>>70183519
If the movie was filmed in a first world country, you could do all of that without turning to libertarianism.

Why the fuck would I want a movie ruined by an actor who can't function properly because he's on drugs? What does that add to the script and direction?

>>70183645
Really?

But these drugs are illegal. Do you expect a drug like LSD to be legalized anytime soon?

>>70183736
It adds a totally different element. They wouldn't be able to perform the same as if they weren't sober, therefor, you're just getting a different side of human nature.

In a libertarian society would we be able to make a movie where TONS of animals were hurt or killed in the making of it?

Like maybe you even got the shot you wanted where a horse is thrown off a cliff or something, but you decided to shoot it several more times just to see it splatter?

>>70183928
>Like maybe you even got the shot you wanted where a horse is thrown off a cliff or something, but you decided to shoot it several more times just to see it splatter?


Lol fucking surrealists did this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Without_Bread

>>70183857
Yeah if Deniro forgot all his lines in Taxi Driver and just spaced our staring at walls and shit, that would say so much more human nature than the screenplay, direction and nuanced performance

>>70184107
What does direction, screenplays have to do with nuanced performance or human nature. its extremely artificial - anyone who acts will known this. Acid is extremely emotionally and intellectually liberating. You wouldnt make a hollywood film like this - it would be a totally new form of filmmaking in terms of what you photograph

>>70184107
so instead of going to films should I be going to drugs to make the ultimate kino?

>>70184193
idk dude

>>70183928
libertarianism would still has laws against things like this you silly goose

>>70184192
I'm sure there are dozens of avante-garde filmmakers who create movies akin to the acid experience. That's something that can only be experienced firsthand or through specific filmmaking technqiues, seeing an actor high doesn't do anything for an audience to convey those feelings. Have you ever seen a person trip? It's amusing but not mind blowing

>>70184252
I'll stop memeing now since this is a nice thread: I think the only people that should be taking LSD in order to make something even slightly watchable are those involved with photography and the writers, everyone else would be too much of a loose cannon. An ctor might take it for a scene or two but a whole movie high on drugs wouldn't be a good idea, and depending on the drug he could get addicted

>>70184285
Why would a libertarian government concern itself with what I wanted to do with my own property?

I am infringing on nobody's rights by sending multiple horses to their certain death off a cliff for my film.

>>70184318
Yeah but i've been in situations wher i've been on acid and have been very willing to "act" or "pretend" or "play"

it sounds stupid but i've gotten veeeery emotional on these drugs, usually because im with friends in or in a beautiful or inspirational place.

>>70184373
You can be a libertarian and still be concerned with the rights of non human species

>>70184392
Yes, because it is an internal, personal experience happening inside your head. From everyone else's perspective you're just acting silly.

Libertarian here to answer your questions.

>>70183519
>In a libertarian society would we be able to make a movie where the actors were legally allowed to be high on drugs?

Yes. In a libertarian society using drugs would be permissible, as it does not involve infringing upon the equal rights of others or otherwise initiating the use of violence, force, or coercion against others.

>>70183928
>In a libertarian society would we be able to make a movie where TONS of animals were hurt or killed in the making of it?

Yes. In a libertarian society, there would be no laws protecting animals, as animals do not have rights. It would be legally permissible to inflict pain and suffering for any and all reasons upon animals. In fact creating laws that prohibit you from doing what you wish with your property so long as you are not infringing upon the equal rights of others/aggressing against others is an act of aggression.

>>70183736
Worked fine in Easy Rider.

>>70184420
>You can be a libertarian and still be concerned with the rights of non human species

Are you of the opinion that there are non-human species that have rights? If so, specifically, what species have rights, and what rights do the members of these respective species have?

>>70184513
In the scene where they are tripping. Though I guess they could have been for the rest of the movie, nobody gives a very good performance in that

>>70184532
I believe that all life is inherently meaningless. So society would have to come up with an arbitrary consensus on which animals we deem deserving of having rights

DUDE
DRUGS
LMAO

In a libertarian society what's to stop me from buying a harem of 12 year old girls to worship their feet?

>>70184532

See: Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

>libertarianism
>WHOA DRUGS LMAO

you have to be 18 years or older to post here

>>70184825
Peter Singer is not a libertarian. He employs utilitarian arguments to make the case for animal rights.

>>70183519
>implying actors aren't high while filming

>>70184955

I didn't mean that he's a libertarian, I meant that there is a basis for animal rights. This is to answer your question, "specifically, what species have rights, and what rights do the members of these respective species have?"

Personally, I don't subscribe to Singer's philosophy and only know the gist of his argument. To answer your question he would say that sentient animals are entitled to rights to the extent that their goals/purposes can be carried out without interference.

If you think this is bullshit, fine I do too, but it seemed that in your question you were implying that there's no possible basis for animal rights.