Is there anything WORSE than a Lolbertarian? They are literally moralless scum, with no concept of externalities and only concerned about lining their pockets with money. They care not about national identity, nor about assisting those less fortunate than them in their own country. They are the political movement of Jews, and are absoultely disgusting.
Be warned, the LIDF patrols this VERY BOARD, and they WILL be on site to display their degeneracy. Stay strong! And do not let their Jewish tricks sway your opinion.
>>68629306
Look at the flag
>>68629376
Hello LIDF
Not that I wish to argue the workhouse as a viable solution, but there is a point to this. Not everybody needs the same education.
>>68629376
The poor in this scenario have every opportunity to fight against their oppressors.
That's literally the foundation of libertarianism.
>>68629306
what's to stop me fucking dead babbies in a libertarian society, there is no victim so they shouldn't care and no police and no courts to catch and prosecute me
>>68629306
>>68629306
Mostly teenagers. Children tend to be very individualist, you only develop things like wanting to a good society for your children to develop in later in life.
>>68629306
>I want to help the poor!
>that's why I need gov to FORCE me to give to the poor!
>I ain't fucking donating anything myself unless I'm forced to!
>>68629485
>>68629493
>>68629596
>>68629664
>>68629628
>a good society for your children to develop in
You have an authoritarian clusterfuck of a government over there, but you're still drinking the Kool-Aid about "muh children".
>>68629494
Societal pressure, I'm sure that companies won't really want to hire Mr.Fucks dead babies.
>>68629481
I'm not even a libertarian you cunt
>>68629802
>I care only about myself, and have no concern about my fellow countrymen
Typical LIDF
>>68629774
Sound counter-argument chum.
Just think, if memes were all it took to end the Revolutionary War.
>>68629897
Hey guy, I'm standing over here.
Stop dancing around the corpse of a strawman.
>>68629958
>Muh American War of Independence
You don't full me with your derailing LIDF scum. You will receive your day of reckoning.
>>68629481
>>68629897
what does LIDF mean,
I gotta know
>>68630112
The infamous and nefarious Libertarian Internet Defence Force.
>>68629306
Yeah, every libertarian says "fuck poor people I hate them. I wouldn't even donate to charity if I could. Better yet, I'd burn down orphanages and schools so that children have to die in the streets. And then I'd rape them."
Fucking strawman. Get some bootstraps you filthy abbo. Or can you not afford boots now that your dollar is in the toilet.
>>68630112
Libertarian intelligent discussion forum
>>68630084
>We'll finally crush the rebel scum once and for all!
Uh huh.
>>68629306
>They are literally moralless scum, with no concept of externalities and only concerned about lining their pockets with money. They care not about national identity, nor about assisting those less fortunate than them in their own country
>implying that charity wasn't at its pinnacle during the 19th century
You think its more moral for a government to rob you at gunpoint and redistribute that money to the poor rather than private institutions doing that?
>>68630254
Nice strawman LIDF scum. You will be the first to hang on the anti-lobertarian day of rope.
>>68630321
There is literally nothing wrong with the Empire you dumb shill. Tell your master Gary "The Kike" Johnson that he needs to pay you more.
>>68630254
Libertarians don't want that, but they can't stop the guys that do. In fact you can't stop a rich guy hiring an army and enslaving you entire neighborhood. Libertarianism is just another word for anarchy.
>>68629802
Yeah because libertarianism provides a brilliant alternative. Unbridled Capitalism has no moral restrictions, and leads to degeneracy. Just because you like free markets doesn't make you any less of a liberal.
This is what's wrong with lolbertarians fundamentally, they see the only valid metric by which anything can be judged is the size of government, everything else is irrelevant. It's a very teenage kind of idealism to reduce the world into an easily understandable format. Same as marxism does. All these absolute and essentialist philosophies are bogus and don't take human nature into account.
>>68630461
>MUH TAXATION IS THEFT
>I'M OPRESSED BY THE NOTION OF STREET LIGHTS, ROADS AND LIBRARIES
Kek what scum you are.
>>68630626
Perfectly provided by private institutions
You shitposting faggot have no idea of the theft that politicians do. Consider yourself lucky that at least you have a government that doesn't rob you like in Latin America.
well, although I'm not a lib, but a statist, my personal life philosophy was definetely largely influenced by libtardianism,
it's not all pure shit, there are a ton of good stuff too, you just gotta Know to weed out the shit
>>68630606
>leads to degeneracy
At least that degeneracy is privately funded. With a welfare state, on the other hand, your taxes subsidize gibsmedats and single moms.
With that said, what kind of socioeconomic system do you think creates incentives for people to be responsible?
>>68630804
There is literally no economic incentive to construct a public library for entertainment and education by the private sector. Lolbertarians in charge of an economy would make for a decrepit and dysfunctional society.
>>68630606
>Unbridled Capitalism has no moral restrictions, and leads to degeneracy.
We obviously need the benevolent, omnipotent government to declare what is moral? I thought morality was absolute?
Libertarianism is for children who don't want to be told what to do but lack the means to secure their own personal freedom.
>>68630970
idk where you live, but it's gotta be a sad place
>>68630970
wut
You've never set foot on a private library? Even here they exist.
>>68629306
>mfw a shittertarian hated roads, having a military and strong, secure borders because he believes that a bunch of drugged up lunatics with guns is a suitable national defense and would rather pray to the almighty "free market" to magically fix everything because he is a petulant brat who enjoys throwing tantrums, struggling with simple tasks and violently shitting his pampers during a serious bout of impotent rage
>>68631014
>lack the means to secure their own personal freedom
Eh.
Everyone is always free to do whatever they want though. Unfortunately that means you're free to love getting cucked by the government.
>>68631036
>Paying to borrow books
No, because it a role performed by the state. Just like maintaining roads, the police force, and general cleanliness of society. The private sector ONLY pursue money, therefore the power cannot be handed to them, particularly big businesses
>>68631095
You realize we wouldn't have to build a giant wall if your benevolent government didn't dictate to you who you have to allow on your own property, right?
Any ideology taken to the extreme becomes ridiculous.
>>68631273
>You realize we wouldn't have to build a giant wall if your benevolent government didn't dictate to you who you have to allow on your own property, right?
so
much
euphoria
lol
>>68631332
I don't think so.
I'm absolutely convinced that you have pure capitalism on the far right, pure communism on the left, and then infinite points where every dumbass crybaby insists we put a fulcrum to "balance" the two between them, leading to every political conflict since the dawn of time.
>>68629306
>implying that's not exactly how schools are now
do you want to ban private schools or what?
>>68631215
You seem to believe in the biggest superstition that has ever existed: that you need a state to provide for this or that good/service, when history has shown those goods/services can be provided by private institutions. Maybe, MAYBE, the only goods/services best provided by a government are national security and law, but that's why there's a distinction between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
But before you keep spouting shit, do you realise that for the private sector to earn money, they need to SATISFY consumers?
Imagine you live in a dirty city, dirty because the shitty bureaucrats are not providing a decent cleaning service for the city. Don't you see a huge potential business opportunity? Welcome to enterpreneurship, faggot.
>>68631439
>bitch about your government letting in Muslims and forcing you to interact with them
>"government isn't a problem though."
>>68631520
>LETS RETURN TO THE PERFECT DAYS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
You CANNOT make this shit up
>>68630804
>any state control of the economy means welfare for single mothers
Literally what
>>68629306
Collectevist cuck detected.
You probably enjoy sucking big governments dick and have your rights thrown to the trash.
Pic related, collectivist utopia
>>68630606
>human nature
Literally just arguing with your feelings.
>I want the state taking care of my every need ! I'm too stupid to succeed myself !
Here's a question for libertarians: why is it more exploitative for the government to tax someone than for a capitalist to take some of the value you produce for themselves?
>>68631673
>Jews Jewing to try and line their pockets after their Lobertarian paradise has been enforced.
What's new?
