Why does /pol/ hate libertarians?
>>55500989
KOCH
O
C
H
Because I'm scared alone.
>>55500989
Mainly because people automatically assume libertarian = anarcho capitalist.
That and they don't understand the economics. People forget that very few /pol/acks know anything about economics, whether libertarian or mainstream.
>>55500989
>>55500989
>>55500989
Because when the race war begins, they will do absolutely nothing.
>>55500989
>>55500989
Too hopeful
Like a reverse communist
>>55501083
This
>>55500989
The left don't realize that most of their problems are caused by government. But this presents an issue, how are they going to push their agenda without an agency that has the monopoly on violence? So they can't sacrifice shrinking government. Likewise here.
Degenerates have more to fear than anything. With no welfare and financial support how will they thrive?
>>55501006
the kochs are pretty much conservatives lmao. They just hide behind the libertarian facade because they dont pump money into social issues
>>55500989
how about this one?
>>55501083
>>55501083
you gotta love this meme
>>55501206
Syrian government?
>>55501006
Why they keks
>>55501359
thank you captian obvious
i don't want to be forced into the whim of "invisible hand" of the market
there is pleasure in the sense of security provided by the state. i would have probably not minded living in the ussr.
>>55500989
Failure to push propaganda when it was necessary. Seriously, there are times I'm defending free market alone, what's the matter with you guys?
Remember when /pol/ was overwhelmingly lolbertarian? When the catalog was full of social politics bullshit 24/7?
![Ayn-Rand-9451526-1-402[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dJkioYO.jpg "Ayn-Rand-9451526-1-402[1].jpg")
>>55500989
Because they worship a Russian kike whore ?
>>55500989
I find it sad that most people find picture infographs to be a legit source of information. I guess it further reinforces the vague idea they have of libertarianism, thus justifying their lack of personal research and studying of the matter.
>>55501096
Just look at this picture. I understand what it is that it conveys, but it only makes sense you have a poor understanding of libertarianism.
I recommend reading libertarian literature, but the predominant intellectually lazy of this board will likely ignore this advice. The best advice I give you is to watch Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Walter White, Charles Murray or Richard Epstein videos online.
>>55500989
stupidity
>>55500989
Because they don't know what the libertarian ideology actually is.
But, they can learn it here:
http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/introduction-libertarianism
>>55501608
Can you tl:dr libratalism for me ? I find myself not even knowing what it means at this point
>>55500989
Because they're a bastardisation of true liberalism (not American "liberalism").
>>55500989
Because people want free shit. They love it when bureaucrats take their taxes, slice a piece for themselves, a piece for their friends, and then give them back what's left and call it "free".
Even when the government takes their money to give handouts to random foreigners that won't contribute anything other than votes for the left, they'll put up with that. Just for the off-chance they'll have some "free" shit thrown their way too.
Open borders libertarians turned me off of libertarianism.
>>55501083
This.
One thing the right and the left have in common is not understanding economics or how even capitalism is supposed to work without a private central bank.
>>55500989
Too much sympathy for degeneracy and too much confidence in money's ability to deal with every threat. If it were up to libertarians we would have open borders, all drugs would be legal, all manner of degeneracy would be acceptable, and rely on private companies and local militia for defense (which sounds cool but is not feasible).
>>55500989
Because of disingenuous images like you posted. Literally every word that exits a libertarian's mouth is a lie designed to allow them to have their way and remove freedom from everyone who's an ideological opponent, though they ALWAYS lie about that last part also.
There's also the fact that libertardians are insanely delusional too and none of their ideas could ever possibly work because they contain jarring physical contradictions. Here's an example:
>Libertarians want everything privatized
>Libertarians want police force privatized
>Libertarians, however, have zero respect for police at all so they wouldn't obey them without massive force being applied
>Libertarians bitch about privatized prisons and claim they cause "innocent" people like drug criminals to be locked up
It's clear from all of this that what libertarians actually want is for everyone to be decriminalized...until someone breaks into their house, beats their ass before they can get to muh gunz and steals their bullion, then you better fucking believe that god damned libertarian wants that man arrested, beat and thrown in prison for life / executed as soon as possible and those god damned lazy cops better get it done right fucking now!
Does that answer your question, OP, you enormous faggot?
>>55502312
this
>>55500989
insecure morons with a severe case of limp dick and a major lack of brains are always going to whine and bitch whenever something threatens what they've been brainwashed to believe.
>>55500989
We grew up
Some people shouldn't be "left alone". That's why libertarianism is retarded.
>>55502679
What's to see? Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. Any libertarian who says he isn't is a fucking liar.
>>55502466
What is the true redpilled way of thinking ?
>>55502702
This. Humans are mostly dogshit and they need put in their fucking place. Muh freedumb is the absolute worst disease the human species has ever seen.
>>55500989
Because they're globalists
>>55500989
>>55502129
personal freedom, government not involved unless 100% necessary (oppinions where to draw the line vary). the hot points are courts, police, army.
things libertarians dont like:
-government intervention in markets, bailouts
-regulation (including things like FDA)
-spystate
-government based welfare/ 'social security' -- nothing wrong with insurance, just not governmental
-tax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA
also see the rest of the channel
>>55500989
Open border keks
Libertarians are spergs. I've heard some say that parents should have no obligation to feed their child but sure as fuck can't have an abortion,
It's also poorly defined, and seems to range anywhere from muh flat tax to straight up anarchy.
>>55502734
>Being this retarded.
Libertarians are naive and idealistic. Unbridled capitalism with no moral duty and no responsibility to the community inevitably becomes corrupt. Money is all that matters to them, and it doesn't matter who has it, so long as more is made.
>>55502765
>Humans are mostly dogshit and they need put in their fucking place.
By who/what? Other humans?
Also,
>Muh freedumb is the absolute worst disease the human species has ever seen.
Say goodbye to freedom of speech then I guess. Not like we ever needed it, am I right? Same with the 2nd amendement. :^)
>>55502824
i see lots of things that sound good (on paper) but at the same time there are lots of things about libertarianism that clash with my conservative views. anyway, it reminds me a bit of communism not in the sense that they have things in common but rather that it may sound good to some but simply does not work.
>>55500989
Because no person can know enough about the world to make informed decisions which affect us all.
You could say I'm an anti Libertarian who refuses to let people make uninformed decisions just for their personal liberty or you could say I'm a logical Libertarian who recognizes that heavy regulation is required to prevent people from fucking up everything for everyone.
Too many chiefs killed the tribe.
>>55502824
>personal freedom
>for me and nobody who disagrees with me
>government not involved unless 100% necessary
>i.e. no respect for authority and 100% unwillingness to obey the law
>government intervention in markets
>corporations should be able to do whatever they want and it's immoral to restrict that (ignore all historical precedent and just pretend that MONOPOLIES CAN ONLY EXIST BECAUSE MUH GUBMINT DID IT!!)
>bailouts
Lies. As long as they're rich enough, libertarians have NO problem with corporations getting bailouts. Fuck, libertarians LOVE Elon Musk and he's a tremendous welfare queen.
>regulation
Because all libertarians are criminal scum and want to get rid of all laws that don't specifically protect THEIR property.
>spystate
>It's totally fine if corporations do it though
>government based welfare/ 'social security'
>But only for the poor. It's fine for the rich to get tax breaks and welfare from the public coffers.
>tax
>Because I'm a libertarian, I don't understand the concept of a contract. I am literally too retarded to understand that taxation is 100% consensual because I openly and willingly agree to pay taxes any time I do anything that incurs them.
