Start posting em
Why does Pac-Man not like the government?
This story is worth reading.
not a single argument has been made so far
>>78633775
Do you know what your statement is?
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>78633767
>I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back
every fucking time
>>78632153
>>78634002
you're the one posting memes instead of coming up with an argument. i would love to refute your argument but you don't have any.
>>78634286
No, you're the one posting memes. You have no argument.
>>78633767
When we dont ban drugs everyone will start taking them!
If we don't ban bleach everyone will start chugging it!
>>78634286
>come to libertarian hate thread
>just a bunch of stupid flags and a funny story
>wants to have an argument
>>78634588
>Seriously replying to an obvious joke
>>78632153
>>78634384
>No, you're the one posting memes
>implying this is an argument
>>78634738
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZNpXWUsy68
>>78634384
>>78634643
this is a libertarian hate thread, and i would like to know your reason for hating libertarians. but instead of backing up your hate with arguments you're just responding emotionally.
>>78633767
Fucking christ I cried laughing reading this
>>78635021
Corporate control of a country doesn't lead to greater wealth for all. Eventually, one company will come out on top, and create a monopoly.
It eventually leads to corporate tyranny.
>>78635021
That's all they've got.
>>78633545
>dorks
>>78635192
b-but the people will stop buying their products
surely companies dont kill one another in a free for all race :^]
>>78635021
>i would like to know your reason for hating libertarians
Because I'd rather be white in a cohesive society and poor, than brown and gutless, but rich.
It's called principles, something that lolbertarians don't understand.
>>78635192
Good luck trying to establish a tyranny into a population where everyone has a gun.
Monopolies are made by staying on top all the time, its impossible to do that in a free market without the help of the state.
You can say they will buy off all the competition but all it takes is a couple of them sticking with it thinking they will get more.
There will still be reporters and newspapers and how do you think news "Nestle is creating a robot army" would go with their stock?
>>78635477
Holy fuck
>>78635021
With libertarianism you would have corporations in the absence of gov't, eventually corporations would by one another and you would end up with a few or just one monolithic corporation that would act as a gov't.
Essentially this is what is going on in the world now, but instead of corporations directly making laws, they are lobbying politicians to act in their favor. All libertarianism can offer is to cut out the middle man
I would also like to have borders. I want everywhere I go to be different instead of one massive homogenous society, something that libertarianism is ok with.
>>78636002
This; the government is nothing more than a corporation that isn't primarily concerned with profit, and a corporation is just a government concerned with profit above all else.
Anyone have the 'please send snacks' one?
>>78635192
the biggest monopoly is the state. corporate tyranny is going on right now, and they're taking away your freedom. also can you give me an example of a company that caused corporate tyranny?
>>78635668
is this the open borders argument? because not every libertarian is for open borders you know. when i look at the crime rates of immigrants from certain countries and religions its totally rational to close the borders and at least preserve the freedom and safety of your own country.
>>78634770
>>78636178
No, it's the "if everyone's just out for money and themselves then society will go down the toilet" argument.
>>78636112
Corporation that threatens you with jail if you don't pay it :^)
And which decisions affect everyone
Corporation that tells you what you can and cant do
Yes your metaphor its 100% correct
Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan walk into a bar. The bartender serves them tainted alcohol because there are no regulations. They all die.
>>78636458
>if everyone's just out for money and themselves
that's not what libertarianism means at all. where are you basing this argument on?
>>78636930
That's how western society is now.. even with laws holding us back.
>>78636274
rare
>>78636930
Hey talk to me buddy! You wanted me to post my argument and I did. Now you won't talk to me
>>78632153
What is the mainstream called that lolbertarians oppose?
Hard mode: answer without using lolbertarian lingo
>>78636542
>Corporation that threatens you with jail if you don't pay it :^)
If there were no higher authority above a corporation, I'm pretty sure they'd enforce their contracts with force.
Stop being so fucking retarded you toilet-scrubbing slav-nigger.
>>78637163
Statism
Corporatism
Left/Right false dichotomy
the man
>>78636002
that couldn't happen, because that would violate the NAP. and you're saying there wouldn't be a government at all with libertarianism, which is wrong. this is strawman.
