Is there any more ridiculously absurd political philosophy than market libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism?
Seriously, I have never seen anybody who wasn't a completely sheltered and self-assured young white male endorse this ideology.
>conflating individual freedom with market freedom
>believing in "the market" like a deity
Absolute nonsense.
>>56521187
>absurd
do you have a problem with liberty?
>anarcho-capitalism
thats not libertarianism, stop making shit up.
>believing in market stuff
>ABSOLUTE NONSENSE
I recommend you read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609
>>56521484
>do you have a problem with liberty
No, but I do have a problem with the term being co-opted by a bunch of fools who are essentially pro bono lobbyists arguing in favor of liberty for corporations and pretending that's the same thing as liberty for me and mine.
>anarcho-capitalism isn't libertarianism
You're right, but in America it basically is the same thing. That's why I said market libertarianism, because actual libertarian thought (the roots of it anyway) are completely the opposite of what most of you "hurr durr do u even economics???" idiots believe.
You believe in the market as a deity. What part of that is unclear? Until you can wrap your head around the concept that economics is not a science, you will never realize how deluded you have become.
>>56521484
> problem with liberty?
lol what a faggot
>>56521645
>No, but I do have a problem with the term being co-opted by a bunch of fools who are essentially pro bono lobbyists arguing in favor of liberty for corporations and pretending that's the same thing as liberty for me and mine.
They fight for the liberty of everyone and their property. Its not exclusive to corporations, stop making shit up.
>you're right but in america!...
stop making shit up, just because you say and think americans mean it or what or whereever you got that notion, drop it because its not true.
>the actual libertarian thought is the complete opposite of the "hurr durr economics" idiots believe
they believe in people's liberty as part of a free society, markets are inherently free and you're free to go about them as you desire. Liberty is a term that means to be left alone, to ones own devices and its no ones responsibility or bother to affect my life mind your own business.
>you believe in the market as a deity
no, stop making shit up
>what part of that is unclear
its clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you spew stereotypes
>until you wrap your head around that economics is not a science
NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS holy fuck stop making shit up.
>>56521187
>>56521645
Are you literally retarded?
>>56521965
I'm sorry that you think I'm "making shit up" - this is yet another indication that you have drank some cult-like koolaid and can only accept your narrow vision of reality, and anyone else is just lying.
You didn't even respond to a damn thing I said. You don't REALIZE that you are arguing exclusively for the rights of corporations, but that is in fact what you are doing when you espouse market libertarian ideology.
It's really no different from when Ronald Reagan said "government is not the solution to our problems, government IS our problem!" and people ate that shit up because it was a simplistic concept, and yet utterly preposterous.
Even the idea of a "free market" which you say exists inherently (how?) is an illusion. There is no such thing as a free market outside the realm of political and economic theory - in the real world, it is only a fanciful idea.
>Liberty is a term that means to be left alone, to ones own devices and its no ones responsibility or bother to affect my life mind your own business.
And this is how they got you to drink their koolaid. They convinced you that your freedom is synonymous with the freedom of the wealthy and powerful to do as they please, and they hope you never realize that not only is this not the case, but that these two freedoms are in fact contradictory and cannot truly coexist.
>>56521645
right, if you had total freedom you would allow monopolists to play the market as they want and can, if you don't you're just hating liberty.
>>56521187
Are you literally this retarded?
Have you never studied economics?
"The market" literally does balance itself.
"The market" refers to the collective actions of all actors engaging in commerce.
Market freedom, or economic freedom, is incredibly important. It can be proven to be more important to improving people's lives than individual freedoms (a good example would be Chile).
No centralized planning could ever keep up with the natural dynamic of free trade.
>>56522255
>I'm sorry that you think I'm "making shit up"
you're literally spewing memes and stereotypes and it proves you have no idea how libertarianism works as a principle or a practice.
