![1464640693721[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nhp82Rw.jpg "1464640693721[1].jpg")
At what point did you grow out of Libertarianism?
The rise of Trump and the Migrant Crisis made me reconsider a lot of things.
Libertarian =/= Liberalism
fucking thick cunts
Examples of Libertarians, Ron Paul and Nigel Farage.
About a year ago,I realized a full on lolbertarian society would just have corporations be the new government
>>75590930
Right here.
>>75591419
>corporations be the new government
>muh corporations
t. liberal
lolbro
>>75590930
>firstfagging
Niggerbrain itt
>>75591419
>libertarian =! ancap
>>75591541
t. Billionaire Bootlicker
lolbruh
please tell me what is wrong with
>LIFE
>LIBERTY
>PROPERTY
I'd like to hear your opinion on this chang
>>75590624
>tfw libertarian and all for open borders
Hurrr durrrrr!!! Hierarchy is inherent in nature and necessary for orderly societies. That's why we must reject the tyrannical and unjust domination of our kind by Jews. and PC libtards! and the SJW narrative and Cultural Marxists and women who fuck too much. and Muslims and the fed and welfare recipients and the public sector Hurrrr durrrrrr!!!
around 18-19
>>75591925
>>75591948
/thread
>>75591925
private property only exists because of state violence.
>>75590624
Saying that you grew out of libertarianism is like saying that you grew away your penis. It doesn't make sense.
>>75590624
About 24 years old when I realized I don't want to pay tolls to private corporations just because they own massive parcels of land and refuse to allow easements to public passage. Also don't really want Wal Mart owning their own military
>>75591419
plot twist: they already are. Corporations are in fact stronger whenever they have governments to hide behind
>literal paid shills posting anti-libertarian threads 24/7
Blindingly opaque plot to shift the /pol/ overton window
>>75591765
In a libertarian society, there would be nothing to stop:
>The rise of Mega-Corporations with totalitarian levels of power within their domains
>The exporting every job that can be done overseas
>Mass importing of cheap third world migrants to cover every job that can't be exported
>dislike communism
>say you rather give your money to the government than to companies
Please help me understand you
>>75592487
no one would be paid to shill against the jews wet dream
I didn't, like any sane man I actually grew INTO it. I was a young liberal, went into a conservative faze, then went full Nat-Soc because of /pol/, but that was really just edgy and idealist inspiration, a small fetish in the back of my mind for racial purity and violence, not the result of logical ideology but testosterone fueled lust for Darwinian action that I craved in a boring world.
What moved me past this? The realization that these useless, limpdick cunts in white collars sitting at their desks can barely handle aiming their cum into a tissue, not to mention spending my fucking money and giving me useless laws and directions. Why would I praise them and thank them? Do I have any shred of independence, manhood, decency? Yes, I have a spine, and I also view things in the most pragmatic and rational lense possible. The government does some necessary things, and the free market doesn't always win, but I won't go full anarchist and I won't go full commie, libertarianism can efficiently meet most demands in society, history and statistics have proved this.
Only low test manchildren who need boots to lick could possibly disagree.
>>75592657
enjoy your white genocide and degenerate jewish society, whilst pretending to be some how anti-establishment. like other liberals, lolbergs are incapable of seeing beyond themselves and the immediate.
>>75590624
As soon as Gary Johnson threatened to sabotage the election by running as an independent.
>>75590624
I was riding the bus off campus when I overheard a conversation between the bus driver and a student who said he was getting a master's degree in curatorial studies. Normally I would have thought him an enormous faggot, but while I was listening to the conversation, I heard him describe some of the things he did while setting up an exhibition in one of the galleries on campus. Without giving away too much detail bout what he did, I'll say that I thought that what he was doing was a worthwhile human endeavour. In a libertarian world, nobody would ever have shelled out for what he was doing, but the government and (public) university provided grants. There are many other things that ought to be done, such as supervised injection sites for junkies to keep them from shooting up on playgrounds, but the market won't provide them. Either charity or the state needs to jump in.
That revelation alone wasn't enough to turn me off libertarianism completely, since charities can do lots of good work in absence of an inefficient government bureaucracy. Two other things eventually put me off libertarianism altogether.
1. Wealth concentration reduces total utility.
A starving person would have much more appreciation for a 2$ burrito than a Donald Trump would. In microeconomics, this appreciation is part of th utility of the burrito. Another example is that people without schools to send their kids to get more utility from a shitty school being made available to them than a rich person who already sends their kids to private school. If you could somehow take the 2$ for the burrito from the rich person and give it to the starving person, total utility increases. The upshot is that the starving person now has enough energy to work for the rich person, and the poor people might learn to read and become more productive as a result. Unfortunately, this also means stealing by threat of violence from the rich person. Furthermore, the government is inefficient and corrupt.
>>75591390
this thanks good strawmen tho OP really makes u think dawg
>>75593058
>white genocide
Well you conservatives seem to like social darwinism very much, why are you mad that you're being removed from existence? Isn't it survival of the fittest?
>>75590624
So I guess /pol/ dislikes libertarianism. Of course a fully lolbertarian society is garbage, but alot of libertarian ideas bring us away from what /pol/ dislikes even more: Globalism. I don't think a purely libertarian society would work just as a pure communism, unregulated capitalism or heaven forbid anarchy wouldn't work. No "pure" societies work. Although I guess I could just post a meme picture of a snake and be on my way.
>>75592525
So we're living in a libertarian society then?
>>75593058
I disagree with that sentiment on two points.
A. Look up Hans Hermann-Hoppe. He is a libertarian who still calls for strict immigration standards and allows communes of racial purity. Just like Socialism, liberalism, and conservatism, there are many schools of libertarian thought and he is one of them.
B. Within the libertarian society, knowing full well the propensity for degenerate races to seek out more catering welfare states, they will not find such sympathy. There will be no safety net or oppertunity to take advantage of the system. They work, create, or starve, and it may not work 100% (nothing does) but it will weed out many foreigners and prevent this white genocide.
That said I am very capable of seeing beyond the immediate, in fact I am even more capable then the average conservative or liberal which is why I'm libertarian, but I see no need to look beyond myself. I never signed a contract saying every other cunt born on the same land as me was my responsibility and that I had to babysit them, but in that same vein I don't expect them to cater to me either. What's the issue there?
>>75593165
Continued...
I think that despite the low efficiency of the wealth transfer, I believe there are some extremes of wealth and poverty for which even forced transfer would improve total utility and provide positive feedbacks.