>lolbertarians expect mudshits to have the same concepts of universal rights and freedoms as whites
>suprised when they don't
Lolbertarians are doomed to failure because they think much too highly of niggers and mudslimes.
>>78634286
You're just a weak memer. You have no countermemes.
Not a meme.
>>78637163
>What is the mainstream called that lolbertarians oppose?
Mom and Dad.
>>78637316
>universal rights and freedoms
kek
>>78637364
that's the post you're gonna go with there buddy?
>>78637270
You are literally ruled by a tyranical corporation and shilling for it
>>78637493
I'm not your buddy, guy.
Everyone here is a bootlicking nigger
>>78637511
>authority is bad
lmao
>>78637617
Oh look, what do you know.
A state is building roads.
Makes you think...
>>78637617
ISIS is a state, you are literally watching the government at work.
>>78632153
Lmao
Love this drawing
>>78637740
You literally just said authority is bad with corporations you massive faggot
>>78637316
no, we want to treat them equally and if they fuck up by violating the NAP they have to face the consequences, and one of those consequences could be no more open borders for muslims. this is still libertarianism.
>>78637832
But I didn't, authority is good. Corporations, however, are beholden to a higher authority.
>>78632153
dont drive on me
>>78637905
>we can collectively own land
>but the government cant
>>78637912
And what is government beholden to
(that you compared to a corporation)
>>78637978
Government is not supposed to be a private entity. It should not own land
>>78638017
I was making a comparison in regards to their organizational structures, you retard. The state is not beholden to anything; it is the source of all sovereign authority within its jurisdiction.
>>78638095
All property rights (of citizens) are derived from the state's territory. Everything within its borders, it owns. Everything not parceled out to citizens and groups of citizens is thus public land.
>>78633775
Aquafresh pls go
>>78637298
Libertarianism promotes an impotent gov't at best. The core beliefs are anti-government. Many of them are very good such as individual liberty, labor, property rights. Why do you expect corporations to hold these rights up any better than a government? Why would you expect no corruption and special interests to form?
>>78637905
>open borders for mudslimes
>they try to forcibly convert you when not raping or murdering you
>their entire existence violates the NAP
>you still insist on playing a game by rules that niggers and mudslimes don't give a fuck about even if they are able to understand it
>>78637595
I'm not your guy, goy.
>>78637595
I'm not your guy, friend.
>>78637978
yes, we can collectively, as a country, own land. there's a reason we have borders. the government has no right to own land. their job is to spend our taxes the way we want it to be spent.
>>78633767
Lmao best shitposting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul0qfEL_Zog
Libertarian flips out and hangs up when questioned on rudimentary aspects of under his libertarian wet dream
Anarcho-capitalism is at best an introduction to political and economic thinking for 15-year-olds. Any adult subscribing to it has a severe autism.
Why gov can't be capitalist
If it has funds, then can be capitalist too, right?
>>78638399
>we
No, the government, and the state it represents, owns the nation's land. The citizenry have no sovereign authority over the state.
>>78638431
Oh man I'm for trump and this made me kek
>>78635477
fuck me, too soon
>>78638327
Except there are no anti discrimination laws because of freedom of association and everyone has guns. Keep getting cucked by your government, your boy Obama will let them syrians in soon right before november don't worry
>>78638292
I can stomach every type of libertarian except this one
>>78638452
(you)
>>78638452
WTF...... I hate ancaps now......
>>78638709
rlly makes u think
>>78638641
>swede telling someone to get cucked by their government
Top lel
>>78638845
Who else would know better right retard?
>>78638241
the only thing i expect from corporations is to not violate the NAP, and if they do, that's where the state comes in.
>>78638327
>open borders for mudslimes
what why? why are you strawmanning this hard?
>>78638548
in a statist society, yes. not in a libertarian society.
If you are above the age of 20 and still a libertarian you should honestly kys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
>>78632153
ATTENTION: THIS IS NOW A MOLY THREAD
BOOTLICKERS GTFO
>>78639029
>in a statist society, yes. not in a libertarian society.
Then the very nature of authority and sovereignty in a libertarian society is self-contradictory, it is an oxymoron.
The governed cannot have sovereignty over their government.
