>live in libertarian utopia
>wake up
>no internet because DARPA was never funded and thus it wasn't developed
>eat breakfast
>hope I don't die of heavy metal poisoning because there are no regulations regarding food safety
>walk outside
>get in my car
>hope I don't get hit because there's no regulations requiring seat belts or airbags
>driving along the dirt road to my job at megacorp because there are no roads
>work for 9 hours with a 15 minute break to eat my hopefully toxin free food
>drive home from work to greet my daughter
>who's completely illiterate and can't go to school because there are no public schools and I can't afford private school
>just as I pull up to the house, a guy in a van with free ice cream snatches my daughter and drives off in a cloud of dust
>call the private police company
>"please note you will be charged $19.95 for this call"
>they give me a quote for $1000 to investigate my daughter being kidnapped
>only make $800 a month because no labor laws
>politely decline
>walk home
>get stabbed for my shoes
>nearby private police contractor can't interfere because I don't have coverage with their company
>can't afford to go to the hospital, but then I'd probably die there anyway because there's no requirements for hospitals to practice proper sanitation
>megacorp inherits my house because that's what my employment contract said in the fine print
>reflect on how fantastic life is without that oppressive government
Why do statists think the only way to get any good thing is by forcing people to do it?
>>79988112
A libertarian society would work if I cast a magic spell and made everyone have libertarian values. It doesn't work because people are retarded.
>>79988112
Name any advanced functioning society that didn't have a hierarchy of people telling other people what to do
pro tip you can't. human civilization is founded on the organization of human labor. Not just a bunch of anarchists doing whatever the fuck they want.
>>79988622
The only people that think "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchy" are authoritarians.
>>79987587
Were you trying to see how many straw men you could fit in one post?
>>79987587
git gud at lif faggot
>>79988622
Roman Republic
19th Century Europe
20th Century America
The industrial revolution and the massive growths in wealth and end of child labor in the 19th century came out of free trade, Adam Smith economics, and limited government intervention dumbass.
>if you are a libertarian who supports limited government you must be anarcho-capitalist and want no government
Every. Fucking. Time.
>It's a 200 posts of strawmen arguments episode
You either understand libertarianism and become a libertarian, or you don't understand it and hate it.
>>79987587
Oh poor dear, you wouldn't be able to live without the internet and your shitty comfort? You think the whole world is out to get you and you would be killed right away if daddy government was watching your every move at all times?
Damn, it's a wonder how humans managed to live since 200.000 years ago up until today without having a spy camera inside their asshole.
>>79989926
Sure, but if you keep learning and studying you eventually stop being libertarian and become more and more nativist/nationalist
>>79990337
These things are not mutually exclusive.
>>79990445
But they kinda are
>>79990514
Why?
>>79989926
Not a single libertarian understands libertarianism.
>>79990843
But you do?
>>79990843
Smaller government less coercion and everything that enables that.
We good?
>>79990819
It is a self-evident truth that freedom is negatively correlated with population density. The quantity and severity of negative externalities grows exponentially as population density increases.
Capitalism is by far the best economic system for producing wealth and lifting the people out of poverty. The problem with Capitalism is that it has been too successful in this regard.
It has saved life, extended life, and enabled life to such a degree that global population is exploding. The largely free and high-consumptive lifestyle of the West is incompatible long-term with a population in the high billions.
For this reason, unbridled Capitalism and a limited government are major threats to our long-term prospects for freedom, as they both allow and encourage excessive population growth.
It is necessary to give up some of our freedom today in order to preserve freedom for future generations. Authoritarian measures such as population control would have the net result of preserving our freedom, since they would prevent the greater loss of freedom that would naturally result from extreme population density.
By taking an isolationist-nationalist position we can both curb the efficiency of free markets and can protect Western nations from the harmful effects of falling wages, increasing population, and mass immigration, while still enjoying a relatively affluent lifestyle.
An isolationist-nationalist position also falls more in-line with human nature, which has evolved to be fundamentally tribalistic. Fostering nativist attitudes will generally reduce crime and strengthen the social cohesion and cultural progress of the people.
Ultimately, free markets and free governments are self-destroying entities. Unrestrained growth is unsustainable in a world of fixed space and resources. The only way to preserve liberty long-term is to strategically give up some of our liberty today.
>>79991250
I disagree.
For one, because you can be isolationist and nationalist while being libertarian. And also because I don't think a big population is as much of an issue as you make it out to be.
Why would greater pop density decrease freedom in the first place?
>>79991710
There are many freedoms I have on a large plot of land in Montana, that I can't have in an apartment in California.
I can blare music as loud as I want all day long without bothering anyone. I can shoot a gun on my property without putting anyone at risk.
I can burn a fireplace in the winter without it harming a soul. On the other hand, if everyone in California tried to burn a fire at the same time, the air quality would be atrocious and public health would suffer. It is necessary to have government regulation to prevent this from occurring in California.
>>79989542
>Roman republic didn't have hierarchy
>19th Century Europe didn't have hierarchy
>20th century America didn't have hierarchy
LMAO
>>79992005
They had hierarchy, but nothing like what is universally taken for granted in the nonwhite world, and they also had rudimentary concepts of legal equality.
