Can someone explain why libertarianism is sustainable? In my mind, the wealth would just aggregate to the mega rich and fuck over the entirety of the working class, causing repetition of the industrialist manipulation of the early 1900s. Pic unrelated.
in order for the rich to get all the money, they'd have to trade something that was worth all the money for it.
What you WOULD see, is the end of mega corporations lobbying government for special interest that squash the smaller competition, as well as the limited liability that lets companies get away with fucking over their customers.
The end of intellectual property would also stop stifling information, including on things like life saving medication. No longer could vital drugs be $200 a pill, when wal-mart can churn out a clone for $10 for 30.
So then a competiting busisness would buy a pill, reverse engineer it, and then make there own. Intellectual property is a government enforced monopoly...which is ALWAYS bad for customers.
So they have to sell their product to maintain their wealth and attract customers. Once government intervention is gone, no more bailouts when you do something stupid, no more subsidized labor with welfare. The power will be in the hands of the consumer, not in the corporation. No more letting companies get the upper hand through government manipulation. The worker will get back their right to collectively bargin.
I guess the only problem I see is our national infrastructure being lesser because of the lack of taxes. Although I guess corporate interests would be to create roads anyways.
And that bring me back to my point of saying the rich still rely on a product being sold, investment or not. We control the rich by giving them our money for a product or service, without the government intervention that allows faulty businesses to stay affloat, the rich lose their life boat.
Well, if it's us or them then maybe it's the rich or us huh?
Listen, want to screw the rich? Don't have kids. Convince all the poor people you know not to have kids. If the poor start not having kids, the rich don't have people to screw over.
What makes you think that? Do people lose their collective bargaining in this world? Are we reverted back to the 19th century where information wasnt spread around the world in a blink of the eye?
No. More than 50% of food goes to waste in the U.S. We're living on a butter mountain. People are simultaneously dying of obesity and starvation in this nation. Explain that one to me.
If the cost of labor goes down, then so does the cost of food. Eventually, food becomes free, and money is used for increasingly frivolous things instead, until everyone's living in an age of abundance, and what was considered a rare, high value item in the past is now produced in droves, mainly for something to do.
No government intervention always leads to corporations abusing labor. Monopolies like Youtube are evidence of this. The strike system shits all over creators, and said creators have no other platform, so they must remain.
Why doesnt anyone create a new platform? Why should the government get involved with a situation that could be resolved by creating a new platform? Why dont youtubers collectively come together and demand changes? Why dont they leave for something else? This isnt a problem that needs government intervention.
It's not counter inflation, dawg. The longer a nation goes without crumbling, the more efficient they get at making things, sans government redistribution of wealth. Such as inflation.
Than why havent they stopped it, there is already laws againsr monopolies? Maybe because it isnt a monopoly? There are plenty of other video platforms out there, but youtubers wont collectively move to a new platform. They dont care about the workers, just themselves. They need to organize and tell youtube if shit doesnt change by this date, we are leaving.
>thinking youtube is a monopoly
If we don't set basic rules, we won't the the infrastructure to trust each other enough to do business.
With laws, I have recourse if I sell my raw materials to a refiner and do not get my agreed-upon amount. Libertarianism doesn't mean an abolishing of all law, only a simplification of the law.
Youtube wasn't originally a platform for users to make money, only a really convenient way to showcase their videos.
Now that it's becoming more cumbersome to watch videos on Youtube, viewers will look elsewhere if a sufficiently attractive alternative emerges.
So if you had a platform that was able to skirt copyright law, had little to no ads, and allowed large videos to be uploaded, you have provided a better alternative. Now just post that shit on Reddit endlessly and word of mouth should catch on.
Youtube didnt pay in the beginning. It will be a rocky transition, but honestly if i was a venture capitialist i would totally get some of the more famous youtubers on a payroll, and have them cranking out constant content until i could bring in expensive yet minimal advertising. It could be done, and honestly probably will.
A monopoly controls the industry in such a way that people have no other choice.
Popularity is where the people have a choice but choose not to.
I can go to other platforms to upload my videos, I can't really choose my internet provider. See the difference?
Close enough doesnt warrant government intervention. You cant just expect the government to come whenever you think there is an injustice, that would tie up an already bloated and congested system. Laws are around for a reason.
Anarchy has no central government, so laws would be very local at best. And a monopoly can still develop in Anarchy because there wouldn't be a strong government entity to prevent it.