>>68631701
>literally arguing with autistic abstract theories that only exist in the mind without informing yourself in the reality of how humanity actually is
>>68631644
My example was clearly for any type of welfare/social assistance, not only for single moms. But the point still stands. Provide social assistance and you'll create the wrong incentives.
>>68631603
strong insecurity from the strawman attacking moron detected
what a great example of the profound lack of shittertarian "intelligence"
i am laughing *extremely* hard at you right now ya fucking dumb shit
>>68631814
ALL
DAY
EVERY
DAY
>>68629306
>be Danish
>180% tax on cars
>have to pay "owner payment" every year for having a car
>25% tax on all products in shops
>50% income tax
>have to pay tax on house/apartment even though you've bought it and own it
>Goverment takes tax on inheritance money you're parents already paid tax on when they pass it down to you
Someone has to pay for the immigrants and single moms I guess.
>BE YOUNG AND FOOLISH IN YOUR 20'S THE RESPONSIBLE HARD WORKING WHITE MEN WILL PAY FOR YOU NO MATTER WHAT
Nice society liberals
>>68631584
>THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX ALL
KEK, search up collective action kid, and the tragedy of the commons. The free market when left completely to it's own devices sets up unregulated monopolies creating the exact opposite of what the free market aims to achieve; competition.
>>68631845
Funny, I've seen statists say that humans are naturally greedy and that's why they need a government to "tame" them. You guys then proceed to say that libertarians are greedy. Then you guys say that libertarianism doesn't consider human nature.
What is human nature then?
>>68631095
>mfw statists love watching the guvmint rape their income so much they will insult the people arguing for their property rights.
>>68631867
I'm sorry.
I suppose that the problem you're bitching about is that the government isn't magically manifesting the ideal vision of society you have in mind.
Turns out they can't, have no interest in actually doing it, and you're just paying them for nothing.
>>68629814
Bingo. And since companies can hire who the Hell they want to, degenerates will die on the streets due to no welfare and no private charities (because what citizen wants to help a toddler fiddler?)
>>68631900
You're not taxed all the time tho. And regardless, most capitalist exploit without being troubled by their conscience.
>>68629306
Fuck off from Australia you communist kike, libertarianism certainly has a lot of idealists- but it is absolutely possible to be a believer in cultural conservatism and social libertarianism.
I fucking hate abortion and want the laws to be completely reversed, I am not for drug decriminalization and am even in understanding and respectful of why politicians wouldn't want to legalize marijuana as well as why gay marriage completely undermines the tradition and why we have it in society (for the purpose of procreation, which has now been completely undermined in America, Britain and next to completely undermined in Australia).
Even after all this, social protectionism- as well intentioned as it is and successful in some areas, impedes upon individual choice and freedom with society dictating the social realm of citizens, as seen in the past.
On the question of wiping out degeneracy, a libertarian society would not have forces that push cultural Marxist and social liberal policies and outcomes in society as seen by the prevalence of STDs, pornography etc. I believe in a strong sense of law and order and ensuring these evil influences are not pushed forward by the Marxists and Jewish elitists, but ensuring the law is upheld is not exclusively social authoritarian or conservative.
I would wipe away most of the copyright laws so that the gigantic failure around illegal downloading via torrents and streaming is stopped, that a greater distinguishment between soft and hard drugs is made and people who are imprisoned are for drugs that literally destroy you like ice or heroin- not weed, that the Patriot Act and most or all government surveillance is ended so that the fourth amendment is upheld and people who want to live their lives without large societal interference- can do so.
>>68632083
>And regardless, most capitalist exploit without being troubled by their conscience.
All governments do.
>>68630568
Fuck you Macedonia, the law would prevent that because of muh NAP.
>>68631851
And social assistance as nothing to do with control of the economy in general.
Also
What about less taxes for married (white) couples with more than 3 children?
What about a system of workfare that stops people from starving and/or becoming criminals but still makes it more lucrative and comfy to get a job?
>>68632046
That implies perfect knowledge of people's sins, or else only the famous molester will get fired while the less famous one will not. How do you intend to have that knowledge without a federal database.
BLUE PILLED KEK DETECTED.
>>68631845
Oh, right I forgot that some anon on /pol/ has a perfect understanding of humanity and can just say things as vague and open to interpretation as "human nature" without posting any source or explanation.
>>68632135
Lol, not all of them. Some are corrupt enough for even the tax collectors and legislators to feel sorry.
>>68631989
Collective action is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, because it arises from voluntary cooperation. This is different from a socialist policy done "for the common good", where it is likely that a small sector (maybe not so small) will be negatively affected by the policy.
And the tragedy of the commons uses the classic example of grazing on COMMON lands. That's an argument in favor of private property you goddamn retard.
Lastly, the only bad monopoly is the state enforced one. On the free market, monopolies can only arise from satisfying consumers, so what's the problem? They can't also do crazy price hikes because competition would just come back.
>Being Anti-lolbertarianism and not wanting to sucede my rights to kikes in big business means that I'm a gommie
Literally try harder LIDF, that's pathetic
>a libertarian society would not have forces that push cultural Marxist and social liberal policies and outcomes in society as seen by the prevalence of STDs, pornography etc.
KEK, this goes against your entire principle of freedom of choice. A libertarian society has no restriction on its citizens, and they are right to do as they please.
Former libertarian here. Libertarianism is just like any other fantasy philosophy. It would be great but that's not how people are.
The act of striving for a libertarian society by pushing for lower taxes and encouraging individual exceptionalism may in fact make it possible, or it may not. Libertarians are ironically the most entitled of all by feeling entitled to a reality that doesn't exist.
>>68632247
>I'm so autistic that I expect some anon to school me in thousands of years of philosophy, art and culture because the only things I've ever read are books about libertarianism because it appealed to me when I was in high school.
>>68630606
Morals are not created by government, the people created morality and created government to enforce those morals. However a smaller government allows morality to change because morality from 70 years ago is different than morality today. With big government you will live under tyranny of government enforcing outdated morality from 70 years ago.
>what?? f-free market morality?? b-but then everyone will rape kdis n shit!
You are like a christian conservative claiming homosexuals will lead to people fucking horses, except your "god" here is government. This isn't going to happen because a free market morality is only going to improve morality over time not destroy it. Don't start with "m-muh seconds law of thermodynamics!" because that shit doesn't apply to markets.
>>68632358
>Libertarians are ironically the most entitled of all by feeling entitled to a reality that doesn't exist.
Protip:
We already live in anarchy.
The government is a massive corporation who exploits you and you're just drinking the Kool-Aid about them protecting you from exploitative corporations.
>>68631603
How will you stop them without government involvement?
>>68632317
>Collective action is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, because it arises from voluntary cooperation.
Forced co-operation will always outdo voluntary co-operation, just look at revolutionary france vs the rest of europe.
>This is different from a socialist policy done "for the common good", where it is likely that a small sector (maybe not so small) will be negatively affected by the policy.
Sounds more like any democratic policy. Have you ever read Rousseau?
> They can't also do crazy price hikes because competition would just come back.
That implies no barriers to entry, which there almost always are.
>>68630112
Libertarian Internet Defense Force
aka rational arguments
>>68632143
>And social assistance as nothing to do with control of the economy in general.
Social assistance is an example. Another example is public education. How does it feel to subsidize worthless degrees? The list goes on.
>What about less taxes for married (white) couples with more than 3 children?
How about less taxes for all?
>What about a system of workfare that stops people from starving and/or becoming criminals but still makes it more lucrative and comfy to get a job?
How about a private system of workfare, where competition creates incentives to create a better, cheaper, more efficient service?
>>68632370
>implying there is any consensus across the entirety of philosophy
If "human nature" is such a clear concept, you should be able to explain yourself.
>>68631900
I love that fucking quote
>>68630970
Charity.You know that NGO's are not owned by the goverment
>>68632532
Unfortunately it's too late now.
By genuinely believing that it's in society's best interest to have a monopoly on violent force, you forfeited your opportunity to tell them to fuck off.
