxes is that boomer bob will sell his house for ten times what he bought it for. Except that's retarded because millennial mike still lives with 3 roommates and his girlfriend dumped him to get pooped on by rich arabs and he can't afford a fucking downpayment on a house because wage gains are much lower than they were 40 years ago when boomer bob bought his house, so boomer bob is sitting there with his dick in his hands.

BUT WIAT BOOMER BOB CAN DO A REVERSE MORTGAGE OR SELL HIS HOUSE TO CHINESE CHANG.

The entire problem iwth all this is that it totally fucks up the housing market for normal people and turns it into a jewish exercise of selling your country while your 35yo son can barely afford to live normally.

You do not get deported for not paying taxes, you get imprisoned.

turn it around, same argument pseudo-commies use.

This is a violation of human rights.

>what is Castle Doctrine

Landlordism is an easy way for mentally retarded boomers to pretend they're part of the 1% while fucking over their children and grandchildren and saying stupid shit like "just do downpayment on 400k house lmao".

>inb4 "look at this 50k shitbox I found in the ghetto, clearly you are a communist if you disagree that landlords and jew gubmint are best".

My biggest problem with lolspergs isn't their ideas themselves. A libertarian system would probably be better than the current abomination that is the current U.S. government.
The worst thing about libertarians is that many of them will advocate for policies that would work under their system to some degree, but they will advocate for it right now while we are not under their system as a cover to say they're not racist.
Immigration for example. You will actually get lolbergs that say they are pro open borders because under a libertarian system it would be way less of a problem (which is true), but they will then say they are open borders under the current system which is obviously fucking horrible and raping all aspects of our infrastructure and welfare systems.
But even this one example of them using these ideas as a cope to say they're not racist is just a microcosm for Libartarianism as a whole being a cope for not having a real nation and a way to escape the effects of living cheek by jowl with 3rd world muck mucks.
It's a set of cowardly talking points when the true way is to collectivize with your own people and BTFO your enemies.

Attached: 1552750276215.jpg (480x480, 39.99K)

Implying everyone rents.

The bottom one is consent, the top one is not.

Attached: EU3ACgOXgAAsM3f.jpg large.jpg (720x773, 72.7K)

>I should be able to kill people I don't like
>redistributing land violates human rights
You are insane.

Americans don't know the fact that the first type of taxation is what we now call rent. In Europe, a few hundred years ago, only the noble class owned land outside cities. Every single farmer payed what is essentially rent to the land lord, though it was called taxation.

In countries like Sweden, the noble class still don't pay taxes to the state, because, historically, taxes are payed by the people to them. They are the ones that inherit the land from their ancestors. Everyone else have to pay rent to stay in their privately owned country.

All of this becomes too abstract for libertarians. What is meaningful for them is not how society works, but what name you use to call things.

>ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVE TO SAVE THE WHITE RACE!!
This stormfag influx was the preperation for coronachan

Let police raid and hit me, complain at the media about it and then get free shit as a victim of human rights violations.

If you are in a sealed box crammed with 1,000 other people shoulder to shoulder what is the solution?

They will probably just garnish your wages.

If I build a shanty nobody charges me rent. But if I am self employed I still pay taxes?

If I'm not happy with the situation and it has arisen without the consent or control of anyone present then by the NAP I would either have to reach some consensus with those present, continue suffering like everyone else or kill myself.

Solution is to accept death, mutt. Die to let others live.
If you're not ready for sacrifice, you're not part of the group. So you need to be killed anyway, like an outcast.

>start killing people!
An unlikely scenario. Eventually all will die so the answer is irrelevant.
But back in a more realistic scenario, the solution to a few landlords eating up all the land is for government to redistribute the land.

>all these retards not realizing they could just buy their own property

Attached: 1582187215081.jpg (460x460, 51.93K)

Op is litterally too stupid to breathe.

Can anyone debunk this?

I'll wait.

Attached: 1581265863789.png (500x514, 94.97K)

>take lands from landlords
>have to pay them
>landlords get money
>they buy more land
GREAT.
Or do you just want to take their land and not pay them a penny?
If so, I'd like to remind you that this shit happened in Poland a few decades back and now look at the fucking bubble landlords have created.

How is a price of paper stating that you are the owner of some land worth any more than paper money? Who guarantees the value of that document? Is it not the state?

What if I want to build a house on your land? Who are you gonna call for help? The state?

I’ll kick your ass idiot

But people are born inside of rental homes, you idiot.

Private security

Well, in the scenario that user proposed here where there is literally no more land because landlords either own it all or for some other reason, then clearly we have a national crisis that needs to be addressed. You can't have just a few people owning all the land.
I believe that it is in a nation's interest to have most land owned by many individuals and not by large corporations or a few defector barons.

Should landlords be kicked off their land wholesale? Not if they're people rather than corporations.
However, these issues are complex and we can't just think that we must either go full communist with no land ownership or full ancap where everything needs to be owned by a corporation.
National interest must take precedent over businesses.

What if there are a thousand of us? Does it help that you have a thousand guns, and yet only two hands?

But then you accept that some people will be able to conquer other peoples land, right?

So you're just a criminal?

>hur dur we should be allowed to live on someone's property for free
>durrrr that's the same as someone trying to charge for something they don't technically own
why would anyone need to debunk your retardation?

What if he has a tank? What if he also has 1000 friends? Maybe he has a nuclear device? Anything else you'd like to add to this imaginary clusterfuck of a stupid hypothetical situation?

Simple, is government's "ownership" of the land through legitimate processes? It isn't.

Simple the bottom one is voluntary exchange the top one is extortion.

you get ass fucked

I can absolutely refute that, are you still waiting OP? Don't want to just preach to the choir.