>>79988411
always makes me laugh
>>79992175
Liberterians seem to think there's a lack of hierarchy in Somalia, or is hierarchy not just a government thing after all :^3
But regardless, what differentiates to you those time periods to the US now? What is hierarchy to you?
>>79991925
The world is big enough m8, there will always be secluded low density areas.
Why do you need government to get your neighbours to turn down their music or don't smoker your shit?
>>79988112
The real conundrum is why people seem to think government regulations reduce prices, when the opposite is true.
>>79988353
Only that's wrong anon. Libertarianism is based on & facilitates human nature/natural incentives, whereas statism tries to redfine and reprogram people to act their own interests, then when they start acting in line with their interests you have political corruption, vote buying, tyranny of the majority and lobbying etc.
>>79991250
What a retarded meme that's been floating around lately. Markets regulate supply and demand, when the supply of humans gets too high or the price of a higher populatiom gets too high then the demand decreases. This is also part of the reason for western countries to be below replacement birth rate.
>>79987587
you imply all these things but the amish have been pulling this off for over 200 years
>>79992723
Regulations aren't designed to lower prices, and liberals or whoever that think they do are idiots. But the government can subsidize commodities that are valuable to society, nationalize industries for the same purpose if profits in those industries are low, or even force certain industries to be non-profit. Nationalization isn't just for lower prices, when all liquor sales in vermont were done by the state, they had record low levels of alcoholism because society was put first over profits.
But, for example, to solve high rent prices, the government can help create co-ops and land trusts.
Are libertarians as deluded as commies?
>"Just let the state party manage everything, it'll be fine!"
>"Just let everyone manage anyway they want, the free market will be fine!"
>>79993106
>when the supply of humans gets too high or the price of a higher populatiom gets too high then the demand decreases
...that's not, that's not how that works. You're implying that a high population leads to high prices and that's just not the case. If most of the population is poor, then prices will remain low, and poor people tend to have more children.
See:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
>>79991250
Pretty speculative. Stuff like this has been said for thousand years and then suddenly, the problem was solved by technology and development.
>>79993505
Left libertarians exist, almost no one actually believes in vanguardism since the cold war ended.
>>79992800
>only that's wrong
Don't underestimate my magical abilities you fuck.
>>79992800
>Libertarianism is based on & facilitates human nature/natural incentives
wew
The libertarian conception of human nature is the same one found in neo-classical economics. You assume that a person's preferences are due to their own nature, disregarding how corporations manipulate people's preferences, making it seem like its their duty to enjoy their products.
> whereas statism tries to redfine and reprogram people to act their own interests
Capitalism does that anyway.
>then when they start acting in line with their interests you have political corruption, vote buying, tyranny of the majority and lobbying etc.
Which will always happen when capitalism exists with a state. You're be braindead stupid if you think capitalism can exist without a state, tho. Every political theorist going back to Machiavelli recognized the state as a vital tool of mitigating class conflict. Without the state capitalism will be dead within a month.
>>79993661
...and capitalism makes people less poor thus less children?
>>79995674
> You assume that a person's preferences are due to their own nature, disregarding how corporations manipulate people's preferences
Persuasion uses peoples natural tendencies, their need for safety and comfort etc. It's still human nature even if other people are taking advantage of yours.
> You're be braindead stupid if you think capitalism can exist without a state, tho. Every political theorist going back to Machiavelli recognized the state as a vital tool of mitigating class conflict.
I think the point is with Libertarianism is similar to Bastiat's The Law, that when political power is used only to codify basic moral principles that we need collective force to uphold (life, liberty & property) then there is very little class conflict. When the law goes outside this basic function it becomes in conflict with its own premise and then becomes a tool of class conflict. (he calls it legal plunder, where the elite plunder the poor then the poor demand the right to vote/power so they can take the reigns of power to plunder the elite).
Libertarianism tries to minimize this and Anarcho-Capitalism tries to use incentives to seek alternatives with protecting life, liberty & property or everything else that people have been using legal plunder to get.
>>79988112
Because it works
>>79996764
Wrong, labor creates wealth, labor makes people less poor. But poverty must always exist in capitalism as a threat to workers in order to keep labor costs down. Any system that has people working towards things people need will decrease poverty and create wealth.
But I see you've already tacitly acknowledged that population has nothing to do with price. Which means that the only way for capitalism to solve the creeping ecological crisis of an exploding population is to lift enough people out of poverty so that they start producing less children. But here we run into another problem, in order to do this we must produce a massive amount of commodities in order to create more value and thus more wealth. This in of itself using up a large amount of resources. We have to build decent homes, more cars, and more toys, etc. So capitalism's solution to the ecological crisis is to...use up more resources at a faster rate! Now, this is usually when you lot bring up technological advancement, that somehow capitalism can produce new technologies to make things so efficient that this won't be a problem. But what you have to keep in mind is that whatever new inefficiencies that come along, they must keep pace with the population growth to the point that less resources are being used even as the population grows at an even faster rate, especially when developing economies hit a point where culturally it is important to have lots of kids because it used to be that many wouldn't make it, but they all survive to adulthood thanks to modern technology. Often times, extraordinary technological advancement isn't profitable thanks to the amount of money that has to be poured into R&D, which is why states went to space before the private sector and so on. I doubt capitalism has it in itself to take care of this.