Don't tell the children this part though. Just keep feeding them the "freedom" rhetoric.
>>68631989
>tragedy of the commons
>unregulated monopolies
clear projection, ausiess are clearly cucked
>>68631958
literally no point in being a productive member of society
>>68629306
there are no asylums gibsmedats, a major plus
>>68632343
Meant to be to
>>68632085
>because it arises from voluntary cooperation.
Why would there be voluntary cooperation when Libertarianism assumes that everyone will act in their own self interest? There can be no cooperative action purely based on voluntary actions.
>And the tragedy of the commons uses the classic example of grazing on COMMON lands.
Completely wrong. Tragedy of the commons is the belief that when everyone acts in their own self interest, and because that is so, it ignores negative social externalities. Take climate change for example, if everyone acts in their self interest and is uninterested in regulating CO2 emmisions, then the social liabilities are huge.
monopolies can only arise from satisfying consumers, so what's the problem? They can't also do crazy price hikes because competition would just come back.
What are barriers to entry? What are economies of scale? Additionally, if there is a monopoly, the push for innovation is substantially less due to a lack in competition, thus leading to worsen customer satisfaction.
>>68632681
> that it's in society's best interest <give the government> a monopoly on violent force
>>68632536
>Forced co-operation will always outdo voluntary co-operation
France is an example of forced cooperation?
>Sounds more like any democratic policy
Exactly
>That implies no barriers to entry, which there almost always are.
List some of these barriers to entry and we'll see.
>>68632516
Exactly.
In a state of anarchy this is what people put up with. Reality isn't perfect and mentally masturbating about a theoretical society that cannot currently exist is far from the next step up the ladder of progression for our species.
You will never stop thinking lsibertarianism is awesome, but imagine you were supreme emperor tomorrow. You implement libertarian philosophies into law. What happens? Perfect society? Nope, people get mad and return everything basically to where it is now minus a few of the corruptioms we are in the brink of abolishing anyway. Am I right or wrong?
>>68632693
>Monoplies are good thing
How is that Goldman Sachs cock LIDF?
>>68632681
You didn't answer my question
>>68632565
Abolish worthless degrees
Less taxes for all sure, how about monetary incentives for producing large white families in general? Free marry can't provide that, having kids disadvantages firms because it takes people and eapeically women out of the workplace. Feminism = good for companies, bad for society. There's a reason it's pushed in capitalist countries more than anywhere.
Private system of workfare would turn into a form of literal slavery.
>>68629306
I don't think you know what a Libertarian is.
>>68631814
You can choose onw but not the other faggot. If you think that your work is worth more just leave that job.
>>68632370
>I have no answer, I'll just tear down other arguments with fallacious bullshit
>>68632827
I did.
You strap up, raise your flag, and march forward.
Libertarianism is just a pretty word for corporate fascism.
>>68632804
never said they were a good thing cucklord
by supporting government, you are supporting the biggest monopoly of them all, how does that jew cock taste m8?
>>68629306
>be me
>actually thinking of replying with a smart argument
>see flag
>nope.jpeg
>>68632791
Yes, they were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev%C3%A9e_en_masse
>Exactly
Democracy doesn't equal socialism. If only it were that easy.
>List some of these barriers to entry and we'll see.
Geography, capital, infrastructure, information. For example, how do you break a monopoly of someone owning all the beachfront property in a city and renting it out.
>>68633020
Libertarians hate corporations. Your argument is invalid.
>>68633025
I support a regulated economy where companies are not allowed to unfairly exploit their consumers. You on the otherhand, support unchecked corporate fascism and bow down to Time Warner and Citibank. Lick every bit of cum like a good goy LIDF!
>>68633020
No. Corporate fascism is what we have now.
The wall just got 10 feet higher.
>>68632044
>maybe if i attack ANOTHER strawmen people won't realize how much of a mouth breathing idiot i am
yet another failure to be piled onto the extraordinarily high mount of shittertarian failures.
it's time for you to fuck off and take a nap, kid. you're clearly out of your element.
>>68632861
>Abolish worthless degrees
Socialist governments are doing a great job at that so far. I'm not saying they won't exist in a libertarian system, since I believe there will always exist a demand for them, but at least they'll be paid by the individual, not by society. Notice that it is also the market that dictates the degree is worthless.
>how about monetary incentives for producing large white families in general? Free marry can't provide that
Why not set up your private charity for white people? Wasn't there a rich guy that funded studies for white people? That's a free market solution.
>having kids disadvantages firms because it takes people and eapeically women out of the workplace. Feminism = good for companies, bad for society. There's a reason it's pushed in capitalist countries more than anywhere.
I don't understand your comment. You're saying its free market capitalism that's pushing equal wages for women, in spite of the kid problem and lower productivity in physical jobs? That's not true at all.
>Private system of workfare would turn into a form of literal slavery.
Nope, just a form of investment in human capital.
>>68632800
You're right.
But...
>we need government because dumbass cowards will always cry about the need for government
...sounds kinda retarded.
>>68632605
There isn't. It's just that ideologies like libertarianism and marxism arise out of rationalism which reduces human nature to...nothing basically. So insight can only be gleaned by tearing down hindrances to idividual Liberty, whether that be economic liberty, sexual Liberty, moral Liberty etc.
>>68630974
Yes. China and Russia seem to hold old values on a pedestal but the Americans are fucking degenerates.
>>68632026
>statists love watching the guvmint rape their income so much
holy fucking fedora.
pic related: a strong representation of you. put down the vape and grow up you immature little bitch LOL.
>>68632343
>KEK, this goes against your entire principle of freedom of choice. A libertarian society has no restriction on its citizens, and they are right to do as they please.
Ah, but had we transitioned from an 17-1800s society in which social protectionism was the norm in all first world cultures to a libertarian one that granted increased individual choice, without the push for it with Jewish pornographer types like Michael Lucas, Jewish media interests like any of the mainstream media or Hollywood company owners, the Federal Reserve chairmen and executives, 'academic' types like 'Professor' Noel Ignatiev or Jewish multiculturalism supporters like Isi Leiber (attached) to name a few, I don't believe the abundant degeneracy would exist in society.
Maybe you are right under contemporary circumstances. A libertarian society is too idealistic for now with the social democratic societies all Western countries have now, but in the long run- if Trump, Putin and all these other positive conservative and authoritarian, but most importantly- realist forces can overcome the Left and Jews miraculously, I believe there can be room for a libertarian society that is not widespread socially or economically deregulated by any means. I am not a laissez faire capitalist though I do believe in a lot of its principles (get rid of the income tax, end any relationship between government and business) and I am certainly not a social liberal that wants widespread drug decriminalization or am by any means content with the current abortion statistics, but that doesn't mean you can't have these restrictions, but still be a (realist) libertarian.
>>68633243
Instead of sitting here laughing at my mischaracterisation of your positions, why don't you just state them yourself?
It'd be a lot easier to refute your arguments if I didn't have to pretend you were making any.
>>68633400
China and Russia are shitholes and not even the Chinese and Russian people want to live there though.
>>68633474
>please do my homework for me
so much for everyone taking care of themselves huh
nice hypocrisy you glue eating retard
>>68633289
Education is private in the us yet most of them opt to study worthless degrees. They make universities money so people who have an investment in that money do everything to convice people they aren't worthless. Free market doesn't stop fraudulent enterprise. Your charity comment is dumb, free market provides no incentive for it. Free market capitalism has always pushed for having women in the workforce in some capacity, there has been literally trillions made by your beloved private companies in destroying traditional ideals of femininity and traditional morality in general.
>>68633605
>please do my homework for me
I haven't the slightest idea where to start researching what your specific political beliefs are.
And if that's what I'm going to have to do to get you to do anything other than be smugly dismissive, then I'll just filter your ID right now.
>>68633130
But this French example is an example of forced cooperation vs other forced cooperations. What about wars vs. guerillas?
>Democracy doesn't equal socialism. If only it were that easy.