>>55502861
I've heard them demand sexual consent exams for 8 year olds so they can prostitute themselves. Libertarians are literally just criminals who believe the law should only serve themselves.
>>55502868
Yeah, I can't comprehend why you are, other than that we keep allowing stupid people to have children. I would say eugenics and the current opposite dysgenic trend are reason enough to kill ever freedumb-loving idiot on Earth.
>>55502981
The worst part is that almost everything libertarians demand, we've already had IN THIS VERY COUNTRY IN RECENT HISTORY. It's like they don't know any history before about 1950. The reason we have all the laws they don't like is BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE THEM NECESSARY BY ACTUALIZING THE LIBERTARIAN DREAM.
>>55502781
> Why does /pol/ hate libertarians?
This.
>>55502781
>>55502846
>Not being based Libertarian Nationalist yet
It's like you haven't thought about politics, philosophy, and morality at all yet
>>55503217
> libertarian
> nationalist
im wondering, do libertarians approve of mass immigration if that (theoretically) led to economic growth?
>>55501083
Why would you want to pay a toll every thing you drive on a rode?
>>55503007
Nothing has to be black and white, you stupid faggot. And humans aren't equal. This is another one of the most damning strikes against libertarianism. You idiots think everyone is of equal intelligence, moral fortitude and corruptibility when it comes to enforcing the law. Somehow, though, when it comes to turning a profit, everyone is different. It's fucking magic!
>Say goodbye to freedom of speech then I guess
Unfettered freedom of ANYTHING is bad. Anyone who can't understand that proper, successful human civilization is a balance between Order and freedom is unworthy to speak on the topic.
>Same with the 2nd amendement
I honestly don't give a fuck about your 2nd amendment.
>>55503061
>anyway, it reminds me a bit of communism not in the sense that they have things in common but rather that it may sound good to some but simply does not work.
It's exactly like that. Libertardians are EXACTLY like communists in that they're CONSTANTLY claiming that "libertarianism has never been tried!", when we already have history filled with lack of business regulation, no environmental controls, child labor, etc, etc, etc. We got rid of all of that shit for a fucking reason.
I repeat, libertarians are nothing but criminal scum. That's why they are attracted to the religion. And make no mistake, that's exactly what libertarianism is. It's a cult of criminality.
>>55503107
>Because no person can know enough about the world to make informed decisions which affect us all.
That is the single stupidest argument a libertarian has ever made. Ever. It isn't fucking difficult to see that allowing things like murder is fucking stupid. You know what you just said is wrong because even libertarians are against legalizing murder.
>Oh but nobody is smart enough to know that's bad for everyone HURRRRR!!
>>55503217
>Libertarian Nationalist
Idiot /pol/ kiddie who literally is incapable of thought. Why not a communist capitalist?
>>55503311
Most do.
>>55502415
The degenerates would wipe themselves out or give up their degeneracy if they weren't suckled by the state though.
>>55503373
Because all libertarians think they'll be the ones owning the toll booths (but not staffing them, of course - that's pleb work).
>>55503400
>Nobody ever made money fleecing the population without government intervention
This is literally how fucking stupid you are.
>>55502981
Moral duty and responsibility to the community aren't things government can instill in people or effectively control.
Especially when the people are taxed dry, so government can fill the role of universal provider. That's when people encountering poverty can calmly look away and think "just wait, government will do something about it".
>>55503217
>>Not being based Libertarian Nationalist yet
what the fuck am i reading
>>55503286
>>55503394
>There is something contradictory between a state that doesn't intervene in the economy and maintaining a border to keep out foreign trash.
what might that be, faggots?
It's not as edgy as National Socialism.
>>55500989
We don't. Its a system of government only applicable in a world with only white people.
We love Ron Paul as a person but alas he is too naive for his own good.
>>55501100
- you have the freedom to be racist and discriminate
- you have the freedom to own guns
its about the fact that you CAN take responsibility for yourself.
>>55502415
degeneracy is tolerated
the idea is that people are allowed to destroy themselves. and when they do its not the responsibility of every fucking person in the country. just their own.
be that big banks or mentally unstable dikes.
as for the money/market thing, check out milton friedman as to why that works despite beeing counterintuitive
>private defense
its debated. not everyone agrees. people mostly think something should be done about the strucuture, because its inefficient. people also agree that it should resemble a private company, wich does mainly two things
1) you are adequately rewarded for good work. be that an employee or the whole company/section. no bullshit flat payout structure based on years of service. merit decides.
2) no bullshit regulations slowing everything down, ability to reform structures etc etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOanWjRMfLs
nunchucks may be a tad ridiculous. or they might be a very effective tool. the point is we need more freedom to innovate, to make things better.
>>55502466
>Libertarians want everything privatized
>Libertarians want police force privatized
not necessarily. and definetly not everyone.
>Libertarians, however, have zero respect for police at all so they wouldn't obey them without massive force being applied
massive overgeneralization
>Libertarians bitch about privatized prisons and claim they cause "innocent" people like drug criminals to be locked up
that would be because of prison owners lobbying against lower prison sentences cause it would vacate their prisons.
libertarianism is FOR free market and AGAINST crony capitalism lobbying-favour-goverment meddling
they still want private prisons because they are more effective and cheaper than government run ones
>>55502312
pretty sure open border in libertarian philosophy has nothing to do with diversity or moral highground or any progressive reasoning
its because:
some libertarian economists believe its better for the economy (low skill/high skill augmenting the middle skill reason, some others)
hardcore libertarians have a philosophical reason because borders is gubmint and anything gubmint is wrong
neither of which work with how things are currently, they might work in the far future when libertarianism has provided up with jet packs and robot waifus though
>>55503542
Your philosophy is literally an attempt to smash all disparate /pol/ memes together and you expect to be taken seriously? There IS NO SUCH THING as "National Libertarianism". That's a fucking joke. You can love money or you can love anything else, but the love of money excludes all else.
>not necessarily. and definetly not everyone.
A seriously large percentage of libertarians do.
>massive overgeneralization
Not even slightly. And you, I and EVERYONE already knows that. Libertarians have ZERO respect for authority or the law.
There is no such thing as corporate freedom that doesn't inevitably lead to cronyism. I'm truly sorry that you and most libertarians are too stupid to grasp this fact.
>>55503765
meant to quote >>55503680 also.
>>55503394
>That is the single stupidest argument a libertarian has ever made. Ever. It isn't fucking difficult to see that allowing things like murder is fucking stupid. You know what you just said is wrong because even libertarians are against legalizing murder.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood my post. I'll use an analogy of why I'm an anti libertarian.
John wants to open up a shop in his garage using his personal liberty. Nobody should have a right to tell John he can't open up a shop in his garage.
BUT. John is not a biologist. He has no idea how his shop will affect animal life in the area. John is not a chemist. He has no idea how his shop will effect local chemistry. John is not a hydrologist. He has no idea how the chemicals he uses will get into the municipal water supply. John is not a agronomist. He has no idea how his shop will effect the plant life. John is not a meteorologist. He has no idea how his shop will effect the atmosphere. John is not an economist. He has no idea how his shop will effect other local businesses. John is not a sociologist. He has no idea the impact his shop will have on the neighborhood. John is not a geologist. He has no idea the geological hazards his shop may be on. John is not an engineer. He has no idea if his shop is safe.
I can just keep going on. Nobody can know enough information to even build a goddamned shop. Personal freedom be damned. We must heavily regulate people in order to prevent them from fucking up everything for everyone.