>this is another indication that you have drank some cult-like koolaid
this only reinforces the fact that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>You don't REALIZE that you are arguing exclusively for the rights of corporations,
And you don't realize that people should be able to do what they want with their property, what are you going to do? ban corporations from contributing to elections? that won't do anything because the business owner will just take the money of HIS business and donate it privately anyway to the person running that he wants
The rights that libertarians fight for are for and of the people exclusively and what they are, who they are and what they own as it is theirs and its no ones business to tell him how to live his life
>Even the idea of a "free market" which you say exists inherently (how?) is an illusion.
no one said this, stop spewing memes and made up shit. The market that exists in america is not even close to the free market principles that adam smith talked about.
How the fuck can you get by making a reasonable argument when you have no basis for the thing you're trying to criticize and instead you use nothing but strawman, stereotypes, memes and other made up shit. Its truly like you didn't study anything before making this thread
>>56521187
Pretty much every other political philosophy
>>56521187
>Is there any more ridiculously absurd political philosophy than market libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism?
Yes. Statism.
>>56522070
Another great lolbertarian argument.
>>56522357
>Implying that monopolies exist because of the free market -when actually you have a mixed economy at most- and not because of privileges given by the State
What's Crony Capitalism?
>>56521187
>Progressive values.
Top kek.
>>56522611
>"The market" literally does balance itself.
[citation needed]
Markets can't even exist without rigorous state regulations. Go take a stroll through some of the so-called "economic free trade zones" in various destitute third world hellholes - specially zoned tracts of land which have been agreed upon by the host nations to have little-to-no taxation, no labor standards, no wage standards, no safety standards, etc etc etc. By libertarian logic these should be the freest, most prosperous, happiest places on Earth. But in fact they are complete shitholes and pretty close to hell on Earth.
I think the fundamental flaw in the reasoning of market libertarians is that they have total faith in the myth of the informed consumer, and by extension, the informed worker and the "balanced" market. But take a look outside anywhere in the world OUTSIDE the theories and the textbooks, and you can be fucking sure not to find these so-called informed consumers anywhere. In fact there's an entire multibillion dollar industry which exists for the explicit purpose of manipulating consumers and distorting the information available to them - we call it marketing.
Libertarians call this freedom.
>>56522832
thank you libertarians
>>56522832
>he thinks statism is tied to technological advancement
>>56523019
>Markets can't even exist without rigorous state regulations.
they did thousands of years ago, they still do today.
google "mercantilism" The act of economic balance via buying low in one area and selling high in another, eventually the rift between available prices closes and balances.
> Go take a stroll through some of the so-called "economic free trade zones" in various destitute third world hellholes
stop making shit up.
The libertarian ideology around economic and free commerce revolves around people buying and selling from dealers and the consumers themselves dictate who is a good seller and who is not. If another company makes and sells a better product or provides a similar thing at a lesser price then people who buy that will obviously lean toward the superior product per price.
If a company tries to get off providing shit products they will not get the customers they demand.
This is generally how it happens today still, even though a true free market doesn't exist because it is the ideal image that the theory revolves around. Similar to "ideal gasses" in thermodynamics. While real gasses do not have the same properties of an ideal gas and an ideal gas does not truly exist there are paradigms that are close and similar
>>56522718
>How the fuck can you get by making a reasonable argument when you have no basis for the thing you're trying to criticize and instead you use nothing but strawman, stereotypes, memes and other made up shit. Its truly like you didn't study anything before making this thread
Wow - this is almost word for word my intended response to your post! You've yet to contribute anything to this thread. You're out of your depth, friend. Maybe you need to go a bit further than basic economics in your studies.
>>56522832
>this image
Typical libertarian nonsense completely ignoring the incalculable and inarguable contributions which government made to the development of technology. You people have such a childish view of the world, as if CEOs and "visionaries" just pop brilliance out of their asscracks and shower us with the gift of their love in an act of almost divine self-actualization which they are singularly responsible for in its totality. As if the big bad government wasn't there every single step of the way protecting their business from threats both physical and monopolistic, upholding the rules of commerce which enabled their customers to acquire the means to purchase their products, etc etc etc.
Basically market libertarianism is an entire worldview built around the perspective of a 12 year old.
>>56523369
>Wow - this is almost word for word my intended response to your post!
oh so you were just pretending to be retarded.