2. The non-agression principle is a wish.
It's an immature, adolescent wish in the same way that 'everybody is equal' or 'communism can work while people still have to' is. Aggression is a fact of nature. We see it used all over the animal kingdom. Humans being opportunistic rather than moral creatures by nature will and do use force against others when there is an advantage to be gained by doing so. The idea that people will ever stop doing this is (even if their parents stop spanking them) silly.
So, for the time being, we need a military and police force. While the police are an unaccountable criminal tyranny in many places, they are still nominally bound by laws and reliant on public goodwill. In a pure libertarian world, there would be tremendous incentive for private security forces to become monopolies in certain areas. If allowed to succeed, they would become small despotic states. I find that idea to be pretty repulsive.
libertarianism wouldn't change anything essential about our societies or countries. why do you think the jews have been busy promoting the libertarian party to dent Trump's chances?
only thing lolbetarians really care about is hoarding shekels, fucking kids, taking drugs and generally being degenerate. prove me wrong.
pretty much all of them are 1) either children who don't like being told what to do by school/university/their mum or 2) pedophiles, other disgusting degenerates who just want to be degenerates and disguise it with the veneer of a simplistic ideology which is inconsistent and could be BTFO by any retarded marxist who understands the symbiotic relationship of the state/organised violence with the emergence of private property.
>>75593422
>libertarianism doesn't support globalism
>>75593694
Hey, good news for you my friend, a reminder that libertarianism is not anarchism. Again, they are not the same thing. It is a minarchist ideology. Military? Check, there is one. Police force? You betcha, no worries about hiring mercenaries and all those other silly memes about libertarianism. In fact, some proponents of libertariansm like Murray Rothbard (I believe he was the one) even called for a large and aggressive police force. There are little laws to be broken, so those that ARE, will be punished with swiftness and force. Seems reasonable right?
>>75592525
Yes, and it's really quite simple. Competition. People would prefer not to work for monstrous corporations or to buy their goods, thus corporations would need to treat their employees well unless they wish to risk high turnover.
If other nations can provide cheaper labor, then those in the current economy will be forced into other roles. To do these less efficient roles themselves leaves everyone worse off there is a better allocation of labor than doing them in the current nation hence the price of wages. E.g., the wages of a first worlder are more valuable than the first. To have them digging ditches is a waste of their more valuable labor.
As for open immigration, it would not really matter. Without subsidization from government, the new laborers would demand the same living wages as the old.
>But I want my white nation
This is even more simple. Don't buy from these companies, do not work for these companies. You can actually start inherently racist businesses that will be profitable if you can convince people that this is important enough to pay more for a finished product or service. E.g., if I wanted to start a QT 3.14 Aryan Nanny service, I could demand higher prices for my nannies on the basis of their Aryan-ess rather than on their cheap as fuck Mexican-ness. Assuming the government has no role in discrimination hiring.
>But people won't buy my racist products
Then you're either not marketing well enough, or there is simply not market or demand for what you're selling. At which point, reevaluate.
>>75593612
well at least you don't sound like a kike shill like most libertarians. i am aware of hoppe, though he is very much the exception. i disagree that simply disallowing welfare will stop immigration, this is a meme, they will still come, and the corporate interests represented in the entertainment industry, academia etc promoting "multiculturalism" "tolerance" will still be prevalent in a society where everyone is in everyone's pocket.
>>75593982
Would you mind elaborating your point instead of simply using greentext?
>>75590624
It's a meme ideology that lives on the same coin as communism.
Libertarians have to assume all humans are rational actors for their shit to even remotely function.
>>75594105
>the new laborers would demand the same living wages as the old.
>african who is used to dodging mines on his way to his local death factory where he gets paid $1 a day is going to demand the same as white person who is used to living a decent standard of living.
>>75594639
Key word is living.
If you do not pay a living wage, and there is no subsidization, the people starve and freeze.
>>75593982
muh globalism
move to north korea you fucking retard. globalism doesn't require importing million of niggers you stupid fuck
>>75594184
I see where your concerns are (and like I said in my original post, I went through an edgy Nat-Soc Nazi faze and read both mein kampf and "inside the Third Reich" by albert speer so I know what the issue is and sympathize with it) and I do think that problem of racemixing and multicuturalism would be heavily reduced. Welfares effect on immigration is not a "meme" as you put it, the effects would be seen to some significance, given situations like that in Europe where you have economic migrants coming in the millions seeking safety nets and free education/healthcare oppertunities. The only ones that would be coming would be those that are willing to work or contribute in the first place. So, like water in a filter, we're whittling down the number. What do we do with the workers? A few things.
>Stricter immigration policy to focus on white Europeans
>No anti-racist government legislation to arrest racist persons and communities
>No LGBT/multi-cul. government agenda
As well as a bevy of other things. The society falls on the back of individuals, and as nature intended, most individuals are racist and tribal. Minorities will find little tolerance or sympathy.
>>75594774
it's easy to just "live", point is shitskins are going to tolerate lower standards of living/wages, and thus outcompete and outbreed the native population - oy vey, at least you don't have big government saying you can't fuck kindergarten prostitutes whilst being strung out on heroin right chiam?
>>75594774
This, and this is a big part of libertarianism. I see this as good, some see it as bad, but it provides little recourse for whiners and the lazy. You work, create, or struggle. It weeds out the rest.
>>75594927
seems quite reasonable, perhaps there is scope for aspects of libertarianism, but most irl libertarians are strictly "anti-racist" and love open borders, globalism etc....basically they just seem like kikes and liberal faggots who like money.
>>75592032
This is really good. Thanks bro.
when i realized that degeneracy wasn't just a meme but rather a word that encompasses the degraded state of the modern man
we need a responsible small - SMALL! - government to prevent legitimate abuse.
I'm libertarian to an extent. I'm not for completely open borders, think some government services are necessary, don't believe in outsourcing businesses, and think tariffs are a good idea. I guess I'm a common sense libertarian.
its this simple.
I went down this exact same road. Was very recently a hardline Fascist, but recently I'm carving my own path and building my own ideology around a core of Fascism, picking and choosing aspects of other ideologies and philosophers that I do like.
>>75590624
After High School.
>>75590624
Recently. The migrant crisis turned me into a nationalist, and I read a bunch of Ayn Rand which made me think about the proper role of government. Too many lolbertarians are for open borders and have no idea what a government should do.
I think being an ethnocentric excludes me from being a libertarian.
I value certain people over others ( my family, race and culture) while libertarians value all people equally.
>>75592657
Good shit right here.