>>78638292
sounds like you lost an argument and became upset
>>78638452
>those fucking chortles
kkekekek
>>78639273
the thing is that the government has a job in society just like we do. the difference between a normal job and a government job is that we collectively pay the government to do their job for the greater good of our society. in your mind the government should be like your overlords, your bull, your boss. that's what's going on right now, true. but that shouldn't be the case in a free society. the government is not above the law.
>>78639229
>Stefan "I'm doing the spanking now" Molyneux
>Libertarian
I don't know what white nationalism has to do with this thread and I am still yet to see any arguments
>>78639029
>the irony
Now we're back to my original argument; that is what the state is supposed to do now; by the people for the people (in the USA at least, not sure about the netherlands) but instead you have legislators acting on corporate interests. Why is it assumed that the state in the libertarian society won't become corrupted by global interests?
test post
>>78639688
Your entire post is based on a false premise
>>78639634
>but that shouldn't be the case in a free society. the government is not above the law.
Public officials are not above the law, correct; the state, however, my necessity of hierarchy, is.
The government ought not serve the people, for the people are a resource to be protected and utilize.
The law need not concern itself with trivialities, nor the day-to-day welfare of its citizenry.
>>78639685
>Stefan "I'm doing the spanking now" Molyneux
Fucking gets me every time.
He's still an anarchist. He's just skeptical we can ever get to a stateless and peaceful society if we keep importing shitskins.
>>78639827
How is a government under the consent of the governed a false pretense? It is what was established, it has now been corrupted. Why will a libertarian not become corrupted in the way our government has?
>>78640399
*libertarian government
>>78640399
No, I mean
>my original argument
>>78636458
Aussies are such titsuckers for their gov't, aren't they?
>>78639948
i really don't see an argument in this. all i see is ''the government should be above us'', which is an opinion.
we as a country pay the government to protect us and serve us, we should do everything we can to keep the government in check, because that's our money they're using.
>>78640667
>our money
No, it's the state's money printed from the state's mint, and stored by the state's treasury.
The government is, by definition, above us. There is no argument to be had. The state, in order to enforce law, must have sovereign authority over its citizens.
People on the right wing with marketable skills tend to be libertarians.
People on the right wing without them tend to be Nat-Soc because they know they would never make it in a libertarian society and would rather Big Brother make sure the 140 IQ engineer end up scrubbing toilets with the 90 IQ dumbass
>>78633775
>>78639229
>>78639685
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc1k7Vgpb5s
>>78640905
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvsKmiw1fI
>>78632153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A
>>78640857
and what is money exactly? money is credit for things we have contributed to our society. if we don't contribute anything, there can't be a government. so they literally depend on us. we are (should be) directly in charge of the government. before paper bills we used gold and that worked fine. it was only when the government started taking too much control over us that they introduced their paper bills.
>>78640857
All hail the state! To hell with common law and social contracts!
>>78641644
Money is credit backed with the authority of the state.
>We should be directly in charge of the government.
Why? I don't trust nine tenths of the bastards around me to eat a healthy diet, let alone make decisions pertaining to the nation as a whole and its leadership. Universal suffrage was an absolute mistake, and one we shall dearly pay for decades and centuries to come.
>>78641667
The state is the social contract, anon; one that is not subject to the whims of those citizens which lend it legitimacy. You are conflating the concept of the government, public servants trusted with the authority of the state, and the state itself being the source of sovereign authority and just coercion within a nation.
>>78641644
Money's value comes from the fact you have to use it in order to pay taxes. Under gold standard, exchange rates had to be fixed.
Garbage economics for 15-year-olds.
>>78633640
>made on /wsr/
>>78641952
why we should be in change of our government? because they are using OUR money, resources, whatever you want to call it. without our contribution there wouldn't be a government. so we made the decision that we want a government so they can build da roads and protect us and everything. so that's what they should do, and nothing more.
it's like ordering a pizza and then just getting half a pizza and a piece of crap. are you going to eat the piece of crap or are you going to demand your money back?
This meme triggers republitards
>>78642340
why are you trying to make it so complicated?
first we traded our goods directly for other goods
then we started using gold as a form of credit
then we started using bills because why would you waste gold on money if you can use it on other things and just use paper instead of gold?
>>78642945
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZ-RUufHgI
>>78642704
>because they are using OUR money, resources, whatever you want to call it.
