Voluntarism doesn't encroach on civil liberties like other political ideologies do.
The POV is of an individual's consent, rather than an ideological framework.
Re: you're free to do whatever you want so long as I'm not forced to engage on your behalf.
Take a conservative bitcoiner for ex,
They want to ban abortions.
This takes the consent way from the voluntary individuals who want to enter such a practice - both the doctor & patient.
The opposing view can be said the same, the doctor shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion if they don't agree to.
I don't believe top down edicts are useful in this sense - as someone else getting an abortion doesn't force you to obtain one - or anyone else for that matter.
So you see,
if *you* want to ban abortions - meanwhile calling me a bad person for *not wanting to ban* people from consensually entering into an agreement - well you're trying to force me to engage on your behalf.
If you want to ban anyone from doing anything consensual - you're a kind of pseudo-fascist.
Want to ban guns? Same deal.
So back to your question;
Libertarians don't get any privilege in view outside of the idea of consent between two willing parties.
If you force me to engage in the act, you're encroaching on my ability to consent or volunteer.
This is the base layer of society we're talking about - not specific opinions.
Of which I can practice and discuss with you no problem!
But they're my 1nak not something I'm willing to shove down your throat & label you a heretic for not complying.
You said “You can be any of those things in private, but bringing it to the Bitcoin party is a foul.” And then just said you’re open to discussing different opinions. So I am confused by your original point.
Yeah bro, have you been paying attention?
People are attacking en masse others with differing opinions - essentially Doxxing them.
Harassing them in ways that maximalise their views to an extent where it's shoving it down people's throats maliciously.
Calling people murderers, heretics, etc...
People are acting like it's the "same energy as Bitcoin maximalism"...
^^^^ ITS NOT.
Was not aware of all that
Problem with this view is you’re forgetting the other two parties in abortion - the father and the child. Anti-abortion argument centers around justice for the child. Sure the woman and the doctor may consent, but if you believe the fetus has the same right to consent then there is an issue.
You don't own your woman's decisions because she's holding your baby, you're trying to take away her ability to consensualise.
It's in her body, she should be able to volunteer the decisions.
If you want to force laws on people using the govt you're disgusting.
If you have a rational point to make, discuss it with people - change hearts & minds from grassroots - allow people to make decisions they consent to in a voluntaristic way.
Conservatives use abortion to hide behind their statism, total control power schema.
If you can control people's decisions with their bodies you can control everything.
If you think a fetus has the ability to consent your understanding of biology & the natural world is completely defunct - akin to the multi-gender mind virus.