>>75595337
But don't let that dissuade you. I'm reading your posts and seeing you use a large amount of insults and emotionally charged language, and you sound like me in freshmen year, very enthusiastic about this issue. That isn't an insult, I had the same mindset. Fuck it right? Just gas them all, one by one, it's totally efficient and badass. I also craved violence but realistic and more pragmatic policy is needed when it comes to these things, we can't just murder millions of "subhumans" in modern society and get away with it, or openly preach racism for that matter, even if we are. We just allow nature to take it's course. Tribalism, small government, no sympathy or safety net for minorities, and they will stop coming, slowly but surely. Also, cleanly. No need for ovens and rifles, just intellect and patience.
>>75595093
They probably will tolerate lower standards of living, but those standards must inherently be livable.
So, here is the deal as flat as possible. To achieve better standards of living than what is considered base livable, a few things will have to happen
>Unionization/Collective bargaining
Essentially artificially raised wages with mutual interest involved.
>Fordism
This is one of the more interesting ideas that tends to go by the wayside. If a corporation wants to get the most productivity out of its workers, it must stand for their happiness, health and interests.
For instance, a company notices that alcoholism is a common problem, therefore offers rehab programs to protect higher employees that are hard to replace, fire lower end employees and will refuse to hire alcoholics in the future.
Or companies may notice that due to family issues employees take more sick days or leave days, and thus the corporation has a vested interest in promoting good family values.
>Where the fuck has this ever happened?
Most early schools were started by corporations as their employees were too uneducated to do their jobs well. Fordism was alive and will with many neighborhoods completely company owned; see Pullman in Chicago.
>Muh shitskins
An eventual assumption in a completely free market is that the market will become a huge amount of independent buyers versus a huge amount independent sellers as every product has to become more niche to appeal.
If you don't want to deal with shitskins, don't sell to them. Don't buy from companies that use shitskin labor. Don't hire shitskin employees.
>at least you don't have big government saying you can't fuck kindergarten prostitutes whilst being strung out on heroin right chiam?
But Schlomo, big government is not only restricting the kindergarten prostitution and heroin markets, but also subsidizing corporations that can now import shitskin labor that you are paying for.
>>75594105
>Competition. People would prefer not to work for monstrous corporations or to buy their goods, thus corporations would need to treat their employees well unless they wish to risk high turnover.
Except that isn't what happens, we have perfect historical examples of unregulated capitalism playing out across the west in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Success and wealth consolidated toward a handful of extremely powerful individuals or entities, who quickly realized that colluding was far more profitable than competing. There would be little to no competition between the biggest corporate entities in a libertarian society, and no competition would ever be allowed to arise either.
>If other nations can provide cheaper labor, then those in the current economy will be forced into other roles. To do these less efficient roles themselves leaves everyone worse off there is a better allocation of labor than doing them in the current nation hence the price of wages.
Are you suggesting that large scale outsourcing won't happen, because someone who loses their job due to outsourcing must be given another which they will be less efficient at thus it is detrimental to the economy at large? If so this is the absolute most retarded notion I've ever seen posted on this board.
>Without subsidization from government, the new laborers would demand the same living wages as the old.
Nevermind, this one might be even more retarded. They won't demand anything, immigrants from third world shitholes are used to working for pennies an hour. They idea of making a dollar or two and hour would be mindblowing to them. If they ever demanded more, they would just be canned and replaced by some other third worlder who didn't.
>>75590624
I wouldn't mind commies getting thrown off helicopters.
Does that count?
>>75595978
>There would be little to no competition between the biggest corporate entities in a libertarian society, and no competition would ever be allowed to arise either.
But that's really the heart of it. If there are no barriers to entry or exist, then there would be tons of new players trying to get into the market constantly. For instance, I could sell my NO-JEWS-INVOLVED hummus for a higher market price because there are no Jews involved.
Major trusts only became issues due to limited resources and barriers to entry presented by the government.
>Are you suggesting that large scale outsourcing won't happen, because someone who loses their job due to outsourcing must be given another which they will be less efficient at thus it is detrimental to the economy at large? If so this is the absolute most retarded notion I've ever seen posted on this board.
I'm saying outsourcing is infact GOOD for everyone. If your can be done effectively for less money, then it should not exist as it currently does; it is inherently inefficient.
>But I'll be unemployed
Then you need to either convince those who hire you that your labor is worth its cost, start a new enterprise, or starve for being useless.
>Nevermind, this one might be even more retarded.
>People won't demand a wage they can live on
Like, you might argue that they're used to living on quality Haitian mud-cakes, but a living wage is defined by actually being livable.
Is not in either the companies interest, it's quite hard to sell "WORK FOR US, YOU'LL FUCKING STARVE" to workers, nor in workers interest to work a non-living wage.
>>75591419
Then you have absolutely no idea how the market works
>>75590624
When I found out libertarians have the highest IQs and mistakenly think everyone else is smart enough to have freedom.
Mankind just isn't smart enough to be free. With the addition of the brown hordes the prospect of a free society has been delayed indefinitely
>>75590624
That thread yesterday when nobody could realistically answer how pic related could be fixed in a fully Libertarian society
>>75596966
>fully libertarian society
>le libertarian is anarchy meme
In a libertarian society, the government would fix them. Just a much smaller government than what we have now
>>75590624
The moment I saw this happen.
>>75596966
I can think of 3 options
>It doesn't, and there will be (I assume) a slight decrease in travel time, efficiency, gas consumption, and/or productivity (but I emphasize slight)
>Any major business or collection of businesses along the route realize these are issues that could effect them and pay to have it solved through repaving
>The local community that the road is within gets together and decides to fix it themselves or pays a labor group to do it
Either way, I don't know why anybody assumes the government is needed to fix it. Want to know where the money typically goes in infrastructure projects like Obamas billion dollar project in 2013? They go to labor union/leaders, and a small amount goes to fixing a small chunk, which by itself takes years and is inefficient in the long run.
So as far as cost-benefit analysis is concerned, the road does not need to be fixed or will be fixes by a local organization.
>>75590624
Last year when I realized it is incompatible with a traditionally Christian society.
>>75596966
Who would in the current society? government? Aren't they busy sucking jew penises and giving out money?
To say that you are anything but libertarian is to devalue yourself as an individual.
You laugh and oppose the libertarians for their shortcomings, but if it weren't for two words, what you think of libertarians would be law, and the punishment would be death.
Those two words are [spoiler]George Orwell[/spoiler].
>>75596482
>If there are no barriers to entry or exist, then there would be tons of new players trying to get into the market constantly. For instance, I could sell my NO-JEWS-INVOLVED hummus for a higher market price because there are no Jews involved.