1.) Read Atlas Shrugged it's worthwhile. But don't be a fuck about it - it's not to be taken as gospel, just worth reading to understand the full side of libertarian / objectivism
2.) Understand that the US is a moderated capitalist society- libertarian-ism taken to an extreme gets rid of useful government protections we all benefit from. Again, just use your head.
3.) Most of the rich I know are producers. They have good ideas and capitalize them - they trade their ideas for money. Money is an exchange of value, so people are rich because they're valued. The rich tend to get richer because they tend to invest their money in an expanding economy - people who don't invest don't take advantage of an expanding economy.
4.) We have never lived in a more productive, more wealthy time in human history. Don't let Bernie fool you.
Central gov means records like social security, which can be traced to you from wherever you use it. And social standing, let's just say that only applies to celebs.like OJ and Hillary.
Libertarians are cool with taxes as long as it's for shit we all absolutely need like roads emergency services etc. and if we only taxed for absolute need then the taxes would be substantially less and everyone would benefit
That is kinda the thing with libertarianism, there is gonna be a lack of a large police force because no government. Any criminals would immediately get stomped by civilians with guns.
Honestly, libertarianism is a wild card because I'm not exactly sure how people today would react to it if it was forced upon them somehow. I like the idea but since most of the world doesn't operate like that, most people would be confused about shit that would grow much more important.
You're wrong. Your rhetoric is spot on though, it will have the complete opposite effect. mega corps will become even more wealthy and quash any competition because there will be no government or regulatory body to stop them. There would not be an end to intellectual property, it would become even more exacerbated then it is now, once again there would be no regulatory body to stop it."Labor cost" , you know, people who work at these corps, will become even less respected than they already are, and unless you are a stakeholder or upper management you basically be a serf, subject to the whims of said corp. Libertarianism is the feudal system. Mega corps hold all the power and the only form of government will be the military and police. Don't believe me? visit the UAE. this is the exact form of governance they practice there, and if your not management, you are literally a slave. On another point, if you see men who own these mega corps (David Koch.)
pushing for this type of government, that should be the first red flag to help you with your decision making.
They probably don't know much about it because all they hear is socialism and welfare from dems on TV which sounds good to them because, well, more money = more crack, regardless of legality.
Why does everyone think the govt will cease to exist. Libertarianism only stresses personal responsibility, shrinking the federal govt and allowing states more power to govern themselves, and fair taxes that apply equally to everyone and are only taken for absolute needs. Businesses aren't going to be turned loose with no oversight. Hell if anything they will be reigned in a bit to stop the current big business fuckery. Also the constitution is big with libertarians. It's just sad that this mindset won't work this time and unless the next libertarian candidate starts campaigning right now for next time it's very likely to never work. If you want more freedoms and less govt interference with your personal life as an American you'd better vote trump as much as I hate saying that. Hillary will have you eating from the federal govts hand and not even thinking about it. We can survive 4 years of a dipshit that doesn't know what he's doing. We will never survive even a couple years of the shrew that knows exactly what she's doing. You might not even get to vote next time.
Some wealth may aggregate to the upper class. This wealth is not stagnant, it is the definition of capital, in so far as capital is wealth that is not consumed and is instead invested into production.
Wealth in fact must also be produced, it doesn't just exist. And in capitalism, as capital is invested into production, the overall wealth in society increases, which is why the material circumstances of even the lower classes increase, even if the wealth is not evenly accumulated.
A corollary is that capitalism increases the ability of the worker to generate wealth, through the use of machines and tools, machines and tools that exist because of the investment of capital, i.e. a worker with a tractor or in a factory is orders of magnitude more productive than a worker using his hands or primitive hand tools.
Anyway, when you have freedom, capitalism is what results. If you want to change how the wealth is distributed from this, it can only be done by force, as voluntary trade has not produced your desired result.
Also, in practice the wealthy don't necessarily stay wealthy forever, either from spending, bad investments, bad running of businesses into the ground, dilution from inheritance, etc. I think if you look you will find that the more free a society, the more movement you have into and out of the wealthy classes. The more regulated the society, the more fixed the upper classes are, especially if they are using their wealth to capture and direct government force in their favor.
>mega corps will become even more wealthy and quash any competition because there will be no government or regulatory body to stop them.