>>79988112
Why do Egyptians only communicate in strawmen claims?
>>79998670
>>>/leftypol/
Hello Iceland.
Went to your country last summer.
Very beautiful.
you shoudl watch out for the hordes of tourists and immigrants.
>>79992514
I'm not sure what the hell this comic is supposed to be depicting. Can you explain it for me?
>>79997722
>Persuasion uses peoples natural tendencies, their need for safety and comfort etc. It's still human nature even if other people are taking advantage of yours.
I am not speaking of this as a moral or immoral thing, but as an economic one. If neo-classical economics took into account how firms can manipulate the preferences of consumers it would come to wildly different conclusions, for example it would mean that utility isn't the source of value, or else corporations would just be creating value by convincing individuals there is utility in mud pies, and thus a way to grow the economy would be to convince more people that there is use in absolute shit. This already happens with 6 AM infomercials. It's inefficient, because all that money could be spent towards things that create more long term wealth like R&D, housing, or infrastructure.
>I think the point is with Libertarianism is similar to Bastiat's The Law, that when political power is used only to codify basic moral principles that we need collective force to uphold (life, liberty & property) then there is very little class conflict.
This has never been the case. Even the twelve tables were made to mitigate class conflict and had a utilitarian character to them. This kind of law is nothing but idealism.
"""""Legal plunder""""" will cease once classes no longer exist tho.
>>79999849
It means whatever you want it to mean, anon.
>>79998670
>labor creates wealth
stopped reading there.
How can something so obviously untrue be believed?
>>80001625
In what way is it false?
>>79995674
>You assume that a person's preferences are due to their own nature, disregarding how corporations manipulate people's preferences,
>advertising works
>advertising is inherently wrong.
Why does it matter whether you want something or you were convinced you want something? How do you know you really want to keep using the internet? Is it wrong to then want something after your friend told you it was amazing? What if your friend has shit taste?
There is nothing wrong with persuasion. Its a part of everyday life. Without persuasion nobody would ever do anything different. Nobody thinks its their duty to enjoy a persons products. Name one example.
>>80001707
because labour doesn't create value.
I always use this example. If I spent 10 weeks creating a shitty sandwich that would have taken any other person 5 minutes to make, is my sandwich worth more than the other persons? Even if they are exactly the same? Labour does not create value. Value is created through product.
I could spend years coming up with a horrible plan design that would crash every 3 runs. Just because I spent a lot of time on it doesn't mean that its worth anything to society. Especially when another person made one that works flawlessly.
>>80002089
See my post here
>>80001424
I was not making a moral judgment, just an economic evaluation.
>>80002477
You mistake my point. Yes, the societal demand for something is necessary for something to have value, but so is labor. Societal necessary labor time is often thrown around, but it's basically short hand for the average amount of time it takes for the workers who make a specific commodity to make that commodity.
When i say labor creates value, I mean that it doesn't matter what system you have, socially necessary labor time is what actually makes the products that have value. Even capital is produced by socially necessary labor time.
>>80002490
>If neo-classical economics took into account how firms can manipulate the preferences of consumers it would come to wildly different conclusions, for example it would mean that utility isn't the source of value, or else corporations would just be creating value by convincing individuals there is utility in mud pies, and thus a way to grow the economy would be to convince more people that there is use in absolute shit.
You know how retarded this is right? Besides the fact that value isn't just about utility. If value were about utility art would be worthless. How is it bad if society starts selling shit cakes because its highly valued though? Even though they would never be highly valued because everyone can do it. Basically what your saying is that modern art ruins capitalism. So far it doesn't really seem like modern art has ruined capitalism though. It doesn't matter what your pre conceived notions of value are.
>>80003020
>When i say labor creates value, I mean that it doesn't matter what system you have, socially necessary labor time is what actually makes the products that have value
So then why is modern art that could be made in 15 minutes so overly valued. Labor is not necessary for value.
Labor isn't necessary at all. For example a robot could create a great product.
Labour doesn't mean shit in terms of creating wealth in society. Production is what creates wealth and labor has nothing to do with production.
>socially necessary labor time is what actually makes the products that have value
This is just not true.
>>80003162
> Besides the fact that value isn't just about utility. If value were about utility art would be worthless.
You are arguing against neo-classical and Austrian economics at this point lad. They believe that the pleasure derived from looking at or owning art is its utility.
Modern art is an interesting case though, the reason so much of that shit is worth billions of dollars is because of the circle jerk of billionaires who buy it, either because they're pretentious as all fuck or they want to impress people. Anybody can do modern art, but the problem is that artists, critics, and institutions are doing the same thing as corporations, creating perceived utility. So billions go into art installations made out of total shit, instead of things that could actually be more useful to society.
>>80003948
>They believe that the pleasure derived from looking at or owning art is its utility.
Then in that case to whatever society that is convinced shit is valuable, shit will have utility. The point still stands.