You may consider any policy done "for the common good" as socialist. Doesn't matter if it came from democracy.
>Geography, capital, infrastructure, information. For example, how do you break a monopoly of someone owning all the beachfront property in a city and renting it out.
Disregarding the fact that in a free market it will be very difficult to own all the beachfront property of an entire city (because you'll need to buy that property from those owners, which may have an interest in capitalizing from that property and competing against you), this beachfront property will be actually competing with other beachfronts in other cities, and will also be competing against other resorts. The concept of monopoly is ambiguous because there is always competition with other similar goods.
Peace out LIDF, tell your corporate masters that will no longer be able to continue their Jewish manipulation, and I will continue to redpill the masses here about the scurge that is Lolbertarianism.
>>68633601
Yea but they're not degenerates
>>68633883
>complains about Jews
>doesn't realize that the National Socialist ideology and the subsequent "Holocaust" narrative was built upon a desire for Jews to get international support for the invasion of Palestine
>>68633325
>libertarianism arose out of rationalism
>it reduces human nature to...nothing
Libertarianusm was heavily influenced by naturalists like Adam Smith and Henry David Thoreau. Naturalism is nothing like you described and it's very much concerned with human nature. It's the only philosophy that goes so far as glean insight by actually considering how people act rather than sitting alone and thinking.
>>68633991
Most of China's problems, both societal and governmental, exist because they literally cannot stop "muh dik"ing
>>68634157
Yes but they aren't degenerates morally. For example look at your niggers and Russian niggers.
>>68633169
>implying im not an anarchist
and strawman
"if u disagree ur a fascist lololol u like dick lolol"
guaranteed you are sub-100 IQ m8
>>68634279
The government is literally the reason that they're not dying of starvation in ghettos.
>>68633132
No they don't.
I'm pretty sure the idea would be a string of massive multifunctional corps to work instead of government
>>68633821
>But this French example is an example of forced cooperation vs other forced cooperations
The other countries did not have conscription
Asymmetric warfare is designed so the guerilla forces don't actually have to compete against the bigger army. The bigger army can do more things and is generally more powerful, (even capable of conducting guerrilla warfare itself).
>You may consider any policy done "for the common good" as socialist
That's not the definition of socialism, but if it was, everybody would want it. You should really read Rousseau.
>Disregarding the fact that in a free market it will be very difficult to own all the beachfront property of an entire city (because you'll need to buy that property from those owners, which may have an interest in capitalizing from that property and competing against you)
Not that difficult, you're thinking that all other factors would stay the same always. There will be times of recession/depression, natural disaster, and during these times most people would be more willing to sell since they doubt they can recuperate value in the property, or they need the money.
>The concept of monopoly is ambiguous because there is always competition with other similar goods.
Which matters little if the brand of a certain good is inelesatically in demand.
>>68629306
All libertarian means is against government force. How does it allow degeneracy? We have a state right now, yet Marxism and degeneracy is still rampant. Just because you oppose government stealing from people to provide a service doesn't mean you don't think that service should be available. National identity,morals and all that jazz was popular in America even when it was closer to a libertarian society. It's a pretty know fact that countries with high economic freedom tend to be the best to live in. While the others are typically full of third world statist scum. Freedom is key.
Please OP, explain why child labour is bad.
You can't.
>>68635125
Go figure, that it completely stands to reason that all the free time children have because they're sheltered from reality leads to boys growing up to be girls.
>>68635320
And our benevolent moral busybodies in government insist that we indulge them in their fantasy.
Wee!
>>68629306
>only concerned about lining their pockets with money
And yet it's you who wants to be entitled to other people's money whether you've worked for it or not.
>>68635125
spoken truly like a child who has never worked a day in his life.
how does it feel being a worthless parasite who still sucks at mommy's teats in his 20s?
>>68635730
>spoken truly like a child who has never worked a day in his life.
Honestly, I don't see where you're coming from.
If working is so terrible that we shouldn't allow children to do it, then what's so great about working?
>>68629494
As long as there dead first I have no business of what you do in your house
>>68629306
In order of most rational/intelligent people to the least rational/intelligent people.
1.) Libertarian Conservatives (true Liberals)
2.) Voluntaryists and Minarchists
3.) Right-leaning Democrats
4.) Neoconservatives / Republicans
5.) Modern Day Liberals
6.) "Democratic" Socialists
>>68635125
Children have no agency and can be forced into doing things by their parents.
>>68633813
>I'll just filter your ID
poor little bitch gets triggered, throws a temper tantrum and threatens to stick his head in the sand.
classic shittertarian response to anything that threatens his reality.
we're done here, squirt. fuck off and go back to bed, men are talking.
>>68636253
Why is that a problem though?
Since the dawn of time, kids have been expected to handle any tasks they can manage competently.
That expectation can never do anything but lead to competency in adulthood.
>>68636465
Lol what's your argument? All you have done is ad hominem
Libertarian is God teir
>>68636465
>classic shittertarian response to anything that threatens his reality.
As if >pic related could ever be a threat to my reality
>>68636612
>Libertarian is God teir
>teir
moron can't even spell and yet he thinks he has any clue what he's talking about.
yep, we've definitely got a shittertarian on our hands with this crayon chewing jackass.
>>68632192
Privately run database
>>68633020
>mexico
Why am i not surprised at what a dumbshit you are?
>>68636542
Literally the only reason that the prohibition of child labor was ever sold to the populace was the chance that it would open up the job market for adults in a time of job scarcity.
Kinda like the reason we want Pedro out there building a wall.
honestly every libertarian is just basically a deluded socialist that stupidly still believes in capitalism and thinks multinational corporations are a good replacement for government
>>68637367
Since when is government not a multinational corporation, and why should I be in favor of one multinational corporation and not the other?
All government does is prevent you from driving out the scumbags yourself.
>>68629376
Smelly dumb Aussie scum. Probably an Abo too. Sage and move on.
>>68629306
>>68629306
>no concept of externalities
pretty much this.
>>68629494
>no police and no courts to catch and prosecute me
Yes there would be. The only difference wwould be that they would be accountable to somebody.
>>68629306
>kangaroo fucker talking about getting fucked over
>>68634715
>Rousseau.
lol
>muh care about the children
>dump own children
bitch please. His books are comparable to a letter to Santa. I want this and that for 200 pages is childish as fuck
>>68637511
It's like a mafia.
They hire niggers (via welfare) to come and fuck up your shit to convince you that you need them to protect you from the niggers they're hiring.
>>68637809
They go and bust drug dealers and take their money for their own purposes, and then feed those drugs right back into the community ad infinitum.
Boy am I glad I have my benevolent government on my side.
>>68637806
I was referring to the social contract
>>68629306
You seem to misunderstand libertarianism
>>68629306
>>68638286
Not any better. The book panders to illusions and stuff that don't exist.
A contract requires concent and implicit concent only means that people that believe in that shit do not really care about you or your concent. They only care about the fact that this justifies using force on them.
Modern philosophers cant justify the social contract without relying on some form of authoritarianism.
And to assume everybody would want it is a leap of faith and wrong ultimately. The middle east, Africa and Asia justify this claim.
>>68629494
You fucking dumbshit. Youre describing post apocalyptic anarchy and calling it Libertarianism.
>>68632085
wew lad have you been on the turps tonight? you're not making any sense
I agree with the australian here
>>68639120
>Romania
Hey, guy, increased government control isn't going to help your countrymen help themselves, no matter what their sales pitch is.
It's kind of sad, really.
Here in America they strapped up and told Britain to go drown themselves and in a matter of 100 years the government had already sold the people this bullshit that they're the solution to any problem, another 100 years later the problems still exist.
YES, MR. BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT MAN, PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY AND PROVIDE ME WITH THE ILLUSION THAT YOU'RE DOING ANYTHING USEFUL WITH IT.
>>68639331
But giving my money to a jewshit while other people starve isn't going to help me either.
>>68639786
So keep your money.
