How can non-libertarians even compete?
(not) bumping with the only good ideology's Parcs and Rec character
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M689xuNgJyA
>>74005277
libertarians are pretty retarded.
their philosophy is sound but practically you need the whole world being liblol and even then nothing is stopping any 100k people from forming an army and doing what they want.
and to defend from that you need a state.
libertarianism was actually in effect during the stone age.
>>74005606
>practically you need the whole world being liblol
What do you mean?
>nothing is stopping any 100k people from forming an army and doing what they want
What are you talking about? In a libertarian society there would be a national army and various local militias, as well as the armed citizenry itself.
>and to defend from that you need a state.
Libertarianism is a form of statism
>libertarianism was actually in effect during the stone age.
No, it wasn't, because in the stone age there was no legal contract inforcement, nor market regulations such as "you can't lie about your stuff"
try again
>>74005277
Libertarians are stupid though
They're literally one step away from being open border fags
>>74005989
>Libertarians are stupid though
factually incorrect. Look at the pic in OP, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081
>they're literally one step away from being open borders
>literally
millennial spotted
>open borders
nope
>>74005823
>What do you mean?
If you have a slither of land with lilbet but your neighbor doesn't care then you are toast.
>Libertarianism is a form of statism
fair point. correct
>No, it wasn't, because in the stone age there was no legal contract inforcement, nor market regulations such as "you can't lie about your stuff"
verbal contract is contract.
>>74005277
Sage for shit D&C thread
Also no sample size given
>>74006163
>If you have a slither of land with lilbet but your neighbor doesn't care then you are toast.
what are you talking about? muh roads? Muh castle doctrine? at least spout memes coherently
>verbal contract is contract.
Not legally, except for in Texas, if I recall correctly.
>>74006149
What's the difference between open borders and free trade with different states?
Very little
They don't admit it because libertarians haven't really haven't thought deeply about their ideology
It's babe's first political ideology
>>74006189
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081
>inb4 "any sample size below 6 million is too low! I reject statistics 101!"
>>74006398
>They don't admit it because libertarians haven't really haven't thought deeply about their ideology
How do you reconcile this assertion with the fact that libertarians are on average smarter than both republicans and democrats?
>What's the difference between open borders and free trade with different states?
free trade = goods and services
open borders = anyone can enter the country without any legal processes
>>74006423
I'm not seeing the sample size lad
Again sage for shitty D&C thread
>>74006647
>I am incompetent!
not an argument.
>>74006595
I reconcile by the fact that it's babe's first political ideology
Obviously they've thought about politics more than the average bear
Free trade = open boarders
The only difference is wear the people are situated
Libertarians hate the nation state because it is simply a barrier to business and trade
>>74006595
There can be no free market without the (more or less) free movement of labor. Please educate yourself.
>>74006919
>I reconcile by the fact that it's babe's first political ideology
So, you are suggesting that smart people are libertarian at first and then move on to whatever brand of silliness you subscribe to?
>Free trade = open boarders
No, it really doesn't.
>Libertarians hate the nation state because it is simply a barrier to business and trade
No we don't, we love the USA as it was in the 1890s-1900s.
>>74007394
If you want to define the free market like that, then I (and most libertarians) would support regulations to the effect of "keep people out if there is a benefit to keeping them out".