Can someone explain this "in a libertarian society who builds the roads" meme?
Shouldn't it be funded by taxpayers like in any other society?
>>80004283
They think libertarians are anarchists. Its just a stupid meme to convince you to like socialism. They basically claim roads are socialism to show you that socialism isn't bad.
>>80003665
>So then why is modern art that could be made in 15 minutes so overly valued.
I told you why in my other post, because artists, critics and institutions manipulate the society's perceptions of need.
>Robots
Now let's think this through for a moment. If robots could create a commodity on its own, why would it have value? After all, if the robot could create a product without any additional labor, why couldn't anybody just buy a robot to make the commodity and another robot to sell it, and then just give the commodity away for free after they've paid back the cost of the robots? After all, it takes them no time to make commodity? The answer is that the robot requires maintenance (labor), electricity (provided by labor), and other resources that must be brought to the robot to assemble the commodity (via labor). But, if we assume that this entire process has been automated, then what's to stop all those other things from being free after the original cost of the robots is paid off? Some good samaritan would probably give it away for free, and drive all the profiteers out of business. You cannot have fully automated capitalism lasting for long.
>>80004283
They think tax is theft because they're complete autists.
>>80004662
Everything a government does is not socialism. Only a social democratic would try to sell you on that.
>>80001424
> I am not speaking of this as a moral or immoral thing
I know I was merely pointing out that persuasion uses human nature and thus is a part of someones preferences whether others influence them or not.
> It's inefficient, because all that money could be spent towards things that create more long term wealth like R&D, housing, or infrastructure.
So what you're saying is that you don't like consumerism and prefer if everyone is trying to work towards space exploration etc?
Persuading people to consume doesn't mean R&D or infrastructure will be ignored since everything in an economy is pretty well connected. Like all those people buying things they want (ie smart phones) allows others to satisfy their (employees need food), while in turn pooling capital which can then be used to invest into something new like R&D or a road to a new shop etc.
There's a reason why we say spontaneous order because millions of voluntary interactions create an evolving web that uses people's greed and subjectivity to satisfy other peoples needs, the richer we get the less we have to spend on basic needs and more can be spent on improving life or the things you mentioned.
> This has never been the case. Even the twelve tables were made to mitigate class conflict and had a utilitarian character to them..................
I should probably clarify what I was trying to say. A minimal/alternate legal structure by Libertarians is an attempt to reduce class conflict that is purely caused by people being able to gain coercive political power. Mainly because humans try to avoid the pain of work and so in the current state of affairs it's easier to just plunder each other than to work.
You don't need to bring about material equality (classlessness) in order to decentralize power and turn human greed into productive activities.
>>80004283
Apparently people are incapable of connecting two points with asphalt without having a centralized state to legally steal from everyone and then pay someone to build it. There can't possibly be any other alternative humans can conceive of.
>>80004283
People on /pol/ like to conflate all libertarians with ancaps to bait people, its consistently successful and its a bit sad
>>80004283
A) Why does SPECIFICALLY the government have to build the roads
B) Why does it have to tax you to do it if roads are so valuable that you would pay for them voluntarily anyway?
Anarchocapitalism requires the assumption of rational actors, and good luck with that.
>>80004960
>I told you why in my other post, because artists, critics and institutions manipulate the society's perceptions of need.
Because it has utility. Still labor does not create or equate to value in anyway. Nice try
>>79987587
wtf i hate roads now
>>80005719
This. We wouldn't need roads in a libertarian society. We'd build cities to accommodate helicopters and use monster trucks.
>>80005447
>I know I was merely pointing out that persuasion uses human nature and thus is a part of someones preferences whether others influence them or not.
And neo-classicists presume that human nature is not reducible, that it's not dependent on economic activities.
>Persuading people to consume doesn't mean R&D or infrastructure will be ignored since everything in an economy is pretty well connected. Like all those people buying things they want (ie smart phones) allows others to satisfy their (employees need food), while in turn pooling capital which can then be used to invest into something new like R&D or a road to a new shop etc.
True, but it is painfully obvious that consumerism is a drain on the economy. If we were to ban anything but the most bland forms of advertising all that money would have to go somewhere, almost certainly into things that are more important and will lead to greater long term growth. Remember that when money goes into a certain industry, if something is profitable, more and more money will be invested into it, and more and more money will stay saved in the hands of the owners of firms in that industry.
>A minimal/alternate legal structure by Libertarians is an attempt to reduce class conflict that is purely caused by people being able to gain coercive political power.
But here's the thing, this power can also be gained outside of the state. Even if your system discourages "monopolies" one individual can buy up all the firms in an industry. One person can employ millions, and whether the workers have a decent life or live in poverty will be dependent on them. Even for smaller firms without such a situation, if there is a surplus of labor, this will still be the case. That is also political power, because that is people power. And so long as the state enforces property laws, this is all still coercive because their coercive power is still backing it up. Even ancapistan has coercive power if you can just buy mercenaries.
1/2
>You don't need to bring about material equality (classlessness) in order to decentralize power and turn human greed into productive activities.