Except there are huge barriers to entry in an unregulated market, the interests of the current big players in said market. The big corporate entities would either offer to buy you out, or price fix you out of existence. No competition will arise.
>Major trusts only became issues due to limited resources and barriers to entry presented by the government.
Really? Then why did these only ever form during times with little to no government regulation?
>I'm saying outsourcing is infact GOOD for everyone. If your can be done effectively for less money, then it should not exist as it currently does; it is inherently inefficient.
No, its only good for people willing to work for less and those who get to enjoy the higher profit margins.
>Then you need to either convince those who hire you that your labor is worth its cost, start a new enterprise, or starve for being useless.
Completely impossible in an unregulated global market. It doesn't matter if you are the greatest employee in the world, there will always be some random third worlder willing to do the same work for a fraction of the cost who can do a passable enough job. Quality doesn't boost profitability enough to matter in this day and age.
>Like, you might argue that they're used to living on quality Haitian mud-cakes, but a living wage is defined by actually being livable.
What they consider a living wage is enough to buy food, they are used to living in complete squalor. A librarian society won't bring them up to our level, it will drive living standards down toward theirs. A few dollars an hour becomes the new living wage.
>>75590624
A fucking leaf.
Also it's the climax of righteousness, so never.
>>75597332
If you were put off of a movement by a single member, you were never really committed to the movement in the first place.
>>75598099
>No competition will arise.
So you credit all competition that exists today to government regulation?
>>75598458
I was having my doubts with Libertarianism for a while now but the autism this man displayed solidifies my opposition completely.
>>75598099
>Except there are huge barriers to entry in an unregulated market
Such as...?
>>75598606
>I saw a random unwashed fat trailer trash hick on the street earlier wit a Trump sign
>now I'm voting Clinton
>>75595736
You, I like you, more lolbertarians need this way of thinking, if they're ever going to be taken seriously as a party.
>>75598606
Stunning logic. Top nig, Tyrone.
>>75598606
If we go by this every autist in this board should erase any doubts with conservatives too
>>75592525
Congrats, you just described what's going on in America right now.
>>75597478
Humans don't notice "slight" decreases in any of those things.
It's super easy to separate people from there money and then do at shit job (e.g. multi-year contracts that advertise as being a deal to good to refuse). Also finding someone to pave roads is not done frequently so the best man for the job isn't likely to be hired.
And your last solution is a form of government
>>75598757
The difference is that they aren't allowed on stage in the Republican party. This fat fuck was on stage on NATIONAL TELEVISION.
I am now 100% dedicated to trashing the lolbergs whenever I encounter them here from now on.
>>75590624
when i found out theyre for open borders and their candidates are a bunch of cucks
>>75598568
It is a careful balance. Too much regulation and you lock out anyone new from attempting to get into the market, no regulation and the power consolidates into a totalitarian corporate cabal.
>>75598609
How about you finish reading the rest of the sentence before asking questions.
>>75598974
True, but it is the result of decades worth of Globalist conspiracies and scheming. While it would just be the natural consequences of a pure libertarian society.
>>75599009
Perhaps you could start by recognising the difference between
>libertarianism
>anarcho capitalism
>Libertarian Party
The GOP let a bastard win their party nomination, so they aren't any better. At least the LP voted against the fat fuck who got on stage, and booed him off.
>>75599392
I did. Buyouts aren't a restriction on entry - the opportunity to get bought out as a startup is an incentive to enter a market, not a disincentive.
Price fixing has nothing to do with barriers to market entry.
>>75590624
Never grew into it because it's flawed from the start.
>>75592525
>The rise of Mega-Corporations with totalitarian levels of power within their domains
How exactly can one form a monopoly without government support?
>>75598992
The last solution is a form of local government. I really, really hope you're not one of the thousands I have seen make the mistake of equating libertarianism with anarchism, because it is not. There is a government in a libertarian society, daily and friendly reminder. Above all, states rights and even moreso local rights are the most prioritized, and if a community decides to donate money (without coercion) towards the repairs, they can do so without any harm. So your criticism isn't an argument in that regard.
If humans don't notice slight decreases or don't care enough to solve the issue, then it is not an issue. They aren't perceiving any problem with the road other then aesthetics and are satisfied with their community in that regard, so there is no further issue.
What is an issue, however, is the government saying that they DO in fact have an issue with it, and are proposing to forefully spend both his money and his neighbors money on it, when they don't want it spent on that.
So the government spends it, and guess what? Like normal, the infrastructure project is never completed, or it takes 5 years, and billions of dollars were thrown at it, even though nobody had an issue with it in the first place. It sounds like we're living in the twilight zone, don't you think?
>>75599031
this.
libertarians are just as retarded as "liberals", commies etc.
bunch of fucking idiots who believe in some ideal fantasy system but when you get down to their actual policies it wouldn't work.
>>75595533
Who is the guy in the last stage? I can't source that quote via Google.
>>75599718
>If humans don't notice slight decreases or don't care enough to solve the issue, then it is not an issue. They aren't perceiving any problem with the road other then aesthetics and are satisfied with their community in that regard, so there is no further issue.
I agree with a fair bit of the rest of what you say, but that logic can be applied to climate change which is literally an existential issue for the entire human race.
>No competition will arise.
Let's say that this is true. That corporations can produce infinitely cheap, an infinitude of goods for every possibility of infinitely good quality simultaneously. If there were true, you have hit utopia post scarcity; may god have mercy on your soul. Until this is true, there is simply a market for different, for quality, or for niche. Ikea does in some way compete with Japanese waifu pillows, but to steer production to it with their large size would be inefficient.
>Really? Then why did these only ever form during times with little to no government regulation?
Because of limited resources, and barriers to entry. If I cannot mine my land because the mineral rights belong to the government, I cannot compete with a larger mining corporation.
Standard oil was a big one because no one knew of the value of oil before the wells were mostly dug.
>Poor people/ higher profit margins.
No, it really isn't. The ability to produce more at lower costs does mean that there is more production. This thus frees people from doing inefficient tasks to better utilize their labor. This is akin to saying that a plowman is better than an electric plow because it employs a person while being inefficient; the plowman must find a new career, and society benefits as a whole from more production from less inputs.
> Quality doesn't boost profitability enough to matter in this day and age.
I completely disagree. Quality and luxury goods do infact continue to exist simply because quality is often valued. In a market, if everyone simply produced lowest sellable quality, those that sold above will create profit. If you cannot convince someone that your labor is worth paying for the rate you demand, or the price of the good you sell, then unfortunately it is not.
>What they consider a living wage is enough to buy food, A few dollars an hour becomes the new living wage.