Megacorps can only be undermined by nimble and innovative competitors, not by the government and regulators. Especially as what typically happens is said megacorp uses government and regulations to secure their position and discourage competition, under the guise of "protecting" the consumers. Taxi cartels vs uber, for example.
But if you look over the past 40 years, you can find many big corporations that have passed away, and many new companies that came into existance, some of which have become large corporations. Which in turn may also fade away in the coming years and decades.
As property is privately owned, pollution is a problem, to the extent that it pollutes other people's property.
If you look at the environmental track record of the Soviet Union, it was atrocious, much worse than most countries today. And that is because no one owned any of the land or resources, or rather "everyone" owned it, with the government as caretaker. But this leads to typical Tragedy of the Commons situation. No one is motivated enough to care about it, least of all a government bureaucrat who has no material interest in it one way or another.
And pollution today in our society is mostly in areas where there is a commons, like rivers, lakes, air, and the oceans.
I think libertarians can morally get behind environmental regulations by the government, to keep the pollution of others from impacting your property, or in cases where something can't be made into private property, like air.
libertarians wanna trade:
>rule of law
>contracts enforced by central authority
>contracts become meaningless to those without the power to enforce them
libertarians are shortsighted and ignorant of history
That last bit. That's it. Libertarians always get pegged as these "absolutely no regulation" guys when all we advocate is common sense. It makes sense to take care of our environment and we see this best effected as incentives to businesses to take care of themselves. If a company goes green for instance(at least in our state) there's a state govt(and possibly fed too) incentive for them to do that. Hell the carpet mills around here are damn close to being 0% landfill companies. That is progress for the environment
Yes but how do the polluters get money to pollute and buy pinkertons? Buy selling us products and services, if they dont get our money they dont have money. This helps make the consumer a more viable part of the cause.
>we just dumped a bunch of chemicals into the mississippi
Oh shit. Well you just lost a bunch of customers. Cash quits flowing in
technically that's not progress for the environment, that's just less regression. if the carpet mills wanted to be progressive, they'd be -% landfill companies, i.e., takes from the land fills
the company makes more than enough selling to the wealthy people who don't live in the spillzones, they can also mortgage their property to stay afloat during this short period of turmoil
A lot do when things like plastic bottles that would be going there are getting melted down into pellets and extruded into strands for yarn. That was just one example. Is anyone going out to actual landfills and taking the trash back? Who's property is it?
>who's property is it?
whoever last conquered it by force or the people they gave it to, or the people who purchased it from the murderers who "created" that property when they killed the original inhabitants
>implying wealthy people in non spill zones will still condone the act
>implying in a libertarian society you cant sue
It isnt a perfect system, it is just better than the current crony capitalism when have now. In a libertarian society, you must be educated, you must be diligent
Well if you're the guy I was replying to I'll start with "none of the bullshit you said" first. For the most part there wouldn't be much noticeable change in the system. You have to look at each item piece by piece. Libertarians believe that people,for the most part, should be able to do or have whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's constitutional rights or damages someone else's property. It's arguably pro choice legalize weed while remaining fiscally conservative and eliminating waste. Small federa govt for the regulations you need on businesses and larger state govt to take care of the people in their own areas rather than this state paying the tab for that state. Personal responsibility and common sense. And if you take "no govt everyone fends for themselves no law and ebil corporations rule everything" from what I said then you don't get to participate in this conversation anymore.
It won't. Not him but we would pay for the things we actually need. Buying a college education for straight c high schooler jayquon so he can drop out after his first semester cuz his mixtape is fire AF yo isn't something we need. Providing every child that has no choice an equal shot at a basic education is.
can you reply with specific policy points instead of vagueries like "for the most part, should be able to do or have whatever they want as long as it doesnt infringe"
not a libertarian policy point anynore
>replace national federalist system with state-based federalism
why not just go to municipal federalism?
Well, you're right. It would be like the Gilded Age all over again.
But keep in mind that during the Gilded Age, most goods were priced at a point so that people could afford them. Oil, gas, steel and cars were much cheaper than it is today.
It's not like much has changed since then. There are still mega corporations that control over 60% of their market (Georgia-Pacific and the Koch Industries are prime examples) but still keep prices manageable. And for good reason. If no one can afford their goods, corporations lose investments, and in return they lose shareholders. Everyone loses in the end.
because they can't afford to of course
low property values = low property taxes = badly funded schools = uneducated people = low property values
high property values = high property taxes = well funded schools = educated people = high property values
we'd start using phrases like "third world state louisiana" and we'd have refugees from the gulf states as the seas encroach
What good is it to them to have people being poor? What good is having a bunch of poor people to the mega rich? If only the top survives, how does that benefit those at the top?