You mistake material equality for classlessness. Class is defined by relations to the means of production, a world without class, or in other words, one class, is a world where employees are also their own employers and everyone has equal political power.
>>80006575
>Because it has utility. Still labor does not create or equate to value in anyway. Nice try.
My point was that it has less utility than what would be chosen had not the sellers manipulated perception. And I take it you have nothing to argue about regarding the second half of the post.
>>80007278
>My point was that it has less utility than what would be chosen had not the sellers manipulated perception
And this is wrong how? Were going in circles now. You also replied to the wrong person faggot.
The second part isn't about labour. Its about quantity. With robots you could essentially create infinite quantity of products. You'd still have to invent new products of better quality to get more value.
>But, if we assume that this entire process has been automated, then what's to stop all those other things from being free after the original cost of the robots is paid off?
The cost of a robot is never going to be paid off. You must maintain and power it. Even if it was costless people still want to make a profit.
Whats to stop a good samaritan from doing something similar today? Nothing.
>>80004960
>>80007278
In fact is happens quite often on go fund me for example.
>>80008225
>And this is wrong how? Were going in circles now.
It's not a good idea because it's inefficient and probably not as effective at creating utility had people been left to decide for themselves.
>And this is wrong how? Were going in circles now.
I just forgot to link the other guy's post, but I'm pretty sure he'll figure it out.
>The second part isn't about labour. Its about quantity. With robots you could essentially create infinite quantity of products. You'd still have to invent new products of better quality to get more value.
And robots can do that to, and so can humans for free. some people love to invent and will do so regardless if they get paid or not.
>The cost of a robot is never going to be paid off. You must maintain and power it.
It's robots all the way down.
>Even if it was costless people still want to make a profit.
And they would be outcompeted by those who don't care.
>Whats to stop a good samaritan from doing something similar today? Nothing.
The fact that it is not costless, it requires labor.
>>80007278
> Class is defined by relations to the means of production
The employee/employer relationship is more defined by time preference and risk these days than class distinctions. Besides the means of production is now a very vague term because capitalism has meant that almost anything can now be a means of production. ie. A Personal Computer + Printer is now a means of a production, a 3D printer is like a mini factory.
So class can't be based purely on relations to means of production because capitalism has blurred it to the point where class is more defined by asset ownership (material wealth).
>>80010229
>The employee/employer relationship is more defined by time preference and risk these days than class distinctions
Not at all. The employee, employer relationship is most defined by who controls what happens with the commodities produced, and who controls where the profit goes.
>Besides the means of production is now a very vague term because capitalism has meant that almost anything can now be a means of production. ie. A Personal Computer + Printer is now a means of a production, a 3D printer is like a mini factory.
This is all true, but the means of production is still a valid term because who owns the means of production determines where the profit goes, and maintains control over the employees. Even in the case of Uber, while the workers own some of the means of production (the cars) the capitalists own the software that makes the firm possible, which is why the workers are classified as contractors instead of employees legally. The means of production remain whatever is needed to produce commodities, even as these become smaller and more easy to use by individuals, capitalists have been finding creative ways to make profit at the expense of workers, whereas the workers would be making more money, or consumers would be getting more surplus, if they just cut the capitalist out of the picture.
Ownership is the key concept we're talking about here; who controls the firms? Who get's the surplus value? And who controls who get's the surplus value and how?
>>79987587
You dont the internet because of DARPA
You have the internet because private citizens invented html, the Home PC and the www.
DARPA is just connecting two computers with a fucking wire.
Typical government garbage.
>Live in Socialist utopia
>still using DARPA in 2016
>>80006745
> into things that are more important and will lead to greater long term growth.
Ie. things that you subjectively value rather than other things people value? True growth is when people have access to more goods and services, just because people are accessing goods and services you find trivial doesn't mean it isn't worthy. Sure you can argue more infrastructure or space programs could set us up for better conditions later but unfortunately the private sector is constrained to consumerism because the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the rest. The explosion in consumerism can also be seen as private sector efficiency in the areas where it's actually allowed whereas state run enterprises seem to stagnate.
> But here's the thing, this power can also be gained outside of the state.
True and not true. The difference of a private alternative is that they are more voluntary, they don't claim monopolistic authority over you because of the structure, incentives and alternatives available. The incentives to "legally plunder" each other almost disappear because of how flexible it would be and the incentives justified.
Of course Ancapistan has power/ force/coercion, the laws around life, liberty and property are common principles that we just codified to justify collective force. The issue comes where collective force is used for contradictions to the premise. Now in a stateless society sure people will still behave immorally but the decentralizing of power and the incentives around these alternatives would produce far leaner rules according to each groups preferences rather than the illusion of legitimacy the state tries to force. As in you know where you stand with people and can make a voluntary choice of alternatives rather than having an involuntary hierarchy claiming to be legitimate in all cases. (plurality of choice)
>>80011636
>Live in Socialist utopia
>still using DARPA in 2016
>still using DARPA
>using DARPA
DARPA is a government agency.
ARPANET was the network they created which was the predecessor to the internet dumbass.