Yes, if you can survive on it, it is infact a living wage. Hence living.
Also
>Librarian society
>>75599763
But it's not fantasy, it's the most logical ideology in general. I can guarantee that not only will you be unable to properly or realistically criticize it, but your criticisms will all be ad hominem or childish insults.
>>75591977
>Toy m16
>>75590624
>having a libertarian phase
>>75590930
(You)
>>75600168
True, but it's safe to say the majority of human beings (probably somewhere around 40-60 percent) DO in fact recognize it as an issue to be fixed.
>>75599718
There is a really good article out in the ether of libertarian land that talks about roads and how the first major roads were built by merchants. I wish I could find it
>>75591977
Really makes you think..
>>75600604
And normal people aren't allowed to fix the roads if they wanted too.
>>75591207
>This is the party that will finally stump the Trump, they said
>>75600274
I'm starting to come out of libertarianism but you are absolutely correct. Even on /pol/ the "rebuttals" are complete bs and most of the time the person trashing it has no understanding of libertarianism other than some memes.
The most logical from a purist standpoint is anarchism
>>75592657
this is a good man
>>75597603
Suck it Christfag
>>75591859
>>75600865
>he hasn't given up on lolbertarianism
When I realized it makes you a moral hypocrite to not be voluntarist.
Less theft is still theft.
>>75600604
Makes sense. Think of the silk road, it drove up profits and gave people incentives to visit China and all the places in between. It gave way to commerce and productivity, as well as job growth and a bevy of other benefits. I can guarantee, as a rational and self-interested private entity, if a businessman, business, corporation, or community wanted to put money towards fixing a road because it would benefit them like the silk road, who is to say they wouldn't fix the fucking road? If they don't want to, then it's not a significant issue, and the "muh roads" meme is irrelevant in the first place.
I never went balls deep into Libertarianism.
I never believed in the social aspect or the NAP as some philosophical concept. I also never agreed with open borders.
I did and still do believe in economic liberty (until the point where it degenerates the culture) and for a long time I was against tariffs/protectionism UNTIL I studied the economic history of the USA. Turns out protectionism is the best way to keep the wealth generated by the free market inside the company and to further cultivate it.
This is why I like trump. He has Traditional American economic policies.
>Libertarian =/= Liberalism
>>75592657
This guy right here gets it
>>75599718
Good luck with that first part. You place way too much faith in what is poor economics at best, and short sighted at worst. Newsflash, no one will donate because they'll be expecting others to.
That road is an issue, especially if we're talking about efficiency. Humans aren't perfectly rational and can make decisions that hinder themselves as a whole. Pretending that those complaining about it are just whiners is stupid. You'd see everyone dragged down just so that you could be proud of "muh non-aggression principle"
>>75601007
Voluntarism falls under libertarianism, dumbass.
The term Classic Liberalism triggers /pol/ when everyone on /pol/ has classic liberal views. This is why labeling things never work, classic liberal automatically means bad because it has the word liberal in it
>>75600168
>but that logic can be applied to climate change which is literally an existential issue for the entire human race.
Its weird how this is a matter of faith to nearly all low ranked liberals, yet none of their politicians or spokesmen EVER make the claim that man is the primary contributor to global warming. Hmmm... really makes you think huh? damn...
>>75600976
It's not that there is anything wrong with the ideology per say. Outside of needing a high intelligence population. That's its biggest stumbling block. <115 IQ people
>>75590624
Back in '08 and '12, the left had yet to swing to the radical end it has now in Europe and America. The greatest threat to the constitution was an overreaching federal government here in the states, and Libertarianism was the path to counteract it.
While Federal overreach in state and local issues is still a major problem, we now have a greater problem with the way the left is hijacking it to their own ends, in an effort to gain total control over the electorate and have a one party system backed by a wave of immigrants, leeches, and cucks.
Trump is the way to counteract this development at this time. Only once we reclaim our nation can we begin to solve its issues, however there won't be a nation left to save at this point if we allow ourselves to continue down this path.
>>75601276
/pol/ brings up that its classically liberal all the time, genius. Specifically whenever anyone says "you believe in liberal values!" "yeah, classical liberal values"
Libertarianism = leave me alone.
Did I have it wrong the whole time or?
>>75601137
Calling yourself a libertarian and not a voluntarist implies you aren't a voluntarist.You're just being pedantic.
Everyone I've ever met who describes themselves as a libertarian supports having a republic as government.
>>75590624
>>75601414
Calling yourself libertarian doesn't imply you're not a voluntarist - it implies only that you're a libertarian. Which is an umbrella term and you fucking know it.
I call myself a libertarian when I'm trying not to shock people with words they don't understand - because while not as precise as it could be in describing my views, it is *true*.
>>75601104
>>75601034
Like I just said here, if the road (as a means to access one place to the next) is truly an issue, it will be solved by someone who can see tangible, quantitative benefits from the repairs. IF NOT, then why is it an issue in the first place? Alright, potholes slow you down. Are you missing maybe 1 minute a day of time on the road? Half a gallon of gas a year? These things can't be seen because they're insignificant, and with that logic, massive government projects that are historically inefficient and expensive should not be used to solve so pointless of an issue, get me?
>>75601357
So then it begs the question: Where is the Classic Liberal party?
If something isn't worthy of existence because it isn't fiscally viable rather than the moral of its principles, then we have already proven that all parties are corrupt because their principles aren't moral.
>>75601586
It's a shitty term, basically, and has been co-opted to describe small governments, not absent ones. You know that's true, as well.
It's like having someone ask "What model car do you like best?" and responding with "Honda."
>>75590624
JUST PICK THE FUCKING CAN UP!
> Delusional situation you presented there friend.
>>75591419
Corporations can't shoot you or throw you in jail
>>75601745
It scares me that both the Alt-Right and Libertarianism are vast and differing within themselves, yet the only distinguishing factor under the Marxist umbrella is severity, because the Marxist umbrella glued itself together with Intersectional feminism.
You've met one marxist, you've met 'em all.
>>75601943
And they compete, regularly, to be the most extreme. Who can be the biggest victim? They continually push for worse and worse.
>>75601745
Yes, that is true.
It's not like the car example though, since the definition of libertarian includes ideological maxims that actually *DO* reveal a lot about whatever it's rightfully applied to.
>>75601309
Yup. Hence me voting Trump and basically being a voluntarist, or at least it's something to strive for
>>75601276
Correct. Historically classical liberals fought for individual rights and freedoms and a shrinkage of government power. Then somewhere along the line the term was successfully demonized and the leaders who used the term "liberal" where actually tyrannical collectivists.