>>55502466
>decriminalized
there are many things that should not be illegal, such as taking drugs on your own property
the rest of that paragraph you have things mixed up and confused. literature/ more information will cure that.
>>55502702
you are right and we dont it to be specifically government run.
private charity can take of it. church has been doing exactly that for a long time.
in fact theyve been doing so more effectively, because, among other reasons, they can put the money (or whatever) where its needed instead of getting caught in politics.
>>55502981
>and my statement is true because it is devoid of logic or proof
>>55503765
>Libertarians have ZERO respect for authority or the law
newfag
>>55503876
>I'm sorry, you misunderstood my post.
I didn't misunderstand shit. YOU misunderstood your own post.
>>55503905
>there are many things that should not be illegal, such as taking drugs on your own property
I disagree with you. I think people who use recreational drugs should be executed. But then, I want humanity to become better, not go extinct.
>>55500989
They're afraid of us.
Under Libertarianism, we could own cannons and grenades, rather than JUST guns, without any government regulations. Most of this board fears that, since they want to ban drugs, porn, and gay sex, and the idea of a homosexual, drug merchant, or pornographer legally armed with 30mm autocannons and high explosives scares the shit out of them.
Fascism don't work when the fascists are getting Swissed as they trespass.
>>55502466
>lies, ad homs, strawmen, opposite world levels of delusion
>freedom is actually slavery because i say it is
>libertarians want everything privatized, nevermind how much they hate the private central bank running the money supply
get help
>>55504214
>They're afraid of us.
Nobody is afraid of you idiot children. We just loathe you for being cunts.
>>55503765
>Libertarians have ZERO respect for authority or the law.
They're literally the most law abiding political group in the country
>>55504273
You're the cunts.
You're also the more child-like. We're the ones who believe in responsibility, rather than letting the government parent us from cradle to grave.
How can you call us the children here, when you faggots are the ones who need to be cared for?
If you have a problem with how someone runs his own life, challenge him to a duel. Doesn't have to be life or death, maybe just a game of chess or a fistfight.
But using the police is a cowardly way to handle people you don't like. Period.
>>55504214
> actually wants to die watching his wife and family get murdered by roaming bands of warlords driving tanks and shit
>>55501167
>we
Igaf about germs
Also a bit odd considering all the trumpfags that want to build a wall
>>55500989
Libertarianism doesn't work when so much of the economy is tied to multinational corporations fucking shit up. The NATO free trade agreement made all car companies close up shop and move to Mexico because it's cheaper. So...I suppose it's good if you're the poorest in the world but other than that not so much.
>>55503061
>there are lots of things about libertarianism that clash with my conservative views
I assume thats mostly
1) degeneracy
the idea here is that people are allowed to do it, and everyone else is allowed to discriminate, and if those people fuck up their lives they alone are responsible.
so instead of policing people and forcing them into certain things, we go for full on social cleansing.
2) open borders
I dont think anyone can make a good case that innerEU openborders were not good idea. except ghypsis etc.
The great thing is, if you dont like it thats cool, you are 100% free to form your own pure white neighbourhood (or municipiality/city) and nobody is going to force any muslims or whatever in there.
if somebody is for radically openborders they probably think that things will take care of themselves. i.e. lets say a bunch of muslims are wrecking society, there can be private security for the municipality or whatever (they wouldnt need federal approval cause they are soverign enough to do those things) and kick them out.
-------------
as always, the thing with libertarianism is that its not very intuitive.
completly remove the FDA? allow pharma companies to regulate themselves?
I certainly had different ideas (was libertarian already then) before somebody (friedman) explained why its a good idea anyway.
>hasnt been tried
oh it has. not full on. but check out USA and compare it to say germany. pic related is a nice writeup.
let me just say it works way better. just dropping a few names.
google microsoft facebook apple spacex tesla airbnb twitter ...
how many of these are german/european companies?
can you name one european company that did something similar?
germany was at the height of tech revolutions once (before hitler). but not anymore. guess why. (its not da joos)
>>55504505
I hope their tanks have magical shaped-charge resistant armor.
They have tanks, I have tank-killing rockets and mines.
>>55502415
Degeneracy is subjective and is another word for freedom, commie fag.
>confidence in moneys ability to solve problems
That's the system now in which currency and central pl as nning attempts to artificially create market conditions. Also libertarians want to base the currency
>>55504505
>implying competent, hard-working intelligent people won't be better at war than lazy shitheads
>>55504619
>completly remove the FDA? allow pharma companies to regulate themselves?
That's what they already do *because* of the FDA. It does much more harm than good.
>>55503876
Here's a secret: the regulators will also fuck up and the political class will do everything in their power to cover up their fuck ups, so it doesn't reflect badly on them.
>>55503311
seems like youre searching for a reason to disagree with the whole idealogy
kindof like when I tried to covience myself /pol/ is 100% retards that cant into correlation vs causation because I didnt want to accept that kikes did what they did.
as for your question
there wont be a consensus on such a vague difficult question. and most likely very few answers (because its too depended on context)
personally I think there is no scenario where mass immigration leads to economic growth. it would be easier to just do a revolution in their home country.
otherwise, what would happen is they come over and then create their own country within a country. whether thats a good idea depends whos coming.
remember libertarians arent stupid. you wont have any delusional diehard leftis-in-lefty-land thinking every culture is flowers, peace happiness and good [if we show enough tolerance].
>>55504721
>being delusional about what living in a warzone means
>>55503765
>Either-or, false dichotomy
kill yourself kek
>>55504592
I dont think you understand free trade
>the freedom act is about freedom
This is you
>>55505145
>without teh gubmind, there will be WAR!!!
But governments cause wars you dumb lego.
>>55500989
Libertarians are just fine, as long as I have my card I can check out as many books as I want. They are sticklers about noise but that's okay they just want a peaceful place for everyone to read.
>>55505115
i just dont see how libertarianism would allow the preservation of a nations culture and identity.
>otherwise, what would happen is they come over and then create their own country within a country
good point, how is libertarianism going to prevent that from happening? im honestly just genuinely curious, i havent dealt with this ideology a lot.
I've always wished someone would just tell me "you fall in line with this party". I'm a quasi-libertarian. I genuinely don't know what to call myself. I know autist libertarians will get asshurt if I call myself a libertarian, and I really don't align with conservatives too much.
I'm pro a lot of things. Drugs shouldn't be legalized -- the laws shouldn't even be there in the first place. The government has no business legislating drugs. Same with marriage. Don'tr give a fuck what goes on in the bedroom. Business should be able to choose who they do business with.
Abolish the FDA along with slashing most government bureaucracies, end all welfare, open up healthcare markets, and remove the government red tape which complicates licensing of professions like doctoring, lawyering, and teaching. You're telling me a retired PhD can't teach a high school class because he didn't take the appropriate teaching course?
At the same time I'm pro big military. I think that the American empire is the most benevolent power to ever exist, and people who want the U.S. to draw-down empire status are disturbingly short-sighted and unwilling to look at history. Thank fuck America is here to keep people in line, because trust me, you don't want the USSR to be the one calling shots.
Also I recognize the place for government. A police force, fire department, and I'm okay with roads -- I don't want to be paying a toll every couple of miles because Enron roads wants a fix.
I also think that something like internet infrastructure should be built and maintained by the government. Some nice government fiber optic military grade shit.
I'm an endorserof universal basic income.