Nope, our money is protected and backed by the state, our resources and territory are owned, protected, and guranteed by the state, and we ourselves are subordinate to its sovereign authority.
The form of the government has no bearing on the state's authority over the citizenry, it's just that our government is particularly open to interference by the people. It is as equally just as some authoritarian dictatorship, assuming its citizenry was also in support of their government.
>what the should do, and nothing more
Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I actually agree with it, for the most part. The state may have absolute authority, but there is no reason for it to exercise it absolutely. De Minimis Non Curat Lex.
>>78643019
>Only individuals can form social contracts.
possibly, but the state is the social contract. People of a nation are citizens of that nation, and citizens require a state to be subordinate under.
>You neo-traditionalists overlook the blatant parasitism of political/corporate leadership.
I prefer the term neoreactionary to be honest, anon, and I would argue that the plebes are far more parasitic and damaging than the elite, especially when the elite can use the plebes as a source of political power.
>The state is a source of nothing but mobilized thieves and knaves.
Only to those who reject its authority and claim a separate source of sovereignty. In that case, they are foreign elements in relation to the state, and thus are not subject to the laws and protections of its citizenry. They ARE, however, within the claimed jurisdiction of that state, which will no doubt come to conflict between the two.
>>78643267
Muh regression theorem.
Economics isn't geometry. Why are you trying to make everything so over simplistic and deductive? World isn't that way.
Try paying your taxes with gold bullion retard. Money has purchasing power for goods and services because its the commodity everyone must use in order to pay compulsory taxes.
This even fits in with your geometry autism economics; it can be he next step in the regression of commodities into mediums of exchange. But of course you start with the same conclusion and premise and weave argumentation to link them together every time;
Ever taken an actual economics course?
>>78637617
I mean, I guess it makes sense, it just seems very odd that they would have a department of roads. You'd think they'd be more focused on stuff, like the wars.
>>78632153
>>78633471
>>78633545
>>78633560
>>78633596
>>78633617
>>78633635
>>78633640
>>78633686
>>78633697
>>78633713
so this is what you idiots do with your time instead of learning anything about economics.
>mfw /pol/ loves guns but shits on libertarians
>doesn't realize it's the conservatives similar to libertarians keeping their gun rights alive
The founding fathers were closer to libertarianism than LARPing as Nazis. They were paleocons, the best ideology.
>>78643905
Trucks carrying ammunition, rockets, fuel, and water generally drive better on roads.
>>78636002
corporations cant exist without government, by definition.
but if you say companies, then yes i agree. thats the point.
>>78636726
that bar isnt going to last long with a reputation of killing 3 famous politicians. insurance companies will surely sue them shitless.
>>78636178
The State is largely made up of people who believe they have made up authority and duty. No corporate monopoly has a similar frame of mind.
>>78635192
Im not seeing a downside here; feudalism was the most robust and anti-fragipe form of social organism in human (ie, european) history.
If thats the easiest path towards restoration, then by all means.
>>78643512
>Nope, our money is protected and backed by the state, our resources and territory are owned, protected, and guranteed by the state
true, the state protects us. they protect us and act on the non aggression principle. they don't /own/ us. it's like hiring a bodyguard, you pay the bodyguard for protection, but he doesn't have authority over you.
and i'm not talking about our statist society here, i'm talking about how it should be.
>>78643779
no arguments in this post. all you're saying is ''not true''. so do you disagree with what i said here? >>78643267
can you give me a counter argument instead of just disagreeing with me?
>>78637617
Without a State other States just rise to fill the Stateless vacuum you dumb State-baiting nigger.
>>78644424
thanks for reinforcing my argument
>>78637905
And who will administer those consequences?
The People?
Is that the Tyranny of the Majority I hear?
>>78644424
>he State is largely made up of people who believe they have made up authority and duty.
They have authority and duty because they represent a state legitimized by the support of its subordinate citizens.
>>78644496
>act on the non aggression principle
Aggression is sometimes warranted, along with proactive action in general.
>they don't /own/ us
In the sense that public officials cannot boss around the citizenry according to their whims, but make no mistake, the citizenry of a nation are subordinate to that nation's laws and authority.