So the term libertarian was coined to recapture the values of classical liberalism.
>>75602060
Could these tactics be used to unify a set ideologies different from Marxism? Could all conservatives become a like?
>>75599852
Joseph de Maistre
>>75601669
I'm not really sure what you're getting at? If a private organization can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas, why does it deserve to exist again?
>>75595240
It's funny because it don't think any of that is bad.
Even funnier that other libertarians will get butthurt over that summary because there insecure twats
>>75602197
As a voluntarist, no, absolutely not. While I would take smaller gov't over a larger one, any government is a violation of my (and any true) Christian morality. If I claimed to truly support it, I would be a hypocrite.
That doesn't mean I think minarchists or whatever are evil, horrendous people by default, but I wouldn't get on board with it.
>>75596966
With asphalt duh
>>75602197
>Could all conservatives become a like?
Probably not. The left is PR memes for globalism. Also, the economic interests of libertarians (wealthy people of all nations first, poor people dead last) and alt-rightists (the nation and its people first, regardless of social class) can never be rationalized with each other. The only thing they can agree on is that globalist interventionism is bad.
Libertarians are just globalist leftists with autism
They want cheap labor, mass immigration, neoliberalism, and rule by wall street.
>>75590624
>At what point did you grow out of Libertarianism?
When I started realizing the libertarianism had a sacred cow: capitalism.
According to libertarians, capitalism must never be criticized in any way, and by definition, capitalism is the only correct organizational principle. Anyone who even explores an alternative view is immediately silenced and labeled an "authoritarian".
Once I started seeing the complexity of capitalism, the over-simplicity of libertarianism started seeming more like an adolescent fantasy that's not fully well-thought-out.
>>75602587
>t. Neocon
Your repackaged progressivism isn't fooling people anymore. Establishment cuck
>>75602196
And now the term libertarian is demonized.
The problem is that the meaning of these terms can be bent.
>>75595240
>>75602403
Oh look. Not a single critique of any libertarian position. Shocking.
Hey guys, libertarianism sounds cool. Tell me about it.
>LOLOLOL XD LIBERTARDIAN!!! ROADS!!! BTFO
so fucking annoying. I've seen plenty of critiques and good arguments about certain libertarian positions. Ironically they pretty much all come from other libertarians.
t. Former libertarian
How come liberals can't hold an argument without lashing out?
>remain civil
>liberal continues using passionate claims and generalizations
>>75602718
you're the neocon you globalist zionist jew faggot
they're all pushing the libertarian candidates now, kek
>>75602641
Capitalism grew out of basic economics between sheep and iron in the Ages, it is very defined as the human emotion of desire and competition.
>>75602801
there are no good pro libertarian arguments
the entire position falls apart when you remove nessecary government services
I didn't
/pol/ BTFO
>>75602801
Argument against libertatian is full on meme
>I'm a libertarian.
>>75602939
libertarians are the biggest memes on earth
they follow an autistic utopian vision with no government because they think roads and public infrastructure and courts and the military and law and order and health and safety regulations, and anti monopoly ligislation are "evil"
>>75590624
I was never into libertarianism, because I'm not a faggot and never have been
>>75602911
How? Honestly, as someone that would come out in defense of it, there are good arguments against libertarianism, but none of them have been propped up in this thread.
>>75602911
List some necessary government services.
I'll start
National defense
>>75603058
This pretty much sums up the libertarian criticism of govenrment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
>>75590624
Who administers justice in a libertarian society?
>>75602911
>there are things that people are incapable of doing unless they collectively agree to acknowledge a non-existent government entity
uh huh
>>75590624
The second guy wouldn't have a weapon. Why would you need to use force to dock someone's pay?
>>75590624
This entire thread of people against libertarianism.
>>75603273
Why would you refuse to pick up garbage at a place that pays you if asked to?
>>75603058
>they think roads and public infrastructure and courts and the military and law and order and health and safety regulations, and anti monopoly ligislation are "evil"
No, we don't
your entire argument is an an-clap strawman you fucking tard
>>75603128
There are no good arguments for libertarianism
>>75603134
military
courts
law and order
public infrastructure
health and safety
anti monopoly legislation
political representation
>>75603244
They will be dominated by oligarchs with political representation and public ownership of public goods
libertarianism is a return to feudalism
>>75603367
you have all their exact same arguments except you go half way.
You call common sense laws "statism" and yet you still support a state, in a way you're more deluded than they are.
>>75596966
They'll start a kickstarter.
>>75591677
>>75591419
Libertarianism isn't what it used to be, the ancaps of today took the word and used it for their shitty idea of an ancap society in which the corporations would be the government and would reign supreme.
There can be no true "anarcho-capitalism" because you need a brutal police force to protect private property.
>>75603464
>They will be dominated by oligarchs with political representation and public ownership of public goods
You literally just described how government currently works.
>>75603367
Exactly. Which is 99.9% of its criticisms.
Strawman
Ad hom
No understanding of libertarianism, accusing them of something they don't even support and then calling them out for supporting it.
Every.single.time
>>75603464
There can be no true anarcho captalism.
You need a corrupt police force to protect private property.
anarcho-captalism is just people who want the government to bother everyone except them.
>>75590930
What a nigger
>>75603464
>you have all their exact same arguments except you go half way.
No, that's simply false. An-claps don't believe there should even be a government. Libertarians do, because they have different principles
you are a half-baked commie troll
>muh common sense
>sweeping, baseless statements
>muh roads
>muh feudalism meme
I bet you USD $20 that you've never even taken ECON101
>>75603464
>public infrastructure
>health and safety
Roads has been beat to death. Have you honestly never read one of the MANY libertarian positions on this? I guessing not. Just use google and take your pick out of the dozens.
As far as health and safety. Are you in favor of government/centralized healthcare? If so it sounds pretty monopolistic to me. Does monopoly legislation apply to the government?
>>75603541
Most arguments against libertarianism are self detonating
>>75603906
>self detonating
who are you, parkourdude?
>>75591419
>implying governments are not simply corporations with a monopoly on sovereignty
t. gurtis yarvin :DDD
>>75590624
Im just now growing into it. Only i as an individual matter. Nationalism and other spooks are just ways to control the dumb masses. And its not a bad thing. They are maintaining the society and sacrificing themselves for my benefit.
>>75601806
They could build their own private prisons, like they already, and hire PMC's to shoot you, like they also already do.
