I don't even

what about walking into the kitchen at 7 am and finding grumpy luke in a bathrobe and bunny slippers glaring into his cup of coffee bitterly with his hair sticking up a bit on the side from where it was pressed against the pillow until you walk up and kiss his cheek and he smiles for a second (but just one second) because he loves you even though goddamit he hates the morning

SHTIYA JUST INFORMED ME THAT THAT THERE WAS A RULE ON HER SCHOOL THAT THEY COULD NOT WEAR ANY KIND OF HAT

AT ALL

THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I HAVE HEARD THIS WEEK

WAT DO I DO WITH THIS INFORMATION

youtube

Forgive me alice x’D

no but can you imagine reading Quaggan fiction

‘Quaggan got down on quaggan knee and said to quaggan

“Hoo! Quaggan loves quaggan so-oo!”

And quaggan was shocked to hear this from quaggan, quaggan was taken aback by quaggan’s gesture of love to quaggan. Quaggan didn’t know what quaggan should say, so instead quaggan took quaggan’s hand in quaggan’s hand and held quaggan close to quaggan.’

quagganquagganquaggan

okay but can you imagine like trying to sleep in on a sunday and as you’re slowly opening your eyes trying to adjust the light you see calum’s face an inch away from yours and he’s got the hugest grin on and he yells out, “HI!” and you jump nearly a foot and clutch your heart and when you look back at him he’s still smiling but he looks a little bashful and he goes, “I’m sorry…. but I made breakfast.” and he looks so cute with his hair all tucked up into his beanie and he’s twiddling his thumbs hoping you won’t be mad kill me

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

Murray Rothbard, major Libertarian ‘intellectual’.