>how it should be
It shouldn't be.
I'm a libertarian and i love the snek flags
This maymay isn't about hating libertarians
>trap makes a libertarian hate thread
>literally the only group that will accept you besides hardcore lefties
>>78634770
>hate thread
wait I thought you guys liked it
>>78644629
How?
Would you rather be ruled over by an organization that believes they have a duty to you or one that doesn't?
>>78644658
Your point? If the citizenry didn't give a shit, got rid of states, and the state monopoly would be filled by a corporate monopoly. So, I ask you; which monopoly is better? One wherein the people believe they have some supernatural duty to the people who put them there, or people who don't?
>>78644577
>what are civil wars
>what is revolting
>>78644647
the state ofcourse. because that's the job of the state. oh wait you think libertarianism means no state at all, just lost souls wandering the earth.
>>78638452
this guy is not representative of all ancaps
>>78644967
>So, I ask you; which monopoly is better?
The state, of course. I'd like to think that there's more to the utility function of a nation than just profit.
>>78645218
Make your case then
>>78645225
How do you address the dilemma which he sperged out over?
>>78645040
>>what are civil wars
>>what is revolting
Would you like to have equivalents 24/7?
>>78645225
I agree.
>>78644671
This, these threads are hilarious even for libertarians. If you're butthurt from these, you really need to remember that you're on a Taiwanese flip-book board
>>78645430
Which dilemma? There's lots of arguments in this threads.
fail thread is fail
>>78645225
Jettison utilitarian baggage for your thinking; emotional states are not objects, but processes, that help guide you through life.
To speak of happiness as a goal is incoherent, the fact that people acclimate over time to regular stimuli, whatever it may be (in particular, the oft bemoaned 'hedonic treadmill'), is a *good thing*.
If you didnt, it would be like constantly being blinded by the sun because your eyes havent adjusted yet, the system would break down, and your decision making ability would be severely hamstrung.
The stoics are closer to the right track.
>>78644658
>Aggression is sometimes warranted, along with proactive action in general.
yes, that's called justice. what's your point?
>In the sense that public officials cannot boss around the citizenry according to their whims, but make no mistake, the citizenry of a nation are subordinate to that nation's laws and authority.
those who break the laws will be ''bossed around'', because they broke the NAP. but those who don't, are free people. you're basically saying you can't live in freedom because killing people is against the law. ofcourse it is, that's the NAP.
>>78633775
There just memes cuh relax
>>78645697
From*
>>78645750
>yes, that's called justice. what's your point?
Who do you want to administer justice? Angry mobs?
>>78645432
well you're the one who said that another state will just rise to fill the stateless vaccuum. so when you're under attack, you can defend yourself. if you don't want war then don't invade other communities. don't tread on me.
>>78639210
because authoritarian is so much better
>>78645877
>Angry mobs?
The locals own gang/scouts/freikorps, the local barons men-at-arms, and the kings own guard, of course.
>>78645697
>To speak of happiness as a goal is incoherent
I am not speaking of happiness, but of overall virtue and "goodness" of a nation.
Prosperity is good.
Knowledge is good.
Order is good.
Lots of things are good.
>to speak... is a *good thing*.
But not entirely, boredom is a very integral part of the human condition, and being used to something doesn't mean that you'll always enjoy it forever.
Even someone who is perfectly happy and content with their current job will grow tired of it in about seven years.
>>78645750
>yes, that's called justice. what's your point?
Justice is reactive action; a law is broken, and the guilty are arrested and punished. This is no proactive action.
>because they broke the NAP
The NAP does not contain all possible situations in which we may want to enact law.
As a Libertarian, these threads are hilarious.
>>78644496
>no arguments in this post. all you're saying is ''not true''. so do you disagree with what i said here? >>78643267
>can you give me a counter argument instead of just disagreeing with me?
I made an argument, you ignored it.
1. The value of money comes from the fact we must pay taxes with it.
2. Your theory of money is an unfalsifiable a priori postulate and thus can be discarded.
>>78646167
I dont think you read my post very closely.
>>78645799
NOT AN
>>78646377
I'm going to be honest, I didn't; it's nearly 2 AM here and I'm arguing casual political theory on an Indonesian weaving chatbox rather than sleeping.