Libertarianism is the equivalent of that South Park episode where everyone is smelling their own farts. They think they're so fucking smart and so much better than everyone because of their political beliefs even though they're fucking retarded
>>75603541
governments have political representation which stops feudal like domination by monarchs, oligarchs, etc
>>75603660
>calling a capitalist that believes in government a communist
kill yourself
>>75603840
Every libertarian argument is retarded and convinces no one except teenagers
giving a public good over to a private monopoly is a retarded idea that will result in pic gouging and exploitation of consumers.
>>75590624
Is all this shitposting to pave the way for a fascist neocon Trump presidency? Or is it for a criminal, treasonous, status quo, neocon Clinton presidency?
>>75604112
t. low-IQ statist
>>75603464
>There are no good arguments for libertarianism
Subjective, sweeping statement. Not an argument.
>List of necessary government services
>Necessary
Also subjective, many of those can be shown logically and historically to be more inefficient under government control as opposed to free market
>Libertarianism is a return to feudalism
Wouldn't happen, the capacity for power within both the "crown" (government) and the military would be reduced drastically. Both are inherent to maintain feudalism. Peasants would have objectively more power in a libertarian society.
>You call common sense laws statism
>Common sense
Also subjective, what you call common sense some see as useless. Not an argument.
>>75604195
>Wouldn't happen,
Yes it would
we already had a system with private ownership of everything
It was called Feudalism
>>75591992
Not an argument
>>75604155
>didn't address my central point
>ad hominem attack
you really are the lowest of the low in terms of being able to argue. Your verbal intelligence is consistent with the findings of Karl 2014 kek.
Are you a shill, or do you unironically shitpost these threads to their bump limit in the name of memes you have no understanding of?
>>75603464
>There are no good arguments for libertarianism
>Efficiency
Government is inherently a middleman to a provider of a service. Very few end services are actually provided by the government itself.
Government that has paid employees must by necessity pay for these paid employees to live a wage they can agree upon. At this point, you have taken wealth from a large group of people, ran it through a first party, and gotten the results of only a portion of the wealth as some of it must go to maintaining the government. All services middleman'd by the government will inherently be less efficient than a free market system that is directly customer-> provider thus the state should be in charge of as few services as possible.
>Liberty
The other part of the above is that the government as a middleman has a captive market; a government must have a monopoly of governing its territory to be sovereign. So, not only are you receiving less efficient services, but you are forced to buy them. Not only that, but you are forced to buy them in terms the government sets with money it creates; the government essentially is a very large company store in this sense. There is no opt out, and even a government with the best of intentions has the apparatus to remove your life and livlihood as it depends on this apparatus to maintain sovereignty.
These are really the best on hand arguments for a libertarian/classically liberal/minarchist government.
>>75603134
This is pretty much the strongest counter argument against a minarchist state. All the economic efficiency and freedom in the world won't matter if neighboring states simply take over with force. To actually have a free society in a world without free societies, the society must be able to protect its own sovereignty.
>>75603464
>law and order
This is another good one. Courts are a natural byproduct of contracts and to have any sort of guarantee of anything the court must be impartial.
>>75604091
Shoot back. Hence the right to bear arms. They would also be operating outside the NAP and law
>>75604195
When you review every argument in favor of libertarianism you realize that none of them hold water.
It is a delusional belief system endorsed by fringe element wackos.
>>75596572
funny
>>75590624
Yes, because voluntarily interacting with other human beings is such a dystopian idea
>>75604281
I'd rather have feudalism
>>75604404
>first party
Or third part. Whatever.
>>75604383
>ad hominem
Can we all take a stop for a second and agree that philosophical terms like this are a plague to society?
>>75604434
>t. Mao Zedong
>>75591041
you have Statism, not libertarianism, to blame for the Migrant Crisis.
Without welfarism, you wouldn't have leeches trying to swim across the mediterranean looking for gimmedats
>>75604281
There is more to it then that. Feudalism also requires a system of contracting for military service in order to gain land, as well as dependence on higher classes for wealth. All of this is guaranteed by the government. This is statism. Libertarians have no implied obligations to anyone but yourself. Land can be personally bought, contracts are voluntary. There is no obligation towards the government or the upper classes (nobles/vassals).
>>75604404
>Government is inherently a middleman to a provider of a service.
government ownership of public goods stops price gouging monopolies from forming
>a government must have a monopoly of governing its territory to be sovereign
that's what stops random bands of outlaws trying to takeover territory
>Courts are a natural byproduct of contracts and to have any sort of guarantee of anything the court must be impartial.
Courts are meaningless without force
>>75604493
enjoy your life as a serf
>>75604524
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
>>75604155
Quintessential critic of libertarianism. Offers 0 in critique. Just fallacies
So I guess the monopoly laws don't apply to the government that's administering your healthcare?
>we need laws to make sure there are no monopolies!!
>we should have a monopoly on healthcare though
I'm the teenager ofc
>>75604630
If the arguer can't deal with an attack, then that's their fault.
>>75604383
You called anyone that believes in government a communist
you don't deserve to be taken seriously
>>75604650
You need a monopoly of force or else you don't have any stability in society
You anarchists should just kill yourselves.
>>75604434
That's a subjective opinion, not an argument. If you review each policy you will find that they are supported historically and statistically, even if it is not stringent with morality or ethical guidelines, it is the most rational/objective.
>>75604493
>the system where landowners could legit take your wife on your wedding night and cuck you legally
HAHHAHAHA, what?! Fucking moron.
>>75604755
>You need a monopoly of force or else you don't have any stability in society
Then there's no such thing as stability in society, since anyone can use force at any moment, voiding any concept of monopoly in regard to its use.
>>75604613
>government ownership of public goods stops price gouging monopolies from forming
In a completely free market, monopolies are not possible. There are infinite reasons to purchase other goods, to enter new markets, or to leave markets.
>That's what stops random bands of outlaws trying to takeover territory
>Courts are meaningless without force
Yes, these are my points against libertarianism/minarchism, and really the strongest points against.
A government that is so ineffectual it cannot maintain its sovereignty is of no help to anyone when it is forced into conflict.
>>75601806
They literally did that in the early 1900s, hiring private guards to shoot striking workers or haul them off to prison
>>75604524
I think that the use of philosophical terms makes language more concise. Otherwise, I might go on describing the same thing with different words.
It is also useful to point out the use of fallacies, so that readers can immediately recognize spam/meme/shill posts.
>>75604755
>You called anyone that believes in government a communist
No, I didn't. You are factually incorrect, again.
You have been caught being wrong/lying twice now. I don't know why I take responding to you seriously
>>75604695
You realize this just leads to a situation of
>You're stupid
>Well, you're a faggot.
Rinse repeat. Why even have a discussion if you can't address an argument?