>makes a thread with no depth or understanding
>someone calls it shallow, and full of stereotypical nonsense
>WELL YOU DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING EITHER HURR DURR
>>56523365
>capitalist markets existed thousands of years ago
>anybody selling things was "the market"
>economic free trade zones are made up
>no company ever gets rich by selling shit products
>anytime my philosophy fails to pan out in reality, the market's just not free enough!
It's time to stop posting.
>>56523369
>Typical libertarian nonsense completely ignoring the incalculable and inarguable contributions which government made to the development of technology.
The government bought the technology from all the companies that put forth their technology for the space shuttle product. In particular the same developers who made the space rockets before such as lockheed martin, boeing, etc
> You people have such a childish view of the world, as if CEOs and "visionaries" just pop brilliance out of their asscracks
do you even know what CEO's do? or did you just make this up aswell?
>monopolistic
monopolies are inherently anti-freemarket as a freemarket promotes competition and open ended market freedom, a monopoly of any kind is NOT by any means free or open
>>56523508
>>capitalist markets existed thousands of years ago
this is correct, mercantilism was literally how shit spread and got around
>>anybody selling things was "the market"
any one who participates in the market yes. You go out and buy milk in the morning, you participated in the dairy market. You chose a particular milk product from a particular brand
>>economic free trade zones are made up
You're going to confuse a third world corrupted country in africa that has absolutely no infrastructure for anything and imperialist policy to exploit the lands of that nation as "economic free trade zones" you're an idiot
>>no company ever gets rich by selling shit products
no one said this.
>>anytime my philosophy fails to pan out in reality, the market's just not free enough!
and in what way has any capitalistic market ever failed in this day?
>It's time to stop posting.
maybe you should take more than just Economics 101
>>56523566
>monopolies are inherently anti-freemarket as a freemarket promotes competition and open ended market freedom, a monopoly of any kind is NOT by any means free or open
Do yourself a favor and re-read this sentence. Do you notice how you are just repeating shit you read somewhere, and not actually forming any coherent thought? Do you notice how you are not actually responding to the substance of my post, but trying to construct some mock battle between two sets of rhetoric?
Of course monopolies are not free or open. That's the fucking point - monopolies are not free or open AND YET they always happen when government does not intervene. It's only natural in a system of capitalist competition, because it is to the advantage of the monopolizers. It's efficient, it's cost-effective, it's profitable - they have no incentive NOT to monopolize.
monopolies are created most often by government interference in the market. Read capitalism the unknown ideal by Ayn Rand. Monopolies have a hard time consolidating power without government
>>56523726
Economic free trade zone is not some shit I just made up. I'm sorry you're having trouble accepting reality. Maybe you should use the fantastic tools at your disposal to learn something instead of arguing about shit you don't even understand.
>and in what way has any capitalistic market ever failed in this day?
There are so many examples I don't even know where to start, but the problem is that no matter what I said - like, for instance, the CONSTANT economic crashes which have characterized our society for centuries, the constant corporate corruption, the constant monopolizing, the stagnation of wages, the increasing level of inequality, etc etc - you're just going to respond by saying "b-but that wasn't really a free market!!!"
Even though you admit that free markets don't actually exist. What fucking sense does that make? Your entire worldview folds in on top of itself at the slightest scrutiny.
>>56523795
>Do yourself a favor and re-read this sentence. Do you notice how you are just repeating shit you read somewhere, and not actually forming any coherent thought?
Did you ever come to think that if a policy and ideology that revolves around being free and having competition in a market, you imply that monopolies are included in that when monopolies are the OPPOSITE of what the ideology promotes?