>>78639685
>>78641118
>>78645509
Post mix up. Just want libterians and ancaps to address the issue of who determines what property is legitimate in their world.
>>78645394
im not an ancap. i'm in favor of a night watchman state. i used to be until i realized we need government for things like emergency services and 3rd party arbitration, or licensing.
as far as ancapistan goes i'd say you'd just have to prove you own the land by providing evidence of ownership such as altering the land, occupation and so on. but then the trouble comes back to 3rd party arbitration which could occur in theory without a government but it would be more complicated than its worth. a state is more useful in that area because its a monopoly. one just needs to ensure the state doesnt grow too big or become corrupt.
>>78646324
>1. The value of money comes from the fact we must pay taxes with it.
not true. the value of money originally came from the actual value of the coin, later we made it more convenient with paper bills and now even digitally. explain bitcoin. you don't pay taxes with bitcoin, do you?
>2. Your theory of money is an unfalsifiable a priori postulate and thus can be discarded.
still not an argument. do you just say these things as fillers, to make your post look bigger?
>>78646887
The problem is the very idea of property rights break down in Ancapistan to where you cannot exercise them over objects and land. It would be the most insecure regime in property rights imaginable.
You would not be able to have competitive deed verification services; with what property would you be able to compensate them for verifying ownership of property? How would these agencies be able to come to your service at your trailer home? What makes them legitimate and how are disputes among them them resolvable etc etc.
Ultimately it just comes down to who has resources already. They will receive the service which secures their property, even if it is ill-gotten. Same with arbitration, defense agencies, etc. Anarcho-capitalism is neofeudalism.
Don't have the patience to take a crack at minarchism today. Another day. Basically a lot of regulation and protectionism is necessary do to collective action problems.
>>78647106
i agree with you, but your argument is fucking terrible. stop, just stop. please.
>>78647106
>just restating the regression theorem
At least try. Bet you haven't even read the Mises you espouse which is kinda sad.
>>78647527
Well meme'd my friend
>>78647453
you argee with my argument, but you think it's fucking terrible. doesn't that kind of contradict itself? have some selfrespect buddy.
>>78647476
you're not responding to my post. 0 arguments.
>>78647390
>The problem is the very idea of property rights break down in Ancapistan
well no, they'd just go back hundreds of years. unless we reached a point technologically that we render a government useless then i dont see ancapistan working out.
>You would not be able to have competitive deed verification services
you could, but it would be extremely complicated. you'd have to have firms dedicated to the industry which is just a waste. they'd more than likely be piss poor too.
> with what property would you be able to compensate them for verifying ownership of property?
money? fundamentally gold. but of course gold is useless at this point but having currency without government isnt impossible. we used to do it in the u.s., it was just highly inefficient and we abandoned it.
>How would these agencies be able to come to your service at your trailer home?
excuse me?! dont call my cardbord mansion a trailer home! im better than that. now excuse me i need to rummage through the garbage for a new hat, my old fedora is too stained with banana and potatoe smells.
no but seriously the same way they do now.
>What makes them legitimate and how are disputes among them them resolvable etc etc
private arbitration. i know you dont like the answer and neither did i, but thats what an ancap will tell you. at least one of any decent level of intellect.
>Ultimately it just comes down to who has resources already.
yes, implementation is impossible. another reason im not an ancap.
>They will receive the service which secures their property, even if it is ill-gotten.
eh but your not considering the fact credit rating agencies could exist or other forms of agencies that would exist with the sole purpose of ensuring this doesnt happen. problem is it has to happen before these agencies form.
>Anarcho-capitalism is neofeudalism.
you clearly dont know what feudalism is. feudalism requires a centralized authority to enforce it.
>>78646324
Naive chartalism is not wrong, but its also not complete.
Force is a very valuable commodity, so of course if you decree your peasants pay their protection money in X, and back that up with force, will always have at least some value (as long as you have force).
Take for example how america decrees that everyone can only buy oil from opec in USD, functionally a tax by us on the rest of the world, and a major factor for how our economy, dominated by jew owned parasitic fractional reserve banks skimming capital off the top by having private, corportate, and government incomes all paying out to service interest on debts, still hasent collapsed yet.