I'm arguing modern libertarian ideology. None of this will ever happen with our current two party system. I'm a lifelong dem voter who is voting trump and maybe next time we can get a libertarian candidate that will actually have a shot. I believe in the constitution and freedom to be left the fuck alone for the most part. I haven't looked at Johnson's(who I'm assuming you're asking about) policies because he doesn't stand a chance in hell at actually accomplishing anything but Hillary's slam dunk victory. Maybe next time. I'm willing to start now to help get Johnson or whoever else going for next election but as it stands right now it's nothing more than a dream from the minority of people who are actually paying attention.
>inb4 hurr durr that's not a policy
No state is wholly funding their school system on federal money. And if they are they need to reevaluate their situation. If you can't afford schools then you're not doing it right. Probably because you're still trying to pay for tyrekes college or that crackhead that ODs healthcare.
Are you saying you can only collect tax if you are rich? Or if your tax payers are rich? Because how does it work now? How do states fund their projects? How does Mississippi, the poorest state do it? By getting federal assistance, right? So why cant states help each other? If Louisiana is too poor to get taxes from, but they still need that revenue from taxes, can they not strike up a deal with another state? Can they not try to bring in tax payers?
you only need to look at the way states outside of a federal union cooperate. i.e., not at all. if one state was at a disadvantage I guarantee you it would get no help, and anyone offering the help would have ulterior motives and likely leave the crippled state worse off
Look at it however you want. The constitution, particularly the bill of rights, is a good thing that ensures our already inherent human rights and our rights as Americans. The further we get away from that the closer we wind up in these shit scenarios everyone that has no idea what libertarianism is keeps suggesting
College isn't a right. Basic K-12 is closer and everyone agrees that we need it. Stop paying for tyreke and start paying for little 5yo Susie. Don't twist my shit. I didn't say what you said I said.
Two reasons: labor and market.
If we don't have any poor people, then companies will outsource their labor to developing countries to save money.
If there weren't any poor people, the corporations would simply raise prices on everything. Why wouldn't they? The market with a higher GDP per capita tends to inflate prices to make More profit. However, lower classes keep prices in check. More poor people = more demand.
We've already said everyone needs to go to school. But by 12th grade they should've already proven whether or not they deserve for us to pay for their college. Black or white.
It may not be the specific idealism, it would be the outcome. I ask you this, why is it ultra wealthy one percenters think this is a good idea? It is because they have the most to gain.
Read some of the dribble these men have written or said. And keep in mind, in a libertarian society they and their ilk would have all of the power.
Because to libertarians. government is seen as "coercive." Any regulation is "coercive" rather than simple rule of law.
There are no exceptions. Libertarians bitch about environmental laws, human rights laws, gun regulation, even drug and alcohol regulation.
No dumbass. Look at illinois. They spent wildly on social programs and now they are broke as shit and going into year two without a budget. It isnt about race, it is about spending where it doesnt need to be spent. You guys think the government needs to take care of everybody, and charity doesnt exist.
But they don't advocate for "no govt" either. The laws are there to ensure your rights and property are defended. Arbitrary laws like weed criminalization and abortion laws and gay marriage laws that only affect social aspects of society and don't hurt anyone or their rights or property are the only kinds of laws that are at risk of being done away with. Businesses are still gonna be regulated. Children(not adults) are still gonna be put through school. Cops and firemen are still gonna have jobs and roads are still going to be built and maintained. How the hell people get from that to "lol but there will not be laws or govt" is fucking beyond me.
>charity doesnt exist.
if it did, we wouldn't have poor people
charity is a feel-good stopgap measure at best
and libertarianism isn't going to make society pay people living wages
you are going to have to pass laws to do that
We currently live in a society in which you have to go through years and years of college to comprehend your basic rights and responsibilities. I'm not libertarian (at least not in the "free market" paradigm), but I think the current "monopoly" lawyers have over the law is absolutely fucked.
How can the common folk practice their basic right of citizenship if they can't comprehend the law? It's so convoluted and confusing that you have to literally learn another language (legalese) to be informed.