Help me out desu senpai
>>55501096
coming from the jew
>>55503373
remember we are already paying that
it would do several good things
<<< 1 -- better distribution of infrastructure
1) no roads or less well kept roads where we dont use them
>what you want bad roads so ebil companies can make $$$?
do you want to pay for a highway that connects two shitty hicksvills? politicians do.
and on the flipsite better, more adequate roads where theyre needed.
think LA, 405. how many of the communters would pay lets say 2$/month so they can use the second highway (probably ontop)?
>but what about ebil toll stations
1. people would hate it
2. innovative companies would come up with a convenient solution
>ebil paywalls making things complicated
recent companies all have a model where they give away free stuff for nonpowerusers.
no reason road companies wouldnt do that. and plenty reasons why they would.
<<< 2 -- more innovation, better products
politicians: people dont complain about it, we dont touch it
private companies: if its makes people happier we can charge more / have better customer retention / better PR / our ego is tied in making a good product --> lets look at everything possible
ever read how x technique, usually something about slower driving, that would make traffic flow faster overall?
private company can do it easy. retractable speed bumps or just digital speed signs. etc etc.
innovate products.
'roads are roads' you might say. how about charging logistics companies less/more depending on what time they use the road? take traffic of highways during rush hours, utelize them during night hours.
youre a village and dont want trucks on road at night? charge them way more.
if you use the road maybe once a week, why pay as much as somebody as somebody using it twice everyday?
should city roads cost as much as backcountry?
communisim sucks.
thats why roads should be privatized, with a profit for those ebil ebil greedy big corporations. wich will only suck away our money, with no benefts for us.
>>55503373
for one
>rode
for two, we already have tolls on plenty. For instance in Florida we have the sunpass that automatically charges you because apparently my taxes arent enough for the roads that take 20 years for the public employed pay by the hour not by work completed construction workers.
>>55503876
you have personal liberty
you dont have 'jurisdiction' over things that belong to the municipality (wich is strucuture similar to a (public) company -- probably a new kind of law form, wich adresses the typical concern one would have with a traditonal company)
and thats that.
think about linux
a program can fuck up verything in the folder its in. and do nothing about any other folders.
there are of course some fringe cases, like building nuclear weapons in your basement (or companies warehouse).
then we get to the classic:
libertanianism is not anarchism
learn the difference, then come back to the conversation.
>>55504721
>>55504214
take your anarcho militant fantasies and fuck off
>/pol/ loved Ron Paul
>/pol/ started to support Rand
>Trump appears, shills take over
>/pol/ has become Trump shill central
I just want a lesser government, shit's too corrupt and it baffles me how people want more government control.
>>55505678
>i just dont see how libertarianism would allow the preservation of a nations culture and identity.
by giving you the freedom to run your own pure bred aryan nationalist society with whatever rituals or faith you want.
some exceptions might apply, depending on the overarching federal thing youre in. like no rape etc.
>how is libertarianism going to prevent that from happening?
assuming we want them in the federal thing in the first place, it would be encouraged/tolerated. so long as they abide the overarching laws, including everyone elses freedom.
>>55506366
Same, but I think we're in the minority here. Government control is just going to get more draconian from here on out.
Personally, I think /pol/'s quality tanked after GG was exiled from /v/ and forced here. After that it became "muh feminists, muh SJW" bitching nonstop. So much so that any newfags immediately latch on to anything that goes against the liberal narrative.
>inb4 but muh friens are redpilled!
Shut the fuck up.
>>55501608
recommend some libertarian literature
>Muh Nazi fantasy land is better
>Anyone that has the freedom to be degenerate triggers me
>Anyone not socially conservative triggers me
Basically these are the main reasons
>>55502734
I didn't realize this level of retardation could be achieved
>>55506790
The book of revelation.
>>55506584
so i can create my own little bubble to live in while the rest of the country as i know it ceases to exist? sounds like a great option.
>>55506904
giving cultural marxism, degeneracy and multiculturalism a platform is so much better
>>55503150
Not sure if troll or massive retard
>>55505749
>military
theres no reason why a joint force, like the us military, cant exist.
>government departments
what would happen if we privatized fire departments?
>roads
see >>55505846
>private police
couple thoughts
consider that the US already has private inspectors and freelance headhunters.
my personal favorite in this private vs public mess is the following
company like structure, with all the benefits of capitalism, owned by the goverment / municipality.
>who am I
nobody said you cant have an oppinion thats different from all established parties
if everyone was like that
- the US wouldnt exist
- IBM, apple, google etc etc etc wouldnt exist
- no new political ideology would be created
- no new things ever
>universal basic income
check this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
>I also think that something like internet infrastructure should be built and maintained by the government. Some nice government fiber optic military grade shit.
currently google is doing a much better job than the government stuff.
>Also I recognize the place for government
congrats. libertarian, not anarchist.
overall id say get deeper into the field. a lot of your concerns will adressed.
as always, its counter intuitive.
>>55507052
>Being triggered by differing opinions
Statists everyone.
>>55506790
the writers he mentioned, also Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Frederic Bastiat
>>55502312
There are closed border libertarians as well, that is a point that varies from libertarian to libertarian.
>>55506996
assuming its good it wont be little. it would thrive.
I am one so it'd be pretty stupid to hate myself. I remember when /pol/ was way more libertarian though instead of authoritarian. Now they're no better than liberals, but they're only campaigning for the opposite shit.
>>55507052
it also gives a 'platform' to everything else. a platform natsocs dont currently have.
except china.
>>55505749
I guess I fall in line with the quasi-libertarian mindset as well, the Government has some place, but as it currently stands, it's too large and unweildy, not to mention powerful (thank fuck for incompetence or most of America would be fucked over by now), and it's antithetical to the ideals this country was founded on.
Basic income is a bad idea, imo. It would require heavy redistribution to avoid causing massive inflation and a good majority of the population would be happy with not working at all.
However, I think the police force should be limited to peacekeeping jobs, and none of the paramilitary bullshit we're seeing now. If there's a manhunt, it should be the jurisdiction of the National Guard, which would have the enforcement arms of the CIA, FBI, etc, with most of the alphabet agencies being abolished.
>>55507052
the whole point is that all idea have the chance thrive and none are stiffled. so that the best can win. no jewry intervention for personal gain.
assuming that ideoogy is natsoc, natsoc would just wreck everyone economically.
>>55507278
It personally sickens me as well.
>>55507379
Also, for monetary policy, any currency must be backed by something, so how about energy itself? Say a certain amount of energy (measured in KW/H, usually in the form of electricity) is tied to $1.00. This gets away from the petrodollar but still has value as a widely used commodity.
>>55502765
Good goy. Freedom is stupid. Let the government take all the refugee shitskins. Diversity is a good thing. Your just too stupid to realize it. You cis white male scum need to be put in place.
>>55507376
only if you have the capital necessary to push your agenda
>>55507459
and in my opinion it would not lead to one group dominating all others, it would lead to complete segregation of all the incompatible groups. sounds fine to me (if you werent giving up on the rest of your country), almost as if everyone just stayed in their own country and turned it into their own little utopia.
>>55506790
Bastiat - The Law
Easy to read, and almost all the idiotic arguments against libertarianism people throw out there were answered over a hundred years ago.
Thomas Sowell
>>55507056
It's literally too stupid to not be a troll. Particularly the bailouts and the taxation being consensual part
>Why does /pol/ hate libertarians?
I don't like most libertarians in particular because, in my experience, the ones I've personally met are just hard social leftists that are more upfront about their selfishness, and would willingly give up what they want to be perceived as when some decrepit zombie from Vermont babbles on about free shit.
That being said, I do like libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought and a good number of its writers, although I lean a bit too reactionary to be explicitly libertarian
>>55507990
>It's literally too stupid to not be a troll.
