Yesterday, I shared this on Facebook from the “like a libertarian” page:

Of course, one of my far-left friends and I get into a debate that fairly quickly reached “but muh roads!” It was all in good fun, I know that she loves a good debate, and it was actually fairly productive at first.

Then her husband jumped in, and things got weird.

Pretty ordinary so far. This guy has been in a public sector union basically forever, this pessimistic “People are too stupid and greedy to do anything right” view is nothing new coming from him. And to see things from his side, he’s defending a system where an immoral monopoly works very thoroughly in his favour.

Here’s where it starts getting fucked-up: ignoring his “ends justify the means” argument, he tries to make the case that consent is automatically given based on where you are. So, as I pointed out, a woman who gets raped at a bar wasn’t really raped; she automatically gave consent by being there! She could just leave!

I was hoping he’d stop and think about how rape-y his arguments were sounding, but instead he doubled down. Apparently, no only means no unless you threaten them with a gun to turn it into a yes.

He hasn’t replied any more to that particular thread; I hope that he’s realized that his special pleading to generate “automatic consent” for taxation sound like weak excuses a rapist would give in court, but I honestly doubt it.