>>79987587
Okay, no Internet, instead you'd have Verizon net and Comcast net
What is having it tested
Then buy a car with them you cheap fuck
There would be roads, either by toll or charity
Sounds like you should quit
Teach her you stupid fuck
That could happen now
Fuck this shit
>>80012001
Economic Calculation Problem.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYWx0aHVzc3RvcmFnZTJ8Z3g6MmY4NzRlNTAxY2UzZTEyZQ
https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth
Solve it, or put your tail between your legs commie. You have no room to talk about people being dumbasses.
>>80011771
> things that you subjectively value rather than other things people value?
No, more things that people subjectively value vs less things that people subjectively value. People will subjectively value things whether there is advertisement or not. If more money was put into R&D and quality instead of advertisement, and people were no longer manipulated by firms to enjoy things they otherwise wouldn't, I believe that more people would find great utility.
>Sure you can argue more infrastructure or space programs could set us up for better conditions later but unfortunately the private sector is constrained to consumerism because the state is supposed to have a monopoly on the rest.
The private sector isn't "constrained" to consumerism. It loves it, it makes billions off of it. The reason the state took over infrastructure and space in the US was because the private sector wasn't doing shit about it. Without the public sector there wouldn't have been the interstate highway system, and without the public sector the prohibitively high costs and risks of developing the technology for space travel would have prevented the private sector from developing it for several decades at least. But now that the interstate system exists and the technology for space travel exists, capitalist interests have lobbied congress to remove funding for both nasa and infrastructure so the private sector can start profiting. I live by i-95, there was an HOV lane that was recently made, but there's a toll there. A pretty hefty toll that the company that made the lane get's to charge at a whim, for the next 100 years. The reason we have to pay this is because the state and local governments could bring together the political will to fund it, which would have been cheaper for the public, so instead a private company gets to make obscene amounts of money on the commuters.
1/2
>>80011771
>Now in a stateless society sure people will still behave immorally but the decentralizing of power and the incentives around these alternatives would produce far leaner rules according to each groups preferences
interesting so rather than going to a state for assistance you would rather people go to mafia-like organizations that do not necessarily abide by any laws?
>>80011348
> Not at all. The employee, employer relationship is most defined by who controls what happens with the commodities produced, and who controls where the profit goes
The commodities are only produced and wealth created because both groups have reconciled their claims. It just so happens that a later time preference and different risks mean an employer will contribute X & Y and an employee will agree to contribute Z. The voluntary interaction is an acknowledgement of who owns what and who is responsible for what in order to reach an agreed upon conclusion.
> who owns the means of production determines where the profit goes
Of course the person who owns the assets determines what happens to that which they own and of course the employee determines what they will agree upon for their time/labour etc.
It is a voluntary transaction where an employee is perfectly free to go into similar risks themselves, and if we're talking about a Libertarian society the barriers to entry would be extremely low, it's just that not everyone wants to be a risky entrepreneur or small/big business owner.
Ownership is the key for sure, I think though assets in general is the main distinction between people that work for their whole life and people that try to engage in social mobility, where mobility and success isn't defined by factory ownership these days. Especially when an actor can using only their body become wildly successful and then accumulate assets.
So I think classical economics still makes sense when examining human behavior and human nature rather than arbitrary distinctions which keep changing or don't particularly matter in a moral or even societal utilitarian sense. (where society can succeed despite inequality etc)
>>80012001
your still wrong faggot
>>80013253
No, I'd rather live in a society where alternative methods of solving complex social problem can freely flourish. So I'd rather the institutions not claim to be above me or my property, not have a geographical monopoly and not have horrendous incentives and ever more centralization of power. I feel like a stateless society can allow for alternatives, better incentives, decentralization and individuals being held equal or above the institutions rather than slaves below it. Not to mention voluntary solutions that's a key point.
I'd rather things like contract rating agencies and dispute resolution organizations that organize themselves in a much different way than states do when trying to resolve conflict in society.
>>79992723
I think you pulled that right out of your anus, my man.
>>80013986
>never heard of farm subsidies
>>80011771
>The difference of a private alternative is that they are more voluntary, they don't claim monopolistic authority over you because of the structure, incentives and alternatives available.
In a socialist system, I'd have more power over my workplace, my pay, and the products of my labor. Why should I prefer this shallow voluntarism that can be undermined by the very success of capitalism I work in (the accumulation of capital)?
>The incentives to "legally plunder" each other almost disappear because of how flexible it would be and the incentives justified.
But let's go through the logic of capital for a moment. The goal is to put money into the process of creating a commodity that is more valuable than the money originally put into it. If this is successful, and the capitalist has more money than when he started, and he repeats this process over and over again, eventually they will have massive amounts of wealth compared to the workers who are a part of the process. Only when there is a labor shortage must the capitalist give the workers a portion of profit that scales with the total profit. This naturally creates jealousy and indignity and will lead to conflict.
>Now in a stateless society sure people will still behave immorally but the decentralizing of power and the incentives around these alternatives... rather than the illusion of legitimacy the state tries to force.
I agree in decentralization of power, but the decentralization of power to the municipality so that it can be credible that my political voice is heard. This would have the same effect and would actually be legitimate.
>As in you know where you stand with people and can make a voluntary choice of alternatives rather than having an involuntary hierarchy claiming to be legitimate in all cases.