Never doubt Poe's Law.
>>55508034
It's the same faggot who's been around the last few days. He will eventually start spamming "kill yourself" memes.
>>55507683
>only if you have the capital necessary to push your agenda
exactly. so then defunct ideas like theocratic islamism would die out hardcore.
meanwhile good ideas i.e. better economics will gain traction in established societies (as is true for libertanianism inside democracy) and because people think they are better (more $ longterm) will go and create them.
you cant stiffle better societies for your personal gain, because the most personal gain is to be made in the best society.
result: remove commie hugbox and other shitty societal concepts.
keep the ones that work. the best one will become the biggest.
evolution.
>almost as if everyone just stayed in their own country and turned it into their own little utopia.
exactly
>if you werent giving up on the rest of your country
they will only last if they are viable. otherwise theyre just going to wither.
meanwhile IF they ARE viabe, we do want them around.
Its not that 100% perfect in the real world, theres ressources etc to keep in mind. however its the closest approximation to perfect we can make. wich makes it the best option.
Because most want free stuff and to live at the expense of others.
>>55508211
how is that not inevitably causing conflict?
>>55501121
How is this related to libertarianism?
Libertarians advocate property rights and a non aggression principle.
Who would be confiscating his blanket in a libertarian society? what claim would anyone but him have to it?
>>55508654
I'm guessing that they assume he accrued a massive amount of debt and is now homeless because of it.
Naturally the solution to this is to have the government step in so prevent people from making stupid decisions.
>>55508513
generally its because people are segregated
if you mean the people taking up arms / criminalize before they die.. well couple thoughts
1) arms cost money
2) its an issue but certainly not insurmountable. we arent talking about 100% peace utopia.
3) some people might realize their society isnt working and leave to other ones (see india today, or just commie-centralEU leaving for US etc)
it certaily will cause conflict will religious fanatics and whatnot. but then again more money -> more army/arms. so economicly viable societies will continue to thrive.
>nukes
difficult subject. my tldr is we can work around it. see NK. also if people are doing their job there wont be nukes. rather it would economic war.
remember im advocating for central oversight. freedom within that yes, but not feudalism or anarchy.
>>55508654
theres still some laws. its not about 100% radical liberty extremism, wich would be anarchy.
basically libertarianism is the realistic version of anarchy.
>>55508654
>>55508923
and remember, where to draw the outmost lines is very debated.
the point every libertarian is making is that things like private schools and less regulation are NOT debated and we can start with those even though we dont have a 100% perfectly clear solution for a 100% libertarian country
>>55508513
Think of it this way:
Several semi-autonomous "states" (Like U.S. states) with a small overarching government. Like the original U.S. Constitutional system.
Because if someone disagreed with the laws, culture, whatever of one state, they could freely move to another which more closely fits their liking.
This would be much easier than taking up arms or trying to lead one state against another. Hence it is extremely unlikely to occur.
>>55508923
>Nukes
Owning, building, maintaining nuclear weapons is an extremely difficult process, so much so that it would be folly for one group to try and obtain one to establish dominion over the others.
>>55508997
I think the best thing Libertarians can do is first establish what the government is strictly barred from doing, then decide on what hierarchy the ideal government would have, and after then establish different jurisdictions form there.
>>55508727
I imagine that in a libertarian society money lending would not be a very popular industry because there would be no guarantee that anyone would actually pay their debts, money lending businesses are viable now because people can be forced to pay their debts by law or face imprisonment but would such laws exist in a free market libertarian society?
>>55508727
Then people aren't people, they are robots and society is moot. Before big government, charities, communities, religious institutions, and families worked naturally to fix social problems and were more efficient and closer to the problems they served
>>55509737
Laws exist and loans are made through a contract. This isn't anarchy and so long as it isn't there is a place for law enforcement. There are fdifferent ways to have law enforcement and I favor leaving that to each state.
>>55509737
of course they exist. there is law. its not anarchy.
>>55509737
>Libertarianism = Anarchy
Money lending laws have been around for centuries, there would be laws for lending i.e. if you loan someone money contractually they have to pay it back. That is, if it's a signed agreement between parties and thus the case is provable in a court of law.
>>55509737
Yes, because in order to get the loan you would likely need to sign a contract. Most libertarians agree that enforcement of contracts is a legitimate function of government. In other words, force can be used against you if you decide to disregard a contract, since you're initiating conflict by not abiding by it thereby initiating force in a way. Something like that. Also, even if government weren't to intervene, if someone disregarded contracts then no one else would be willing to make deals with them. Basically, if you bail on a loan for no reason other than you don't want to pay it, then no one will lend you money anymore. People would realize that you can't just get away with it and money lending will continue as normal.
>>55509951
This. You don't have the right to encroach on others' rights and not paying a contractual loan is tantemount to robbery/ infringing on someone else' right to property.
>>55509737
One of the major libertarian points is freedom of contract and enforcing voluntarily agreed contracts
>>55509737
They would just send the boys round to get you. Also, it wouldn't fucking work. The government protects everyone from true capitalism which would be too brutal.
>>55500989
They are obessed with money and "muh freedumbs" like all petty bourgeois morons.
t. evola
>>55501096
>jew
>>55502734
>I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm going to make broad generalizations
Because its election season and newfags are here
Sort of like how germany is Muslim now, except they won't be going back to Africa/reddit
because in a free country people are free to be degenerate
I'd like to get people's opinions on the form of government that would be most likely to obtain and preserve libertarian principles. Obviously democracy, even if it starts out libertarian, will invariably devolve into socialism if you allow everyone to vote. People just love gibsmedats. I'd argue for a monarchical form of government, with royal authority limited somewhat by a constitution. If you look at early Europe, it basically operated under libertarian principles. Central authority, even though it existed and was technically absolute in the person of the sovereign, was severely limited. Local lords and towns usually directed their own affairs and people were generally free to do as they wished, although societal norms kept the population in check. I'd think monarchical libertarianism would keep degeneracy in check by giving the people an example of what should be done, without forcing them to do so thereby addressing problems of degeneracy that people here care so much about. I would write more, but I'm on mobile so it's hard to do so.
>>55500989
they dont actually have anything to say except selfish platitudes about how the world would be better if nobody existed but their immediate family.
>>55500989
>Why does /pol/ hate libertarians?
Because /pol/ is just reverse tumblr. They both believe that anything triggering them should be outright banned and people doing those things should be shot/put in jails/denied rights etc. Meanwhile libertarianism allows you to do what you want with your life as long as you don't infringe upon other people's rights to property and self ownership. Naturally those ideologies clash
>>55510274
Read the constitution
>>55502312
How many times do I have to repeat that libertarianism and open borders are mutually exclusive? The ones spewing that shit are retarded.
You can extrapolate property rights and citizenship out to the federal government
If every other reason fails, at the end of the day having open borders can result in destruction of your culture, and necessarily the type of government you want (libertarianism).
Next time you hear a libertarian advocating for it, which you probably won't because it's more of a meme perpetuated by opponents, just point out Europe and Mexico and ask if the culture can sustain it's form of government when subhuman shitskins vote retarded or don't care about the law to begin wuth
>>55510366
Like I said, even the most libertarian democratic/republican governments devolve into socialism given time. The constitution didn't stop this from happening in America, what's you point?
>>55500989
In my case it's because I'm NatSoc.
>>55510494
Illegals can't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is resources going to non citizens.
We'd have to do something about illegal immigration. I agree with that.