>But they don't advocate for "no govt" either.
When anything is perceived as an affront to personal liberty, the reality is libertarians don't want it. They're hypocrites when they say they're "socially liberal."
That means they're willing to stand by and let society go to shit because they believe society has to naturally evolve without government intrusion.
>pass laws for a living wage
I guess collective bargining and unions go away in a libertarian society.
>charity does jack
It may not be the biggest help at alleviating societal concerns, but it does work.
America's middle class arose during a massive transfer of wealth from the upper class to the lower class, i.e., the New Deal
libertarian economics gave us the gilded age, world war 1, civil wars, hitler, then world war 2
then we stabilized the economy with keynesianism until greenspan turned us over to monetarism, then we took apart the safety net and now we're moving back into the gilded age
I think you're taking it to an extreme. What you're essentially saying is nobody wants to follow laws. Ok. I can't drive 55(don't want to anyway). Doesn't mean I don't think speed limits should be enforced.
You're still missing the point.
By and large libertarians cannot agree on what government services should exist, and to what degree.
Liberals don't have this problem. We understand that we need a rule of law to enforce social ideology.
Otherwise, it's just happy talk.
Look - I think education is great and everyone should get a certain level. ...but you don't need to study post-rennaissance architecture and multivariate calculus to be a plumber, welder, street sweeper, and burger flipper.
The world will always need ditch diggers mate.
...and lots of people are well below the IQ average. What is the point of them struggling to get D's in college just to go and work a shovel?
>Personal responsibility and common sense.
You lost me. I just don't believe in the hugbox, man
As long as people are allowed to live their lives they way they want, people will do bad shit. THAT is common sense. Unless you break down every job somehow magically into equal levels of power (inb4 universal income, it's not the same) and employ one person to each uniform power-position, someone is going to have a reason to kill someone. Oh, add in instant telepathic communication, too. You'd need to know when you've upset someone with a different culture than you, so you can prevent that without all speaking one language in your fantasy hugbox
untrue, at increasing rates we're replacing low skill labor with machines, and soon we're going to find ourselves with so many barbarians inside the city we're either going to have to exterminate billions or reorder society in such a way that owning things isn't the only way to make a buck
I thought the government today was taking care of poverty?
Counterpoint: show me when in history we had this size of a middle class that has the money to spend on charities
the middle class is receding, if you're relying on the largesse of the disappearing middle class, i don't really have to attack your position, I just have to wait for the economy to stagnate further
The private sector was still balking at hiring, but the subsidies did help people who weren't working.
Arguably had WWII not come along to interrupt it, the country could have been back on track by the early 1940s, with a much more democratic system of society than your "laissez-faire" crap.
Because they lobby the federal government to do so. So instead of making the infection smaller, you want to just try a new medication? Make the federal government smaller and by god look at people unionize and demand fairer wages.
lmao at libertarians asking for evidence
they're the first to ask for evidence, first to ignore evidence and they can never provide evidence to support their claims
another great libertarian thread lmao see you assholes at the polls
So no one unionized in the 20s? And demanded fairer wages, that didnt happen?
The welfare system is keeping people complacent. Make it smaller and get rid of federal subsidies for big companies, and people will rise up together.
Prove what, that the middle class bears the burden so the 1% can keep getting richer?
All you're doing is stalling discussion by insisting we hold your hand and re-invent the wheel with you on this.
And is libertarians and conservatives don't want to pay for jayquons college when he's proven time and time again that he doesn't need nor does he deserve anything from the working class of society. Even with laws supporting it the social programs you speak of are nothing more than just that. Happy talk.
...and when is this society occuring where you have a machine:
1. Picking up your garbage cans
2. Repaiing your rotted window-sill
3. Delivering gravel to you driveway
4. emptying your septic tank..
5. 1,000,000 other jobs
When is this occuring? Why do you need a college degree for those jobs?
You guys dissenting to this are clearly from privileged families. You have no concept that the sheltered world you live in is supported by the majority of the population doing manual labor that DONT need higher education.
I want to see that the middle class is shrinking, it was your claim and the foundation of your argument. Im sorry you dont understand that making claims will sometimes require you to back then up
It's not my claim. Just pointing out that you're being willfully obtuse by pretending to be shocked about this information.
What do you think Bernie Sanders' entire campaign was about? The growing economic inequality in this country.
You're either woefully naive or just trolling.