>>68636775
>>68638717
It is not tyranny or authoritarianism if we are following laws that are our own will. To Rousseau, states are legitimate if they are acting in accordance with the general will, but this will must be coherent. It would never be the general will to submit to an arbitrary power like a dictator. It would however be fine with an authoritarian leader who acted in accordance with the general will, but this is unlikely. It is also illogical for anyone to engage in a contract where they actually loose freedom, therefor the social contract must be one where we actually gain freedom, or at least retain the same amount of freedom, versus without it.
I also think its fair to say most people in the middle east and africa and asia do want states, but they want states that our uncorrupt and actually address their needs.
>>68640474
>but they want states that our uncorrupt and actually address their needs.
You'd think that someone would have jumped on the opportunity to provide them with actual solutions to their problems and they would have one if it were at all plausible.
It's almost like, "after all this time wanting a state that doesn't a corrupt pile of shit in merely a few decades, they discovered that there is no such thing."
>>68634715
(I'm back)
>The other countries did not have conscription
Looking at the wiki page, there are several monarchies that fought against the French. Your statement is pretty bold, can you back it up for every single monarchy?
>That's not the definition of socialism
Socialism is the common ownership of the factors of production, thus the decisions made over these factors is done for the common good.
>Not that difficult, you're thinking that all other factors would stay the same always. There will be times of recession/depression, natural disaster, and during these times most people would be more willing to sell since they doubt they can recuperate value in the property, or they need the money.
>Which matters little if the brand of a certain good is inelesatically in demand.
Why would we then complain about a voluntary transaction? Not to mention that the person that buys those damaged properties might have the capital to improve them.
And again, you can't go crazy with price hikes because you have competition everywhere, even from goods that aren't similar. Practical example (of a non-free market btw): the local beachfronts in my country thought they could go crazy with prices, and the result was that people simply chose to go to other destinations, like Brazil.
The only bad monopoly is the state-enforced one.
What's stopping this in a libertarian society?
>>68639749
What's worse is that our government hands over the responsibility for creating money to a private monopoly and then uses memetic wordplay and illusory information barriers to convince you that they're protecting you from financial predators.
>>68642063
The same thing that's stopping it in an authoritarian one.
If the government stopped pedophilia any better than parental responsibility, would pedophilia be a concern?
>>68642203
Except that's literally what the nationalists on this board are saying when they cry about Jewish control of government and media.
What a fucking troll image.
>>68642583
WP crowd is also cancer. Libertarians are just naive idiots.
>>68642421
>If the government stopped pedophilia any better than parental responsibility, would pedophilia be a concern?
Yes? Government does a much better job, but that doesn't mean it's perfect.
>>68629306
Don't get too upset at them. They move on eventually, we all do.
>>68642788
>naive
I don't expect a libertarian society to solve any more problems than I expect my benevolent government to do so.
>>68642832
>Government does a much better job.
...of protecting the pedos from vigilante justice...
>>68642926
Masses without leadership never solved any problems.
Governments solved some problems.
>>68629494
Libertarianism does not equal anarchy, and not even anarchy implies complete lack of rules.
Get this in your heads, you complete retards.
>>68643081
>Governments solved some problems.
[citation needed]
>>68640747
Just because they want it doesn't mean its easy. The people with power in those countries maintain power through the corruption and such.
>>68641447
>Looking at the wiki page, there are several monarchies that fought against the French. Your statement is pretty bold, can you back it up for every single monarchy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#Influence
>Following the declaration of war in 1792, an imposing array of enemies converging on French borders prompted the government in Paris to adopt radical measures. 23 August 1793, would become a historic day in military history; on that date the National Convention called a levée en masse, or mass conscription, for the first time in human history. By summer of the following year, conscription made some 500,000 men available for service and the French began to deal blows to their European enemies.
>Socialism is the common ownership of the factors of production, thus the decisions made over these factors is done for the common good.
Yes, but not all decisions made for the common good regard the means of production, and indeed, nearly all democracies do not have common ownership of the means of production or even worker ownership.
>Why would we then complain about a voluntary transaction? Not to mention that the person that buys those damaged properties might have the capital to improve them.
There was once a roman emperor or businessman who did something like this. He would buy homes that were destroyed in one of rome's frequent fires and then fix them up and sell them for a profit. He was the richest man in the ancient world because of this.
Think, for a moment, if all the homes had been owned by a land trust or co-operative instead. The money that would have gone into the businessman's pocket instead goes back into the users of the homes in savings, for the cost would be no more than necessary. That is a much better outcome for society than what we get in capitalism.
>>68643175
You're asking a very broad and dumb question.
From irrigation systems in Mesopotamia to modern infrastructure projects, governments improved the livelihood of population.
There will always be leaders and followers, you just need to accept the reality of being a human.
>>68642832
The government's version of protecting children includes bringing them to trial as adults for taking naked pictures of their own underaged bodies.
If there were no government, people would hang pedos in the streets. The order the government imposes protects the pedos more than you think.
>>68641447
part two
>And again, you can't go crazy with price hikes because you have competition everywhere, even from goods that aren't similar. Practical example (of a non-free market btw): the local beachfronts in my country thought they could go crazy with prices, and the result was that people simply chose to go to other destinations, like Brazil.
What about the people who live and work in that city? They are forced to deal with the monopoly or spend exorbitant costs to move to a different city and find a new job. You assume the only people wanting the beachfront property are those who can go to these other cities.
>The only bad monopoly is the state-enforced one.
The only good monopoly is that which does not exist for a profit.
>>68629306
> They are literally moralless scum, with no concept of externalities and only concerned about lining their pockets with money. They care not about national identity, nor about assisting those less fortunate than them in their own country
some, if not most of us care about these things but we think it should be voluntary.
Haha the aboriginals are trying to talk politics again
Literally never gets old. Poor gorilla probably taking a dollar a day to shill the kike two party system. The one that's working so flawlessly right now and totally not destroying the currencies of the entire world.
>>68629494
if the parent of that babie agreed before death and that babie was not murdered then there is literally no reason to ban such.
>>68643348
>watch this clever trick of wordplay where I call any form of leadership "government" and attempt to dominate the narrative by accusing you of being against leadership.
Reminds me of "Black Lives Matter", where they insist upon you accepting the additional implications latched on to what the phrase literally says.
Can you like... not use meme arguments please?
>>68643348
>irrigation systems in Mesopotamia
There is literally no evidence that government has anything to do with this.
>>68643708
>j-just don't call it government!
Pathetic.
Any leadership, in order to be effective, needs to have monopoly of force.
Like I said, grow up and deal with it.
Libertarianism, and especially ancaps, is just an advanced form of autism. People who don't understand how world works.
>>68644011
>Any leadership, in order to be effective, needs to have monopoly of force.
I beg to differ, where effective leadership involves the followers following willingly and with great personal motivation toward the same goal.
Any more meme arguments?
>>68643988
>There is literally no evidence
Except they appeared when governments appeared, because governments were able to mobilize masses of people and direct them towards projects that helped all of them.
I just used a very early example. Many such examples in history, so many and they are so obvious there's literally no need to specify them.
So far there have been only few libertarian (or similar) societies, and their defining characteristic is that they all failed very quickly.
>>68644011
>Libertarianism, and especially ancaps, is just an advanced form of autism. People who don't understand how world works.
But libertarians are perfectly fine with government and laws, I don't understand your post.
>>68644167
>followers following willingly
This is your problem, in your autism you assume all people follow their governments ''unwillingly''.
That's simply not a reality.
You're literally autistic people, your ideas are basically: oh look, there's a hole in the roof of this house, we have to collapse the entire building!
>>68644190
>So far there have been only few libertarian (or similar) societies, and their defining characteristic is that they all failed very quickly.
You make a good point, but you're being awfully dismissive of the notion that the reason government control appears to be effective is because the successful societies managed their success in the absence of government, with government following shortly thereafter.
>>68644331
And I don't understand your ideology then. What exactly do you want?
Besides, understand, libertarianism is only attractive to Americans because you're like that, you're highly individualist and you have little connection between your population, you have very weak identity.