>>75604404
>This is pretty much the strongest counter argument against a minarchist state. All the economic efficiency and freedom in the world won't matter if neighboring states simply take over with force. To actually have a free society in a world without free societies, the society must be able to protect its own sovereignty.
Yep, that and enforcing contracts via court systems is about the only things I can think of. I've read some stuff on private courts but wasn't convinced
Also, i wouldn't rule out a group being able to muster a military voluntarily. A free society will inevitably create much tighter social cohesion.
>>75604935
>muh jewnions
>muh middle class
unions are a cancer to society. Just look at our fucking airports, or at France
>>75604997
Welcome to the basis of human communication. Most arguments are unnecessary.
>>75604281
>>75604849
there is more stability and less stability
randomly shooting people as you try to take over would be couldn't as "less stable"
>>75604911
>muh completely free market
once there is private ownership of everything oligarchs scoop up all the land and you become a serf
have fun, retard
>>75604945
you called me a commie troll for believing in government
just fuck off already
>>75605040
dude you're such an obtuse fucking idiot
>>75605105
then go back to being a serf, faggot.
>>75605110
>you called me a commie troll for believing in government
No, I called you a commie troll because you were using a strawman argument and being extreme about it
Fuck you shill, why do you try so hard? You do realize, deep down inside, that Libertarians actually do believe in a government, with a military and borders and some market regulations?
>>75604755
>You need a monopoly of force or else you don't have any stability in society
Are you arguing that you and I are both unable to do violence against someone?
If we can, then your monopoly on force statement kind of goes out the window doesn't it? Not a monopoly now is it?
>>75605113
>argue with someone
>shoot them
>I win the argument
That was easy.
>>75604999
>Yep, that and enforcing contracts via court systems is about the only things I can think of. I've read some stuff on private courts but wasn't convinced
It's quite a hard sell to an individualist. You could have something like religious courts, or social courts, but realistically you can't enforce their laws. Suppose you can refuse to hear their cases until you abide by their rules, but that's not a very satisfying compromise.
>Also, i wouldn't rule out a group being able to muster a military voluntarily. A free society will inevitably create much tighter social cohesion.
To be honest, I have strong doubts about a professional military beating a huge armed nation, but let's say they don't want the nation, but a portion. Who is to stop them?
With this in mind, only a world of free states would create any sort of political equilibrium.
>>75604935
I wonder what the state was doing?
What happened after that?
>>75605110
I think there's less "stability" in the world in which people think one group can do whatever they like and no one else can than in the world where people realize everyone is just as human as they are.
>>75605110
>once there is private ownership of everything oligarchs scoop up all the land and you become a serf
Okay, what is a serf?
>>75605040
I disagree completely, arguments are necessary to define standards.
>>75605245
I'm not even going to try to convince your stupid brain to understand the reason I'm calling you an idiot, I'm just going to call you an idiot because you are one
>>75605355
>I disagree completely, arguments are necessary to define standards.
My standards are more likely to be right than someone else's.
>>75605362
I could have shot you mid sentence and you would have been considered the idiot. Face it, arguments are just a pussy way of not wanting violence
>I want all of europe
>no I want all of europe
>stupid brit!
>fucking nazi
>war
>>75605513
>My standards are more likely to be right than someone else's.
Then argue them well, you ass-monger.
>>75605110
>>75603058
What is your IQ? Did you ever take the SAT? What was your score on that?
no lies, now
>>75605513
how old are you?
>>75605513
Shitskin detected.
>>75605583
I don't argue. I just like making people look like fools in their arguments by exposing their contradictories. Arguing is for plebs. I play a different mental game with most people and they hate me for it.
>>75603058
They're just people that have never read Plato's Republic or any classical book for that matter. :^)
>>75591419
Actually, the corporations are the current government and corporations, international banks, and all this other shit can only exist in it's current form with the help of big government.
>>75596572
It works like shit when nobody enforces the antitrust laws
>>75605265
>social courts
Would that require the collective to enforce?
Like A fucked me over in a deal and here is the proof. Court tells A to pay me back plus damages. Court tells everyone to not do business with A until they start making some payments to me.
>>75605208
All libertarians do it argue strawmen
>You do realize, deep down inside, that Libertarians actually do believe in a government, with a military and borders and some market regulations
Then don't be autistic and object to good government policies
>>75605219
>Are you arguing that you and I are both unable to do violence against someone?
You won't get far with it
>>75605322
You're welcome to try to start your own state then
>>75605355
A person living in a libertarian "utopia"
>>75605608
Unlike you I'm not in highschool so I don't remember
>>75592424
zikafag is right
>>75595736
I don't think any of this is would be an issue if we just had decentralized power with small, local governments. All the /pol/lacks could create their racially homogeneous utopia, and all the leftists can try to build their little multicultural, welfare-dependent society. /pol/ might even get the race war it wants when all the minorities they exclude try and come take their resources and technology. What could go wrong?
>>75605849
>A person living in a libertarian "utopia"
Alright, if you're making your own definitions here, why not just call them cuckserfs?
>>75605833
Exactly. Or with the same duty as a religious authority; if you piss off the church by not fulfilling your court obligations they excommunicate you, and the community won't deal with you, marry you, give you charity, etc.
>>75605849
That's oxymoronic to try to suggest.
>>75605672
>>75605672
You're not playing a mental game or showing anyone their contradictions. You just look like a dumbass.
>>75605963
they're serfs because they don't own any land and everything is now dictated to them by the oligarchic landowners
that's a serf
>>75606030
You can't start your own state because the government would just stop you
So you're theory that the government doesn't make society stable is flawed.
>>75605672
>I don't argue, I'm too smart for that
>by exposing their contradictories
kek
>>75605702
I bet if you were to take a poll of conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, libertarians would be the most likely to have read that book. Certainly, they have higher probability knowledge and verbal reasoning abilities (Karl 2014), so one would think that those properties would translate into having read this particular book.
>>75605849
No, I didn't use a strawman argument. Do you even know what that is? I haven't had the opportunity to use one in this thread.
>I don't remember becuz I'm old
If you're actually old enough to excusably forget your SAT score, you sure act immature for your age.
>>75606130
>you're theory
dude your IQ can not possibly be over 95
>>75606133
>I didn't use a strawman argument
you said everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.
>libertarians calling anyone else immature
top kek m8
>>75606194
nice autism
>>75606194
Only a fag lord with IQ above 100 posts this.
Below that and you can be somewhat forgiven.
>>75606194
>that posting history
If this thread doesn't prove that libertarianism is caused by autism, nothing will.
>>75606130
That "logic". Please re-read what you typed bro.