Eventually, we'll be the envy of the world and nation after nation will move to resemble us. Just like when the US first started. Now a days nations follow our shitty example and the world is fucked. Libertarian hegemony would be maximum freedom, stability, and minimum drains on society. At that point, we wouldn't have to worry so much about illegals. Countries like mexico would have their own shit running smoothly. This is in the long run. What people fail to see, is that mexico is actually an emerging country economically. Nothing fancy, but a whole lot better than before. The cartels need their shit kicked in tho
>>55510543
It did for a while. The central banking system and congressional and executive over reach took over and reinterpreted the constitution to shit. The system is failed because it doesn't adhere to the constitution. We can change that. We know how things were abused and can amend to fix it.
>>55500989
American libertarians are the worst nuclear cancer SHIT.
>>55500989
"Liberty" is a means of a ruler to liberate the people through lack of restriction and gain claim as their rightful ruler through common support.
What "liberty" really boils down to in this day in age is to allow for things that do not harm the power structure of the ruling class (Weed, freedom of sexuality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech). These do not harm their power structure because they have means to direct the dialogue and indoctrinate the populous to discuss that which is only politically correct (not against the current ruling class agenda) and give the illusion of freedom.
They still will take a large portion of your wage. They will still draft you to fight in wars that you disagree with. They will still force you to pay into social security that you don't want. They will still force you to purchase insurance.
When it comes to personal security, we are far from free. Intellectual freedom means nothing when they still have control over your livelihood.
In short, I do not hate libertarians. I just think that their ideals are just as Utopian as communism (expecting a self interested ruling class to relinquish power and let the people rule themselves)
Even our founding fathers realized this and really only gave the people a means to keep governmental power in check. Promises of liberty and happiness are always used in revolution. Soon after they install their new leader they realize those promises were a means to gain support and quickly vanish as soon as the rulers are able to be rid of them without consequence.
>>55510760
>illegals can't vote
>"or ignore the law to begin with"
>illegals can't vote
>implying
>illegals can't vote
>they can eventually or their kids can
>every other country would be fine if we were libertarian
Literally one of the only reasons for libertarianism rather than anarchy is that other countries do not have their shit together, or are aggressive
You think if the entirety of the west went libertarian that Africa wouldn't be a massive fuck up still?
>>55504986
>more harm than good
Only because of redistribution of power to corporate lobbyists who don't want to test their chemicals until AFTER thousands have died or gotten ill. The FDA is the only force that regulates but is anemic and abused, not dead and useless. Taking it away would allow for Upton Sinclair's Jungle to return worse than ever
>>55510915
Most libertarians support the founding fathers' vision and advocate a return to those principles.
>>55510938
Yes africa would but who gives a shit. Who gives a shit now?
Illegals can't vote. Even the motor voter thing is blown out of proportion. Their kids can by current law as they are born here. We are talking about what we can turn government into, not what it is now. We can do away with anchor babies if we choose.
>>55503311
there is economic speculation that immigrants improve economy because immigrants are typically low skilled (landscapers, 4chan janitors), or very high skilled (doctors, engineers), with the native population being 'middle skilled' (middle class)
so the immigrants help fill out the low skill and high skill areas
thats the theory
dunno how true it is, it's probably overwhelmingly false when the host country is a welfare heavy bureaucratic nightmare but may work in a much more truly libertarian leaning society
>>55510494
theres basically 2 forms of mainstream libertarianism or line of reasoning that label themselves libertarian
anarcho capitalist (philosophically pure)
constitutionalist (more milton compromise)
anarchos believe in open borders because borders are products of government
constitutionalists believe in secure borders with a reduction in government power
If freedom were paramount, the people would become really lame and stupid. Why do you think people like Stalin happened.
>>55511045
That's my main critique, the founding fathers were leading a revolution and seeking to be at the head of this revolution. A promise of constitutional liberties ensured the support of the people to endorse their system of control. Gradually, the interpretation of the constitution changes, law definitions are changed and are applied to the same document and before you know it, the government is a lawyer looking for loopholes and and ways to bypass constitutional law or override it with executive power.
How is this any different than a feudal lord raises taxes just high enough so that his serfs don't revolt and storm the castle?
Wanting greater freedom should not constitute a political ideology because freedom is the antithesis of civilization.
>>55511650
Freedom is paramount. What is the purpose of society?
>>55511803
Order
I call myself a libertarian, but I'm not a bearded Unibomber living in a cabin filtering and drinking my own piss and stockpiling weapons.
I'm just a dude who thinks the government should stay the fuck out of my personal life. I'm also not super happy about paying taxes so that people can just hang out on government disability or welfare.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Neither Democrat nor Republican.
>>55511803
>What is the purpose of society
To create a social hierarchy.
>>55511802
Anarchy is the antithesis of society but society should seek ultimate freedom with the bounds of rights to life, liberty, and property.
The argument that government gets corrupted is the argument against all forms of government. There isn't a single one immune to this. We gotta try to impede this or strip down the ways in which it seeps in. Unfortunately we have to do this periodically because it gets out of control. That's where we are now
>>55504409
You are a child though. You're incredibly naive. Not everyone should be allowed to own an attack helicopter and nuclear missiles.
>>55511960
>social
Oh please that word is the ultimate dead horse.
>>55511828
Order for what purpose?
>>55504721
Are you this mentally ill that you want to be in a constant state of conflict having to have antitank rockets at the ready in case Jamal and the coon platoon come over to your house for their gibsmedats and white pussy?
>>55512110
Making the hellish ride we call life on Earth a bit less horrible than it could have been.
>freedom
It's like an impossible concept, we all are dependent on a group of people from birth to death. Best shot you have at making things better for yourself is making your group stronger. Forget the freedom thing. Only the dead are free.
>>55512312
Define better for yourself without invoking more effective freedom.
>>55512451
Less people with a lack of
water
food
heat
medicine
education
All other goals are bullshit
>>55512654
We have those things in abundance. So what now?
>>55511828
Classic German response
>>55512654
Nothing stops you from pursuing any those goals in a libertarian society
>>55500989
Because they're retards who only consider the implications of their ideology in regards to immediate consequences; they don't look 2, 3, or 4 steps outwards.
They also have to make absolutely insane amounts of exceptions and "sure, but..."'s in order to maintain their position.
In short, it's a philosophy for people who read Ayn Rand and get sucked into the feel good's of MUH FREEDOM and MUH NATURAL RIGHTS, without pausing to consider what actually happens when stuff goes their way.
Protip: The free market won't just "fix it", the invisible hand is not a god, and it does not care who it fists.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
>>55511803
>Freedom is paramount
But is it infinitely so? If freedom is the paramount good, then surely you have plans to sell all your worldly possessions to go live in the woods, or go move to Sealand.
>>55512025
The hypocrisy is that in order to obtain freedom, one must obtain the power to exercise said freedom. When you are "oppressed" that is the result of someone else exercising their right of conquest and seeking their own freedom.
Instead of advocating libertarian ideology, it's much more accurate to advocate the Nietzschean ideal of self determination and right by might.
>>55512780
They will quickly become scarce and excessively darwinian. There's nothing wrong with competition, but that doesn't mean we need to go full law of the jungle.
>>55512025
>but society should seek ultimate freedom with the bounds of rights to life, liberty, and property.
Why? What makes these three things holy, sacred, metaphysical rights?
>that government gets corrupted
Everything larger than the nuclear family can, and often will be, corrupted. The benefits of a (properly constructed) state far outweigh the costs of it being corrupt (to a degree).