>do you honestly not responding to any of the substance of my post?
stereotypes, memes and made up shit is not "substance"
>its only natural in a capitalist competition
no its not
>they have no incentive not to monopolize
you don't incentivize people not to do things. Thats not how human sociology works. You incentivize people to DO things. People are incentivized to make a bigger better faster stronger product that is better than the other competition so they themselves can be successful, people who don't produce a good product will be left in the dust
>>56523987
>Economic free trade zone is not some shit I just made up. I'm sorry you're having trouble accepting reality
Just because they call it an "economic free trade zone" doesn't make it what they call it. Economic Free Trade Zones are a buzzword for a buffer that a company uses presented imperialism to invade and exploit a nation. For example, Zales and Kay Jewelers and companies of those natures use "economic free trade zones" to use this imperialism to exploit the lands of africa and their workers for the diamonds the land possesses. They do it and call it that because they can get away with it.
just because you dress up trash with perfume and flowers doesn't mean its perfume and flowers, its still trash underneath
stop buying into buzzwords and filler shit
>>56524039
>Did you ever come to think that if a policy and ideology that revolves around being free and having competition in a market, you imply that monopolies are included in that when monopolies are the OPPOSITE of what the ideology promotes?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe your ideology is based on a fucking lie? That maybe the only reason market libertarian thought exists is to convince you to act and think against your own best interests? It doesn't matter what it SAYS, it matters what actually fucking happens. What ideology goes around saying "WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE SHIT" and not "we want everything to be free, liberty, yay!"?
You're boring to talk to because you are horrendously out of your depth, as I stated earlier. You don't even have an argument.
>>56524039
>>56524174
>>56524176
why don't you guys just start discussing specific examples? discuss whether something has a free market or not but be specific
>>56523987
>the CONSTANT economic crashes which have characterized our society for centuries
These aren't abnormalities, the market must fluctuate and have ups and downs. Without it you can't have growth.
People somehow thing "omg we're in a recession, capitalism isn't working!" thats literally how capitalism is supposed to work, you can't have infinite free tides of growth.
>>56524176
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe your ideology is based on a fucking lie?
I didn't know that 1500+ years of capitalism was all a lie
tell me how socialism works!
>it doesn't matter what it says
oh but I guess it does when you use terms like free economic trade zones and thinking what it says is what it means or "what fucking happens" so nice not differentiating between that.
>you're boring to talk do because you lack depth
says the guy who started a thread on nothing but memes and stereotypes and completely ignores the world around him
>>56524307
>specific examples
Fuck off Keynesian nigger.
Real economics are debated using hypotheticals and common sense.
>>56521187
>DO YOU WANT ME TO GET SHOT
It's not even worth to laugh at them because if you get the joke you could be doing something more intellectually stimulating, like i.e. devising a model for market socialism
>>56521187
It's a nice starting point, you just need to introduce random violence and concepts of fragility into the libertarian narrative and they figure it out.
The good old "non-aggression" principle... property rights have been enforced by violence and the threat of violence for thousands of years.
The good old "free-market"... you need government regulation to prevent negative externalities and monopolies from forming.
The dark ages in medieval Europe could be seen as a libertarian paradise. Property rights of kings and lords enforced onto the people by corrupt knights. Constant in-fighting and corruption. Lords and kings taking wealth from peasants based on land "ownership" and "protection" despite not providing a thing to aid these peasants in their production. Many parallels to today's world.
>>56524585
but I'm an anarcho capitalist
>>56524366
>1500+ years of capitalism
>This is what libertarians ACTUALLY fucking believe.
>>56525030
Well there's your problem. You have a case of mental retardation.
everything in this thread is discussed and answered in Rand's capitalism the unknown ideal
>>56524683
Market socialism is the ideal solution for the future of humanity on a planet with finite resources, especially with robots expected to exceed our own capabilities in less than 50 years. Libertarianism would promote the bad end of extermination by robot.
>>56525162
How do you know it is addressed AND answered if that's the only book you read?
>>56525298
not the only book I've read lol. it's basically this thread answered
>>56525172
How so? Seems to me we just have to make sure we don't do anything too retarded and we should be okay.
>>56525439
Okay, I'm sorry for assuming differently.
>>56525172
The main problem with market socialism vs traditional forms of communism or socialism is how to bring it about. It will probably work if it's put into place but the political side of it is unclear. Is it a party who enforces it? A republic? I'm not very informed on the subject though. But the transition from super-billionaires to a market economy seems utopic at this point.
Maybe if you want something to read:
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/642