There's literally no libertarians in Europe, besides some loons.
>>68644352
>This is your problem, in your autism you assume all people follow their governments ''unwillingly''.
No I don't, otherwise I wouldn't be against them.
*I* am quite clearly the obvious evidence that your strawman is retarded.
>>68631814
>Here's a question for libertarians: why is it more exploitative for the government to tax someone than for a capitalist to take some of the value you produce for themselves?
In a free/capitalist society the relationship between that of the employer and employee is voluntary and so can be negotiated by both parties.
Your relationship with the government is not voluntary, you're forced to pay taxes (theft) for services you don't want.
Only stupid liberals without any understanding of the free market think that employers exploit employees, if you don't like the deal you're presented with then don't accept and sign a contract to work somewhere. You have the freedom to negotiate your terms.
>>68644578
*You* and libertarians here are tiny tiny minority of world population.
Libertarianism is kinda like communism: it literally can't work unless everyone is libertarian.
Otherwise, some other, more collectivist group will impose their will on your libertarian paradise.
>>68644494
>because the successful societies managed their success in the absence of government
No successful society ever thrived in the absence of government.
One example of libertarianism is arguably American Frontier in 19th century. In the end, people there welcomed government themselves.
>>68643335
Your citation says "mass conscription", that doesn't mean it is the first time in history that conscription was done. In the past, nobles were the ones in charge of conscription; the French were the first ones to do it in mass, by the state.
Thus it is forced cooperation in mass vs. forced cooperation
>Yes, but not all decisions made for the common good regard the means of production, and indeed, nearly all democracies do not have common ownership of the means of production or even worker ownership.
I apologize because I think my previous comments were referring to economic, not social, policies. What you're saying its true. Still, my point still applies to social policies. Any policy done for the common good, be it economic or social, inherently harms the sectors that do not alineate with this common good. This is a result of individuality.
>Think, for a moment, if all the homes had been owned by a land trust or co-operative instead. The money that would have gone into the businessman's pocket instead goes back into the users of the homes in savings, for the cost would be no more than necessary. That is a much better outcome for society than what we get in capitalism.
This is perfectly compatible with libertarianism and the free market.
I suggest you remove the idea that all libertarians are profit seeking robots. Humanity is not like that. We only are in favor of voluntary transactions, motivated by individuals seeking a better state of affairs, under the framework of private property for the transactions to work.
>>68630974
Government have it's role on morals, because isn't everybody who can perceive that. That's what institutions are about (Example: Nature Laws/Divine Laws to positive laws)
>>68634071
> It's the only philosophy that goes so far as glean insight by actually considering how people act rather than sitting alone and thinking.
Keked hard.
All political movements with values of French Revolution TOTALLY ignore human nature aspects.
>>68644611
>You have the freedom to negotiate your terms.
You do. However, that freedom is meaningless considering the fact you have to eat, sleep somewhere and so on.
Absolute freedom is a myth.
>taxes (theft)
Taxes aren't theft. Government is elected by citizens and represents citizens.
Government can't steal. Individuals from government can, but that's called corruption.
>>68633169
>I support a regulated economy where companies are not allowed to unfairly exploit their consumers.
Except that government guarantees that because they're the ultimate monopoly of power.
That's like saying "I don't want monopolies so give all the guns and power to a small group of people", do you understand how retarded that is? The state of affairs right now is that businesses lobby government for special rights to establish monopolies vs their competition, where do you think the campaign funds for most presidential candidates come from?
The left never ceases to amaze me with their idiocy.
>Hurr durr don't want a monopoly so create a monopoly
Makes no sense.
>>68644190
The vast majority of governments through history have been slave States. The public works projects they worked on mostly served the leaders at the expense of the masses. I'm not sure irrigation is a NEET benefit if it means I'm condemning my family to slavery for another thousand years. If you want to make the argument about frequency being at all inductive of quality we should go back to slavery (and I don't mean just of blacks) since that is pretty much the defining feature of government.
>>68644870
>*You* and libertarians here are tiny tiny minority of world population.
>Libertarianism is kinda like communism: it literally can't work unless everyone is libertarian.
>Otherwise, some other, more collectivist group will impose their will on your libertarian paradise.
Just because most people are generally dumb enough to believe that a government will do anything of value for them that they cannot do for themselves doesn't mean that you can use their stupidity as an argument that buying into government sales pitches is actually good for them.
This would be the equivalent of saying:
>If everyone knew Calculus, technology would benefit greatly.
>90% of people don't know calculus.
>Therefore, calculus is stupid.
>>68645305
Speaking from a broad perspective, yes.
But modern governments are mostly democratic. It's called social evolution.
Man, you don't understand. There is NOTHING wrong with libertarian ideas in theory.
However, in REALITY, libertarian society would crash hard. There's always some other collectivist group that WILL impose their will on libertarian society.
>>68645371
>Therefore, calculus is stupid.
Nope, because knowing calculus has real benefits.
Being libertarian has no benefits, because it goes against human nature. Human nature is social.
Humans band in groups to gain advantage over other groups.
From this basic banding, governments evolved.
That's simply how it is. You want to go back to square one and begin again. Your ideas are unrealistic. They aren't evil or bad.
>>68629306
>and only concerned about lining their pockets with money
The most funny thing is every libertarian thinks HE Is the one who will become rich in a new system, because "current system dont let me to!!!"
>>68644611
>In a free/capitalist society the relationship between that of the employer and employee is voluntary and so can be negotiated by both parties.
>capitalist society = free
lol
But anyway, this choice is a false one, we never decided as a society on capitalism and its conception of property. Not to mention, most people aren't able to negotiate their contracts, or if they can, its only through the collective strength of a union.
>Your relationship with the government is not voluntary, you're forced to pay taxes (theft) for services you don't want.
At least in a democracy the government is accountable to its people, and your opposition to taxes can be taken into account, although taxes remain necessary for the government to run and provide the services that the majority of people enjoy.
>Only stupid liberals without any understanding of the free market think that employers exploit employees, if you don't like the deal you're presented with then don't accept and sign a contract to work somewhere.
No employer would ever compensate someone as much as they produce, but to do otherwise is exploitation. Unfortunately, in capitalism, this is the dominant mode of production and there is no contract I can sign with a capitalist were I am entitled to the full value of my production
>You have the freedom to negotiate your terms.
Not in the existence of a labor surplus.
>>68645706
>Being libertarian has no benefits, because it goes against human nature.
I disagree. "Human nature" is vicious as fuck and trying to force the people to cooperate with self-proclaimed benevolent use of mass violence goes against human nature, as you are specifically doing so with the goal of creating an "ideal" society that literally does not and will never exist.
>>68645706
Humans are social, but they can also be prone to violence.
None of these facts are against libertarianism. The free market is THE institution where people can voluntarily exchange (be social) with others. It also provides the framework for institutions to arise that prevent the use of violence against others.
Governments, on the other hand, go against this voluntary exchange and in fact use violence against the people through taxation, market regulations and conscription.
>>68645507
>modern governments are mostly democratic
True, their democratic status is also incredibly short lived.
>>68645507
>in REALITY, libertarian society would crash hard
Nigger have you read Plato? A single history book about democracy? The common feature of all democracies through history is their violent failure.
>>68644984
>All political movements with values of French Revolution TOTALLY ignore human nature aspects
Explain why it's human nature to be ruled by other humans or to rule other humans with the difference in who's who being arbitrary and determined by luck?
>>68645919
I'm libertarian and I don't want to become rich.
I just want to go out in my field and farm my own soil and be left alone without you harassing me for property taxes while pretending to offer me any more protection than my trusty rifle will.
>>68642894
Social ostracization stops moral degeneracy in a libertarian society, you get to choose who you do business with so you can disassociate with anyone you like for any reason.
In any kind of authoritarian system you have to deal with the issue that whoever is in power aligns with your sense of moral degeneracy and that they're not corruptable in any way, which history shows is basically impossible to achieve and maintain.