>>55500989
Plebs don't want to be left alone. They want Uncle Sam to take care of them so they can continue plebbing about
>>55511190
What are you even arguing? I'm not disputing anything of substance
>>55513047
Full law of the jungle is anarchy.
What's the purpose of simply finding more efficient ways to increase our carrying capacity ad infinitum
>>55500989
>/pol/ is one person
>>55512980
No that's why I advocate libertarianism and not anarchy. Its about maximum freedom with minimum restriction and guarantee of basic rights
>>55511483
And I assert that anarchos are logically wrong because of foreign actors. Because of foreign actors, you necessarily nead borders for the reasons I outlined
>>55502105
you can also find out here
http://illnessquiz.com/sociopath-test/
>>55500989
Because I always used to have to say, "Libertarianism has the best solution to X problem, but..."
There's always that "but" in there. Because it's a system designed for decent, self-limiting people who don't take unfair advantage, don't start stupid shit, don't follow perverse incentives, don't shift costs onto external parties, and don't sacrifice the long game for the short one. Literally everyone in society has to be that way. It works because it's flexible; you don't need an expensive, intrusive, and complicated system of enforcement between two reasonable men whose word is their bond.
If they aren't that way, you need to start building a system to find and judge the fuckups and frauds. Then you need a fair and impartial way of finding them so you can either eject them (by force), imprison them (by force), or pay them to just sit around and not fuck up too much. Since we take it as a given in that libertarian society that all men have the same rights, you can't even have a designated caste system - everyone has to follow the same, increasingly intrusive and labyrinthine laws where handshakes used to suffice. It's not just the poor thugs, either, it's the banksters and polluters and the liberal arts teachers undermining the society that made prosperity possible. Eventually you end up with an SJW society of plunderers and a leviathan state, or you give up and go full Alt Right and assert that some people are just fuckups by nature - and thus it's acceptable to infringe on their natural rights by default while leaving worthier people alone.
>>55513301
>What's the purpose of simply finding more efficient ways to increase our carrying capacity ad infinitum
Knowledge is a good (I consider it the greatest good, personally), and so more humans, which are capable of knowing, is also good.
The more humans there are, the more efficient and satisfactory our civilization becomes, allowing for more humans to direct their focus from work to scholarly or academic pursuits.
Now, before you say "but the free market can do all that", I will respond with the moon landings, the ISS, and all the LHC; all very expensive, very important scientific projects.
The moon landing had just started to create marketable developments a few decades ago, the ISS is just now beginning to create marketable goods, and the LHC will likely never produce anything in relation to the market, except perhaps indirectly a few centuries hence.
And yet, the three of them have been absolutely indispensible to advanced our knowledge; that is enough to convince me, at least on a rhetorical level, that "the free market will fix it" is directly contrary to my interests.
The free market will fix something, just nothing important.
>>55513047
Literally what? How would food/medicine/heat become scarce and excessively darwinian when left entirely to the private sector? Those things only become scarce when left entirely to the government. My parents literally could not buy meat in the 70s because the government monopolised meat production and distribution and obviously miscalculated society's need.
>In his Second Treatise on Government, the philosopher John Locke asked by what right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when, according to the Bible, God gave the world to all humanity in common. He answered that persons own themselves and therefore their own labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property of that person.
>However, Locke held that one may only appropriate property in this fashion if the Lockean proviso held true, that is, "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
>>55513358
>and guarantee of basic rights
What makes them "rights" in the first place? And besides, anyone can guarantee their own rights (so long as they are strong enough), so the "maximum freedom with minimum restriction and gurantee of basic rights" would become "absolute freedom with no restriction and everyone enforces their own right to free speech and property and whatever else I like today"
>>55513486
You also forget that even if everyone is a decent man who stays by their word, society would still be less efficient and prosperous then it would with a degree of authority. All those decent men have limited knowledge, after all.
>>55503713
open borders is completely incompatible with private property.
>>55513650
>how would
poor people.
>those thing... to the government
Did I say "leave everything entirely to central planners"? No I didn't, you illiterate pollack.
A society or economy is not a switch labelled MUH FREEDOM and GOMMUNISM :DDD, it's a slider ranging between the two (with a few other positions along the way). Now, whether the slider should be close to MUH FREEDOM, close to the middle, close to GOMMUNISM :DDD, or any other position you can think of, that remains to be seen.
However, and I implore you of this, don't automatically think anyone who disagrees with libertarianism as being a full on communist; it only weakens your position and makes you look like an emotional fool.
>>55501006
Kochs are the most honest people in politics. They donate and lobby in their own self interest.
Unlike Soros or Bloomberg. Which hide behind feel good issues.
/pol/: politically incorrect, not in the colloquial sense but in the "I post opinions about politics that are based on factually incorrect premises" sense
>>55500989
Oh, I hate libertarians for pretty simple reasons. We had a Western World, everyone was getting more money, we were getting more prosperous, and so forth.
Then a bunch of assholes came along and said "Muh personal responsibility. Muh individuality. Market should command government" and 30 years later our markets are deregulated just like they wanted.
Alongside that, we've got massive immigration like never before seen diluting the labor markets and driving down wages, rising poverty, fat people (73% of the USA is overweight :DDD), lowered birthrates as everyone tries to get "Financially secure" before having kids, and everyone is getting lonely and suicidal.
In fact, only one group of people (the richest) seem to be benefiting from all this mass immigration, fattening, and so forth. I realize correlation isn't causation but thirty years of correlation is suspect as hell, and I think I don't want to wait another thirty years for the "wealth to trickle down" while a bunch of libertarians scream for more of the liberal economic policies and deregulation that has come hand and hand on the way to fat, childless, suicidal, masses of poor people.
Oh, that, and the idea that an economy and a government of a country are completely separate is retarded, they constantly react to each other.
The only thing I've ever agreed with a Libertarian on is we need to find a way to ensure you cannot bribe politicians. I think we should put politicians on food stamps and house them in public housing for the remainder of their life, and jail them if they use their connections to get their kids jobs. It's not fair, but then, if you care enough about your country to make it's laws then you should be willing to sacrifice your right to participate in the market to do so. We'd still need to do something about campaign finances though.
>>55514510
you forget all the other regulations that secure the fortunes of all those large established companies. The bail outs the banks, airlines, investing firms, and car companies got. The environmental regulations that add cost to doing business in America. If not making it outright impossible. The lack of government infrastructure spending and inability for private infrastructure to be developed.
>>55515050
>The bail outs the banks, airlines, investing firms, and car companies got
Because letting them fail at this point would do more harm than good.
>The environmental regulations
Exist for a reason, anon.
>>55501189
That fucking bird is tearing all of the roads off of the earth.
>>55515050
I've noticed that big business will always seek to deregulate its self and over-regulate its competition or potential competition. Whatever is right for the time, they have the money and money talks the language of politics. I think the problem is government are the ones who accept the bribery and will push anything either which way and the political ideology will be critiqued as opposed to the act of bribery itself. I think everyone across the board agrees that there is a problem with bought and paid for politicians, thankfully you can see the special interests in campaign donations that at least gives a good guide to the true nature of a politicians policy if they get into power.
>>55513650
>How would food/medicine/heat become scarce
are you fucking serious
>>55514510
What a hilariously bad understanding of history
Public schools need to be abolished, they're damaging poor citizens like you
>>55515584
This is the rarest I've ever seen.
>>55515226
Banks and investing firms should have been left to fail. With a moderate bail out of the deposit holders.
The airlines and the car companies needed to be left to fail. So that they can come out of bankruptcy better off for future events.