What was i saying again? Oh right, money. The influence of force must always be acknowledged as true, but as a *market operation*, what is the biggest factor behind the adoption of one medium of exchange over another?
The answer is its not really the exchange thats most important, but the *storage*. People are always going to look for the commodity that will maximize future purchasing power. Bimetallic standards never survived for long in histoey, since people want to maximize the value of their savings, and as one starts to gain, everyone else will get in on it too, demonetizing the other, and hence, wiping out the savings of anyone who stayed.
In short, money is a bubble that never pops.
>>78647390
>Basically a lot of regulation and protectionism is necessary do to collective action problems
nope. not really. protectionism is more harmful in the long run as is regulation. its a long term vs short term issue. in the short term itll put a bandaid on the issue but in the long term it just fucks the issue up to high hell.
>libertarian hate thread
>crying about an-caps instead
my little bootlicker can't be this stupid
>>78648167
>doesn't that kind of contradict itself? have some selfrespect buddy.
no. google "nuance" it might help you grasp reality.
>>78648471
you literally said you agree with me, but my argument is ''fucking terrible''. there's no possible nuance there. don't even try to use those mental gymnastics.
what i think you meant to say was that you agree with me, you just think the way i'm saying it is terrible. that's not what an argument means.
>>78648266
>unless we reached a point technologically that we render a government useless then i dont see ancapistan working out.
A level of technology that rendered government useless would also make communism a viable economic system.
>>78636274
>not posting the gif version
>>78648845
i agree with what your arguing for but now how you're arguing it. god you're a dumbass.
>>78648881
>communism
>viable
no amount of technology could make communism viable. too much power in one position. it cant be done. if billions of people have advanced technology it can render government useless. no amount of technology can make communism ideal.
>>78648441
This, edgy NatSocs just butthurt that National Socialism was a blip in history.
>>78649319
right, that's not what an argument means. when you say you agree with me, you're saying you agree with my argument. and then you directly say it's fucking terrible. i don't think you fully understand what an argument means.
>god you're a dumbass
just stop the personal attacks already. this is no way to have a rational discussion.
>>78648404
In the really really long term, inadvertently replacing your founding stock with tides of swarthy 'guest workers' willing to slapdash for pennies on the dollar would bring an end to your society all together.
Score one for protectionism then.
>>78649614
again, i dont think your argument is good. i agree with what you are arguing for. again google fucking nuance.
and im not attacking you personally. im telling you you are a dumbass because youre a dumbass. accept it.
>>78649651
>replacing your founding stock with tides of swarthy 'guest workers' willing to slapdash for pennies on the dollar
thats not what i thought you meant by protectionism. i thought you meant protectionism of industries not enforcing borders. im all for enforcing borders and restricting immigration. i just wouldnt call that "protectionism", when i hear protectonism i think farm subsidies and laws preventing companies from competing or borders on healthcare providers within the u.s.
>>78649922
>again, i dont think your argument is good.
ok
>i agree with what you are arguing for.
i am arguing for my argument, obviously. so you dont think my argument is good, yet you agree with it. that's bizarre. and you don't have to tell me to google nuance, i know what it means. i just fail to sea a second meaning behind your statement. maybe you could expand a little and just tell us what you actually meant?
>and im not attacking you personally. im telling you you are a dumbass because youre a dumbass. accept it.
you telling me i'm a dumbass is a personal attack. it's purely emotional with no arguments. stop using mental gymnastics please.
>>78633767
>I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
>>78640499
would be funnier if
"dont /thread on meme"
>>78650454
you're arguing for libertarianism but your argument for it is terrible.
>stop using mental gymnastics please.
OMG STAHP ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY IM SO TRIGGERED I NEED A SAFE SPACE NAOOOOOOO
Faggots haven't even posted the best one.
>>78650672
>>78650700
HOW IS DONT TREAD ON ME WITH A PILE OF DOGSHIT INSTEAD OF A SNAKE NOT A THING
>>78650722
>>78650753
>>78650797
>>78650824
>>78649416
>no amount of technology can make communism ideal.
post-scarcity
>>78650884
>>78650931
>>78650959
>>78650890
post scarcity is logically impossible. even then communism will find a way to fuck it up.
>>78651021
>>78650106
Intranational favoratism often doesnt play out well, i agree.