However libertarian societies there's literally nothing to stop you or anyone else from buying some land and setting up voluntary societies where the only people are allowed are those you approve of (like a gated community) only that system would be protected by voluntrism, so people would be able to leave if it became corrupt and join another one, a free market of gated communities creates incentive to make sure they remain free of corruption.
Fundamentally no social system is stable unless there's some kind of freedom of choice for people to easily move elsewhere, you get the same issues you get in the free market under monopolies.
>>68640474
>we are following laws that are our own will
The people have no will, only individuals within a group.
>. It would never be the general will to submit to an arbitrary power like a dictator.
But they do
>It would however be fine with an authoritarian leader who acted in accordance with the general will, but this is unlikely.
Then why does it happen all the time?
And why is it ok? Are humans sacrificial animals?
> It is also illogical for anyone to engage in a contract where they actually loose freedom
Well in order for social cooperation to occure both parties must define the boundries by which there cooperation occures. Without this, it is never clear how we should act towards each other. In this case both parties define where the freedom of one person can empeed on anothers freedom.
>therefor the social contract must be one where we actually gain freedom, or at least retain the same amount of freedom, versus without it.
But the contract does not exist and none actually agrees to it's basic principles either.
Furthermore you do no gain freedom.
Freedom is a fact of material reality.
You can agree to have an organization preserve your freedom.
Implying that an organization provides you with freedom assume that they own you and can dispose of you through force based on any form of arbitrary decision making, including democratic pressures.
The whole concept of a social contract is the key to any form of tyranny and oppression.
>I also think its fair to say most people in the middle east and africa and asia do want states, but they want states that our uncorrupt and actually address their needs.
No not at all. They want States that favor them at the expense of others.
Social Contract = fuck freedom
>>68644880
>Thus it is forced cooperation in mass vs. forced cooperation
This is what I mean though, The more you can convince and force people to work together, the more power you have. A state which the people see as legitimate will always be able to win against a mercenary force if all else is equal.
>Any policy done for the common good, be it economic or social, inherently harms the sectors that do not alineate with this common good. This is a result of individuality.
Then you are advocating for anarchy? For every state exists for the common good of its people, and this will always alienate someone, if no one acted against the common good, there would be no reason for a state to protect it.
>This is perfectly compatible with libertarianism and the free market.
Perhaps. But not with a capitalist conception of property.
>I suggest you remove the idea that all libertarians are profit seeking robots.
I never suggested that. Only that a capitalist system encourages the behavior I described and thus discourages the behavior I condone.
>Humanity is not like that. We only are in favor of voluntary transactions, motivated by individuals seeking a better state of affairs, under the framework of private property for the transactions to work.
But private property as you recognize does not create the most optimal results. Defining property as what you use and what you create would be a vast improvement. And regardless, it is only because of states that you can have private property so defined as it is.
>>68646202
what if your fields get devastated by floods or fire ?
>>68645986
>Not to mention, most people aren't able to negotiate their contracts, or if they can, its only through the collective strength of a union.
Not true at all. I have friends that have been able to negotiate a higher pay, and this is especially true in markets where employers compete against other employers for employees. And this is in a not-at-all free market! Unions are also a valid libertarian institution since they are voluntary, but they tend to cause problems for the employees due to the laws of supply and demand applied to labor.
>At least in a democracy the government is accountable to its people, and your opposition to taxes can be taken into account, although taxes remain necessary for the government to run and provide the services that the majority of people enjoy.
Services that can be perfectly provided by the private sector (maybe not national security and law).
>No employer would ever compensate someone as much as they produce
Marxist point of view that has been debunked. The addition of a worker generates 100$ more of income, but the worker is only paid 90$? The difference is caused by the natural rate of interest, and maybe a short term profit margin. Nothing to do with exploitation.
>Not in the existence of a labor surplus.
That's the cost for having decided to join that sector.
>>68646751
That should never be anyone else's problem but mine.
>what is insurance
>>68645102
>You do. However, that freedom is meaningless considering the fact you have to eat, sleep somewhere and so on.
It's certainly not meaningless, it means you can cooperatively negotiate with other people to exchange things they value for things you value.
>>68645102
>Taxes aren't theft. Government is elected by citizens and represents citizens.
No government is elected by some people to rule over everyone including those who do not consent to being ruled. Taxes are theft plain and simple, if I do not consent to pay taxes in exchange for services that government supply, and they threaten to put me in prison for not paying, that's using force to acquire someones resources against their consent (aka theft).
>>68646202
Then you're an exception.
I'm tired of russian chans anarchists, libs and such, whining about being geniuses not becoming billionaires because of muh evil opressive goverment
See your argument fails to move me however, in regards to the logic of self-interest and pursuance of the "greater things", attaining more capital and greater rank in society. Not only myself but any other can do this. That is the beauty of capitalism. That saying "every American is just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" or whatever it is may just be tongue in cheek but in the restraints given in modern America, it is not so. In a libertarian society this wealth could be easily attainable. Why should I give that up? In my own life and the pursuit of my dreams, why would I say no to a society that allows ME to flourish? Charity is there, and other safety nets, why can't another human being take care of themselves without government involvement?
>>68647088
I hardly ever see anyone in these threads making such statements and I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people making them only exist in your imagination.
Rich people *love* the government, because they're cheap mercenaries to keep the thieves and con-artists out of their pockets.
>>68646950
yeah but it isnt, recent experience here in aus with floods and fire shows that. devastation was massive literally entire towns were completly burnt
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville,_Victoria#Black_Saturday_bushfires
>>68647304
>Rich people *love* the government, because they're cheap mercenaries to keep the thieves and con-artists out of their pockets.
Correction:
>as long as they don't have to give them all their money
>>68646724
>This is what I mean though, The more you can convince and force people to work together, the more power you have. A state which the people see as legitimate will always be able to win against a mercenary force if all else is equal.
Good thing we're against the initiation of force.
>Then you are advocating for anarchy?
I'm advocating for a government that doesn't meddle with the affairs of the individual. Minarchism first, then we'll see if we can be anarcho-capitalists.
>Perhaps. But not with a capitalist conception of property.
The free market capitalist conception of property is perfectly fine with voluntary exchanges or arrangements of property. Voluntary being the key word here.
>Defining property as what you use and what you create would be a vast improvement. And regardless, it is only because of states that you can have private property so defined as it is.
The explanations of property are: property over your body, your labor and the land you work. Nowadays, save for public lands, we have properties that are private. As you say, we have the state to define and defend our property rights; this would be the minarchist point of view. The anarcho-capitalist, on the other hand, would have private institutions defend and define those property rights. You may be surprised to hear that examples of these anarchic institutions have existed; I certainly was.
>>68646550
>The people have no will, only individuals within a group.
I believe that is false.
>But they do
The general will is not the majority will, it is the majority will when forced to be coherent and logical.
>Then why does it happen all the time?
Because the general will is rarely followed.
>Well in order for social cooperation to occure both parties must define the boundries by which there cooperation occures.
The social contract is between everyone and requires them giving up the totality of their rights to everyone.
>But the contract does not exist and none actually agrees to it's basic principles either.
Except it does and most people do.
>furthermore you do no gain freedom.
Except you do.
>Freedom is a fact of material reality.
That is true. And thus when we have more material freedom thanks to a state than without one, we have more freedom. which is often.
>You can agree to have an organization preserve your freedom.
An organization that does this, but also forces other to co-operate with it will always be able to out compete an organization that does not force others to co-operate with it.
>They want States that favor them at the expense of others
Is that not what the organization you mentioned earlier would do as well?
>Social Contract = fuck freedom
Anarchy=fuck material freedom
>>68647397
>yeah but it isnt, recent experience here in aus with floods and fire shows that.
Shows what?
The government is what we're talking about, and they obviously didn't stop the floods or fires with all the money they took, so what point are you even making?