They all needed to fail. allowing new competition into the market.
>>55503217
I raise you one Authoritarian Nationalist because I know my father
>>55501006
KOCH = fake Libertarians
>>55515765
>They all needed to fail. allowing new competition into the market.
The initial crash would have potentially ruined America; this is the problem with Libertarians, you only see one step ahead and refuse to contemplate anything beyond it.
>>55515969
The Bail Outs were wrong. Because it kept the companies and executives from changing. They just all got million dollar bonuses and went on vacation. Because the government essentially told them it was ok to run things as they have been.
The basic problem with Libertarians is the lack of a red pill. They are fundamentally egalitarians
>>55516149
>The Bail Outs were wrong. Because it kept the companies and executives from changing.
This does not mean that the corporations cannot only be forced to change, it only means that forcing them to change when it would have ruined a good portion of the American economy is a bad idea.
>They just all got million dollar bonuses and went on vacation.
Like they always do.
>Because the government essentially told them it was ok to run things as they have been.
>Libertarian comprehension
>>55516183
everyone is born equal, if not born into equal circumstances.
the state's only duty is to not fuck things up for people trying to work them selves into a better life.
>>55502764
The true redpilled way of thinking is not asking some autistic neck beards on a Himalayan Magic The Gathering forum how to think
>>55516289
We didn't even Anti Trust the banks we bailed out and reinstated Glass Stegall.
>>55516341
>the state's only duty is to not fuck things up for people trying to work them selves into a better life.
Wrong, the state's duty is to defend the people of the nation, to promote their prosperity, and to ensure its own existence.
one of the fundamentals of libertarianism is
they don't want any responsibility for the rest of society.
>>55516421
BECAUSE DOING OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.
Fucking hell anon, whatever you think of the Fed and all the economists that the US employs, they know how to do their jobs.
>>55516549
how would it have been worse to separate the high risk investing banks and firms from the commercial banks?
We went from the Great Depression to Bill Clinton with them separate and dd just fine.
>>55516464
When the US government has tried to help people out of poverty. It has only screwed things up even worse.
http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256
>>55516662
>how would it have been worse to separate the high risk investing banks and firms from the commercial banks?
It wouldn't be, but the guys in charge had their reasons, for better or worse.
What matters is that, rather than waiting for everything to come tumbling down, that reform is instituted gradually and safely.
>>55516341
>everyone is born equal
Despite huge consistent racial gaps in IQ scores and violent crime rates.
The truth everyone is NOT born equal. Genetics is a huge factor in success
>>55500989
Because most people here are either neet soc or communist. Those of us with any sense know they are merely two sides of the same shit-stained coin. In other words, they're authoritarian statist faggots who know what's best for you better than you do. Fuck them.
>>55517464
>they're authoritarian statist faggots who know what's best for you better than you do
>who know what's best for you better than you do
Because they care about what's best for the nation, and that involved knowing, to a degree, what's good for the people.
Unless, of course, you're saying that everyone holds an undergraduate degree in economics, general medicine, civil engineering, and political science.
>>55518102
Snow nigger please.
>>55518253
Statist please.
>>55511007
>Only because of redistribution of power to corporate lobbyists who don't want to test their chemicals until AFTER thousands have died or gotten ill.
Yes, it's good business practice to kill your customers and then be sued into bankruptcy by their surviving family.
You realize that the reason pharmicuticals are so expensive is because it takes years and tens of millions of dollars to bring new drugs to market right? What's the cost/return ratio on people dying while a drug is held up in FDA limbo, even if it's been in use all over the world?
>>55517464
CNDEEGE? what the fuck is that.
>>55500989
Because they are degenerates who hate communities i.e the nation. They are almost as bad as Marxists. Only nationalism is legitimate.
>>55518606
*SNDI[not an actual Cyrillic letter]E
>>55515584
RARE
>>55517464
Different sides of the same coin as communists? Sounds like you're describing Libertarians to me. Both want to destroy nations, both think importing the third world into the civilised is the future.
>>55518102
>Libertarian Lassie
>I'm going to help Timmy because he's a cool guy, not because I'm forced to do so
>>55518417
>Statist please
What, it's a good point.
>Libertarians litterally belive that everyone holds perfect knowledge about themselves and is also an educated economist, politician, engineer, physician, dietician, and all those other things that play into society
>Libertarians literally believe that people can't be smarter or more educated than other people
>Libertarians literally buy into the "mom always knows what's best for their child" fallacy.
>>55518879
this desu senpai
>>55518632
>>55518879
No. BTW, neetsoc=left wing as much as communism. Truth hurts sometimes, I understand.
>>55516507
>not taking responsibility for people you don't know
>not taking responsibility for decisions you didn't make
You're right. How silly.
>>55519013
That's why you need a state that enforces the NAP. People taking advantage of information asymmetry is a violation of the NAP.
Are bad people a flaw of libertarianism?
>>55519249
>Implying libertarianism isn't left wing as well
Libertarianism is derived from classical liberalism, which came from the enlightenment, which was a purely left wing movement.
Face it, every political position that exists today, sans monarchism, is "left wing"; the term itself has become meaningless.
>>55515584
>>55518998
funny thing is, even some of animals will help out if they understand the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_SkrjLTtiI
>>55519425
Let's just say I'm on the side of freedom and it seems I'm about the only one ITT.
>>55519397
A state enforcing the NAP is a direct violation of the NAP, you silly statist ;^)
Besides, that's what states already do today. Libertarians are just whiny shits that like to scream TAX IS THEFT and MUH SOVEREIGNTY.
>>55519249
And Libertarianism = degenerate as communism. Just admit you love Ahmed's cock up your sister's arse, libertarian pervert.
America became great because of protectionism, the antithesis of both communism and libertarianism. You're just another globalist shill.
>>55500989
Ecologically retarded.
Obsessed with money.
Hate nationalism.
Libertarianism gives companies even more power in hiding themselves too.
>>55519521
How is NAP enforcing a NAP violation?
I don't know, maybe you're right, but if so, it's a necessary evil.
>>55519508
>If you're not on my side, you're against freedom!
Is libertarian rhetoric really this uninspired?
Have you considered that maybe not everyone is an autist who places freedom on top of a sacred mountain?
>>55519556
Since when is that libertarianism? Look limey, I don't usually argue with retards on the internet so go fuck your mother.
>>55519013
>>Libertarians literally believe that people can't be smarter or more educated than other people
We do believe that, which is why those people shouldn't be punished to reward others that aren't.
Libertarians believe that mankind is inherintly flawed, being that we are history and society has shown that we are really no better than a bunch of pack-hunting apes. Thus, to minimize the amount of damage we can do, we should minimize the amount of power any single person should have, and put checks and balances on that power.
Faggots like you think that mankind is morally and intellectually perfectible, thus those who are further along the path should be given the power to make decisions for those that are not. Which is not only a worldview that ignores history and evolution, it ignores the fact that no one person, no matter how smart or moral, can have the information to make decisions for even a hundred people better than those people can make for themselves.
You still think that you are the one that knows best for everyone else. You're one of the "smart"ones. When you get older, and have suffered enough fools, politicians and bureaucrats telling you how to live your life (who suffer no punishment for wrong decisions, no matter how disastrous), hopefully you'll know better.
>>55519619
Too bad you can't vote for Okenyan again, amirite.
>>55500989
I'm a libertarian, to the right of the libertarian political spectrum and I don't give two shits if /pol/ hates me. It feeds me. Make me stronger /pol/, delicious.