Mercantilism has always been the truth of international/geopolitical economics though. The utility of tariffs isnt even any actual income, but the fact that it is basically a more elegant/organic form of make work/'workfare' schemes.
No developing economy ever developed without protectionism, not china, not taiwan, not america, or japan, or the british empire. As Freidrich List would say, free trade is a weapon used by *strong* economies (for instance, germany's insistence on favorable access to UK markets today, while having several unobtrusive methods to obstruct foreign importation themselves).
>>78651064
>>78651093
>>78651124
>>78651159
>>78651181
>>78650742
It is, but not on my phone.
>>78651217
>>78651273
>>78651343
This is what my country has come to under leftism.
The doctrines that made this the greatest country on Earth is being attacked by poorly educated products of the decaying culture.
The only thing you guys care about is looking cool for your friends.
The modern libertarians are not Constitutionalists, but I can see that very few of you are even dimly aware of anything you haven't been told to think.
Thank you for participating in the good goy containment thread kiddos.
>he thinks recucklicucks and dumblolcucks are different
>>78651375
>>78651084
tariffs are a net negative on an economy, but id rather have tariffs than an income tax. if it were up to me id make a national sales tax and remove the income tax and implement tariffs. functionally eliminating all loopholes including illegal immigration.
also you have to note we dont have "free trade', we took down our tariffs and everyone else kept theirs. the EU has been managed horribly so any benefit of free trade they would have had was eliminated.
tariffs arent a net benefit but depending on implementation they can be better than what we currently do. also note how we didnt have an income tax during our development. these are all possible in a night watchman state form.
>>78651423
>>78650667
>you're arguing for libertarianism but your argument for it is terrible.
that's what you think a nuance means? sounds more like you wanted to get a second chance.
but that's not what you said. there is no nuance. you said you agree with me, but my argument is fucking terrible. which makes no sense at all because it directly contradicts itself. what you meant was that you agree with where i'm coming from but that you don't agree with how i'm saying it. that's something completely different, not a nuance.
>OMG STAHP ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY IM SO TRIGGERED I NEED A SAFE SPACE NAOOOOOOO
i guess this is where you lose your cool. what's the point in discussing if you're just gonna call me names? it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, that's just your emotional vent. don't do that in a discussion. that's not how you have a rational discussion.
>>78651477
Libertarians are a joke.
Their candidate is a gun-grabbing, open borders Democrat.
>>78651573
>>78651629
>>78651664
>>78651584
ad hominem
lol I always love these threads
>>78635021
The NAP is a spook.
>>78651030
>post scarcity is logically impossible
How so? To be fair, we're talking about really, really theoretical sci-fi shit (even if it's theoretically possible in the first place) like:
>zero-point energy
>near-lossless mass-energy conversion
>industrial fusion and fission to create any element or particle
>nano-scale assemblers
But if we're open to any amount of far-future wankery, then post-scarcity is only a matter of how much we know.
>>78651383
>The doctrines that made this the greatest country on Earth
America succeeded and became a world hyperpower in spite of democracy, federalism, and "freedom", not because of.
>>78648441
This.
>>78651568
no im not saying thats nuance means you retard.
> you said you agree with me, but my argument is fucking terrible. which makes no sense at all because it directly contradicts itself.
well i just explained how it doesn't. so, why are you ignoring that point?
>what you meant was that you agree with where i'm coming from but that you don't agree with how i'm saying it.
yeah thats what i said, i agree with YOU but not how you're arguing it. i didnt say i agree with your argument, faggot. Jesus, go back and retake english, Muhammad.
>that's something completely different, not a nuance.
im telling you to recognize what im saying has nuance which is apparently over your shit skin excuse for a brain.
>i guess this is where you lose your cool.
im making fun of you.
>what's the point in discussing if you're just gonna call me names?
OH NO A GUY CALLED ME NAMES ON THE INTERNET, MOMMMYYY!!! CALL THE INTERNET POLICE.
kys.
>that's just your emotional vent
no its my bordom and im trolling you, and its working.
>don't do that in a discussion. that's not how you have a rational discussion.
at what point did i say im having a rational discussion? im laughing watching your special snow flake butt get hurt as my sides burst into orbit.