A state that gives you more freedom than it takes from is legitimate. You can have those voluntary interactions outside the state plus control over your state and your workplace. It's win-win
>>79987587
>Altruism is a fallacy
>people only act in accordance with their self interest
>Anything that needs to be done will be done voluntarily
>implying a libertarian society would even need roads
>>80012555
1) Market socialism.
2) Mises and others completely missed the mark with the economic calculation problem. The problem isn't created central planning, any idiot can centrally plan a collection of firms necessary output to reach allocation efficiency, and indeed research showed firms in the communist bloc were allocatively efficient. The problem is that firms need to enter and exit markets spontaneously to cover the demand for products that central planners tend to forget about. Spare parts, luxury items, ect. See article related. So long as firms are autonomous, the economic calculation problem is non-existant, regardless of who owns the firm.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
>>80013792
ok say we live in your society: you are a simple company man working for some organisation, while I am the ceo of comcast. I decide to invest a quater of my profits(a few billion) into a private army I then use said private army to extort "protection money" from you.
what steps do you take to defend your rights? do you assume another organization will go to war on your behalf?
what you libertarians do not seem to understand is that hierarchical structures will form by themselves and the leaders of these structures will aspire to seek a monopoly of power in a given geographical location.
the reason why a government would be preferable to these organizations is because the government operates by a given set of rules. these organizations do not necessarily operate by the same rules.
in our universe it is a fact that might makes right, more powerful organizations bestow their will on less powerful ones, this is and will always be the case.
>>80015865
I have not heard any libertarians (with the exception of Libertarian Socialists) make the claim that we would live in a hierarchical free world.
>>80013417
> It just so happens that a later time preference and different risks mean an employer will contribute X & Y and an employee will agree to contribute Z.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Risk is meaningless. The risk an employer makes could easily be done by the workers themselves, but it isn't done because the capitalists have all the capital, if the workers had the capital, they wouldn't need to work in the first place. But here's the thing, the workers created that capital in the first place, they put in the labor that gave the commodities the extra value that created profit. The situation goes all the way down. At the very beginning, before capitalism there was feudalism, and the wealth there was made by peasants and serfs or even slaves. This arrangement wasn't not voluntary by any measure and yet it helps to define out current one. There was never an equal situation that capitalists like to idealize, that in the beginning capitalists were made from extra hard working workers, class always existed. And perhaps if it didn't we would have no need for capitalists.
>Of course the person who owns the assets determines what happens to that which they own and of course the employee determines what they will agree upon for their time/labour etc.
Except price takers have that determined for them by the market.
>It is a voluntary transaction where an employee is perfectly free to go into similar risks themselves, and if we're talking about a Libertarian society the barriers to entry would be extremely low, it's just that not everyone wants to be a risky entrepreneur or small/big business owner.
This just pure ideology. The material conditions determine whether someone can be a business owner or not, and indeed determine how much people have to risk. If I don't have the money to start a business, I'm not going to do it.
1/2
>>80013417
>So I think classical economics still makes sense when examining human behavior and human nature rather than arbitrary distinctions
>neo-classical economics doesn't make arbitrary distinctions
wew
>changing or don't particularly matter in a moral or even societal utilitarian sense
If you're referring to the "means of production" then I can tell you its not arbitrary. The reason we discuss the means of production is because who owns the means determines who's the employer and who's the employee. The whole reason capitalism is called capitalism is because it's all about who OWNS THE CAPITAL, and how that capital is used to create surplus value.
>>79987587
>>work for 9 hours with a 15 minute break to eat my hopefully toxin free food
This is my life right now though
>>79993191
>the amish
at least pick a group of people that are actually successful, not some midwest inbreds
>>79989542
Holy shit this is the most retarded post I've ever seen on /pol/
Congratulations Egypt
>>80016697
That's capitalism for you.
>>80005970
Most of the libertarians on /pol/ ARE ancaps.
>>79989926
I understood and became, and then I realized that natural monopolies are real and not deontologically just, so I became geolibertarian. Realization of the struggle of the workers against globalism and the diminishing utility of wealth made me more authoritarian.
Realization of the inherent value of radical pragmatism made me even more authoritarian, so I am now radical center.
>>80016202
what I am saying is that in a libertarian(lets assume stateless) society there would be no mechanisms that would stop hierarchical structures from combining(be that by malicious or non malicious means). these structures will then bestow their will on the population(like a government), and there would be nothing the population could do due to the power balance being so asymmetrical.
>>80017064
>radical center
Because neoliberalism is working so well amirite?
>>80017078
If such a lifeboat situation where to exist, how would it be different if it were to happen in the real world?
>>80006131
>A) Why does SPECIFICALLY the government have to build the roads
Because it's the most efficient way
>B) Why does it have to tax you to do it if roads are so valuable that you would pay for them voluntarily anyway?
>I pay voluntarily the tool to the highway
>>80017238
>>80017033
Yeah, and they give us no end of beautiful memes
https://youtu.be/mYovJLzDIHI
>>80018567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
>>80018111
kek
>>80018927
the autists went away? I always enjoy mocking the lolbertarians and ancaps
>>80019131
Same, not even a faggot going off about the NAP. Dissapoint.
>>80019737
gonna use my trigger ancap materiel
>>79987587
Autism in it's purest form. Will you commies ever research anything besides the size of Marx's dick?
>>80017238
I didn't think that those terms were synonymous. I want more radical policies instead of this bullshit neoliberal moderation. Some of the radical policies from all over the political spectrum are superior to the intermediate policies. The neoliberal idea of a third way is just them taking the least edgy policies. If, instead, we select pragmatically the most efficient policies, regardless of how radical or moderate of an ideology they originate from, we can reach much better solutions than just compromises.
This is because political issues are sometimes byzantine problems- that is, it does not matter what solution we reach as long as we reach the same solution. Mixing the solutions leads to failure. For example, look at healthcare. There is the centralized model, where the single buyer buys all the healthcare for the nation. There is the free market model, where we knock down barriers to competition to lower the costs of healthcare. Both of these models can effectively treat the problem, but intermediate solutions between them do not fix the problem and lead to bloated insurance companies making far too much money. I prefer the free market approach, but instead of fighting for a 15% free and 85% centralized compromise, I should fight for a 15% chance at the radical policy I like, with an 85% chance of the radical policy I don't like. Instead of compromise which damages the effectiveness of the policies, we should have lawmakers play dice to decide which set of policies we enact.
The radical center contains a variety of different philosophies because the main tenant is pragmatism, not moderation.
>>80020286
>I prefer the free market approach
Because your fee fees tell you? Or you have any basis in reality?
>>79998907
Why not ask yourself, my pyramidal friend
\
(;;^])-----<
\
>>80020286
I can somewhat understand this. A year or two ago I might have been inclined to agree with you. However, I think that the current political economy we are living in will undermine any attempts to fix these problems, where vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry will prevent the needed changes in healthcare , and the same for telecoms, energy, ect. I am less inclined to believe in free market solutions as they tend to naturally recreate the same political problems the led to the compromises in the first place. Only a radical change in our political economy which eliminates vested interests and changes the political centers of power to be more responsive to ordinary people, especially by giving more power to localities, will solve our current problems.
But on a broader level, I encourage you to delve deeper into different philosophies and find the parts that actually make sense and take those, while rejecting that which does not. pic related.
>>79988411
Brilliant
I'm not seeing anything compelling against Libertarianism. All I see is people screaming "Autist! Autist!" or "Spook! Spook!" as if that means anything or refutes anything, and the arguments that are presented have been refuted numerous times, intentional misrepresentations or are crazy lifeboat scenarios that serve only to move goalposts.
>>80022083
kek. Was libertarianism even tried?
>>80021054
I agree with you on localization and getting money out of politics, at least temporarily.
>>80022083
Here is one: how will there be sufficient competition when natural opportunities are monopolized? Also, on what moral basis may ancaps claim that they own natural resources, when the value of the resources increases far beyond the value of the labor added to them in the homesteading process? If you realize that this theft of resources from your countrymen is immoral, you should look into geoanarchism, geolibertarianism or georgism for practical models that may repay the working class for the stolen opportunities.
>>80022801
Do you want an idealist or pragmatic answer?
>>80023177
Do you have an idealistic or pragmatic answer?
>>79987587
>>80023342
Depends if I understand the question or not.
>be me
>live in post trump america
>wake up in trump approved mansion next to my trump approved super model wife
>walk to my kitchen and make myself a cup of trump approved coffee
>sit on my pure diamond balcony enjoying the view of my 15 FULLY LEGAL mexican lawn care takers
>trump approved liberty bell signals that it's time for work
>get in my trump approved sports car
>see the tank is empty
>go to my trump approved liberal containment fence
>it keeps them in by spamming hateful messages through loud speakers
>grab one
>put funnel up to its eyes
>black lives dont matter
>liberal tears stream into my car
>tank is full
>take off to work
>roads are lined in gold and silver
>get to trump wall bordering canada
>grab the 2 trump approved AR15s from my car
>get ready for the daily 1 PM weed man trial by fire
>muslims and people who moved there and realized it was shit try to make it over the boarder
>get paid $20 per hour plus an extra $500 per mudshit killed, $1000 for ex americans
>kill at least 50 people
>get paid
>drive home
>bang wife
>go to bed a happy trump approved white male
>>80023820
>implying lazy frogs can build a wall
they riot when the retirement age gets raised, m8
>>80023820
nice pic btw
>>79987587
I love you Iceland !
>>79988353
The only people who would succeed in a libertarian society are those who hold, or at least understand, libertarian values. Unemployed leeches, welfare queens, and their spawn would be culled by their own incompetance. They'd either starve or move to a socialist shithole like Canada.
>>79995674
>You assume that a person's preferences are due to their own nature, disregarding how corporations manipulate people's preferences, making it seem like its their duty to enjoy their products
This doesn't really make sense, though. You can't convince people to buy something that they don't already want to some degree. I can fill a paper bag with dog shit and set it on a store shelf with a price tag, and no amount of propaganda/advertising will ever get it sold.