>>68647088
European anarchists are intolerable. A lot of them are downright authoritarian. There are American anarchists that don't realize they are anarchists. There was a book published about American gun owners that someone was posting scans of on /k/. One of the guys in the book said he owned his gun because when he was growing up in Louisiana during the depression hunting was how you survived. He went on to say that people turning guns on each other only came about because of money. It was like something out if Marx, but I would bet money that old man's never read him. I wouldn't be surprised if he voted for Reagan.
I wish I saved that picture and quote.
>>68646825
>I have friends that have been able to negotiate a higher pay, and this is especially true in markets where employers compete against other employers for employees
This is the exception, not the rule though. Most markets have a labor surplus.
>Unions are also a valid libertarian institution since they are voluntary, but they tend to cause problems for the employees due to the laws of supply and demand applied to labor.
You wouldn't have that problem if all enterprises were co-ops.
>Services that can be perfectly provided by the private sector (maybe not national security and law).
The private sector would not exist without this security and the state definition of private property.
>Marxist point of view that has been debunked.
Except it hasn't. An employer must always make a profit. If hiring someone cost as much as it made it revenue, they would not do it.
>That's the cost for having decided to join that sector.
It's not like they created the surplus. And, by definition, there must be workers in that sector for there to be a surplus, do they deserve to not be able to negotiate their contract due to macroeconomic factors.
>>68631814
>government is incredibly inefficient and will waste much of your money, this is a fact
>government forces you to pay tax and will fine and imprison you if you refuse
>capitalist will spend your money as efficiently as possible in order to stay competitive, and will make their fortune by investing
>capitalist can't force you to pay them, even if you've taken a loan from them - at most they can ruin your credit rating
>>68645986
You can't have it both ways, if you reject the notion of private property then no system of government can exist because the government would necessarily need a way of protecting its assets from simply being taken by everyone.
When you expect to be able to maintain your own private property then that right is naturally granted to others, you cannot have a logically consistent system of morality that allows some to own property but not others. So it's either I take your shit and rape your sister, or we agree that property is allowed and to respect each others mutual property. The moment you violate that moral stance it's simply a message to others that you don't believe in that moral principle and thus your own shit is up for grabs.
Government isn't accountable at all to the people, there's literally no mechanism that can punish a politician who has lied, you can say one thing and do another and the people have no power over that.
How can you argue against the authoritarian nature of government by saying that you have to pay taxes, it doesn't make any sense.
Employers have no obligation to compensate someone as much as they produce, only to the degree that they voluntarily agree with someone else to do so. If you want a contract where that's a condition then negotiate it with someone, the reality is no one will give you that because no one has any incentive to, in the same way that you'd not do that for someone else. There's no exploitation in a voluntary system.
In a libertarian society you always have the freedom to negotiate your terms, that's what it means for fuck sakes. That's not the same as saying you can always get what you want, what you can get depends on what you can offer.
>>68647669
No one could have stopped it, it was too big, but the point is we need an organisation that has the resources to be able to respond to these types of events. Even if we funded that by free-market insurance-type model you would still need a regulator to make sure the insurance companies behave themselves.
>>68648264
>capitalist can't force you to pay them, even if you've taken a loan from them
This is kind of bullshit though, because technically, in the absence of complete government control, they could make your life a living hell and prevent you from getting anything in your life done, including making the money it takes to pay them back.
Protip: don't take loans.
>>68647487
>Good thing we're against the initiation of force.
>Muh nap
You seriously think that's going to work?
Lol, literally no one is going to care. Or at the very least, those who don't are going to dominate those who do.
>I'm advocating for a government that doesn't meddle with the affairs of the individual.
Like what? And keep in mind, no government can survive on donations, you'd still have to pay muh dreaded taxes.
>The free market capitalist conception of property is perfectly fine with voluntary exchanges or arrangements of property.
Obviously that is not true considering the massive problems society faces thanks to capitalism. Oh wait, that's right, you think all the poor people deserve it.
And regardless, the conception of property itself is never voluntary, someone must define it, and not everyone will agree to it unless you can back it up with force.
>The explanations of property are: property over your body, your labor and the land you work.
Then how can a factory owner lay claim to a factory if he does not work there?
>>68648189
>You wouldn't have that problem if all enterprises were co-ops.
A form of voluntary arrangement that is perfectly compatible with libertarianism
>The private sector would not exist without this security and the state definition of private property.
Maybe, that's what minarchists hold.
>Except it hasn't. An employer must always make a profit. If hiring someone cost as much as it made it revenue, they would not do it.
A profit margin that gets shorter when more participants enter the market. Still, even with no profit margin, the employer would only pay the employee his productivity minus the natural interest rate, since he's exchanging a wage (a present good) for his labor (a future good). A future good has a premium over a present good because people prefer to consume a good now than later.
Not only that, but the employer has to pay the employee his wage, even if he miscalculated and the enterprise ended up with less income than expected. He's doing him a favor by giving him a job and guaranteeing his wage!
>It's not like they created the surplus. And, by definition, there must be workers in that sector for there to be a surplus, do they deserve to not be able to negotiate their contract due to macroeconomic factors.
They deserve a labor market that is flexible.
>>68648189
>The private sector would not exist without this security and the state definition of private property.
You're not actually suggesting that patents on DNA sequences and math formulas are integral to business are you? Property law is extensive, complicated and imperfect and I absolutely do not think you can make a coherent argument otherwise.
>>68648189
>An employer must always make a profit. If hiring someone cost as much as it made it revenue, they would not do it.
Explain human resources departments. Actually don't bother, I'll just explain why you're wrong: Not all employees are profit generating, and qualifying value solely based on tangible markets will not give you an accurate view of human behavior.
>>68638858
What's the difference?
>>68648326
I expect property to be redefined, not eliminated. My house is my house because I live there, not solely because I paid for it ( although that is required). If somebody buys a house and then puts it up for rent, never to live in it, I don't see why we should allow that to be their property.
>How can you argue against the authoritarian nature of government by saying that you have to pay taxes, it doesn't make any sense.
What are you talking about.
>There's no exploitation in a voluntary system.
There is if no one originally agreed to the rules of this "voluntary" system.
>In a libertarian society you always have the freedom to negotiate your terms, that's what it means for fuck sakes.
But that's not what it means, that's self contradicting. If everything is voluntary, some can refuse to negotiate.
>>68649191
>tangible markets
Should have been measures
>>68648406
>we need an organisation that has the resources to be able to respond to these types of events
So basically what you're saying is:
>we need an organization which bullies everyone around to take care of problems because Australians can't be arsed to help each other out voluntarily
Damn son. No wonder you can't have guns.
>>68648817
>You seriously think that's going to work?
If you believe people won't initiate violence because someone said the NAP is sacred, that's as dumb as the liberals that believe they won't be shot in a gun free zone. No, what I say is that private institutions (or public institutions, like the police) should enforce the NAP.
>Like what? And keep in mind, no government can survive on donations, you'd still have to pay muh dreaded taxes.
Minarchists are ok with a minimum amount of taxes for the purposes stated above.
>Obviously that is not true considering the massive problems society faces thanks to capitalism
You mean rising the standards of living of the world?
>And regardless, the conception of property itself is never voluntary, someone must define it, and not everyone will agree to it unless you can back it up with force.
Depending on whether you want minarchism or anarcho-capitalism, you'll either have public or private institutions in charge of that service.
>Then how can a factory owner lay claim to a factory if he does not work there?
Property can be exchanged (that's the basis of the free market). The factory owner must have had bought the land previously, or had worked a previously unused land. After the land had been acquired, he had to build upon it, invest in capital, etc. He then hired people voluntarily to work there, in exchange for a wage.
>>68629306
>using the term "lolbertarian" unironically
Go back to plebbit
>>68629306
>implying that any economic system other than capitalism is the correct path
>implying that it's beneficial to help people who can't help you
>implying that being intelligent and profiting off of that is bad
>classic libertarians are anarchists bait
>246 replies
Ausies truly made shitposting an art.
>>68649391
>help each other out voluntarily
That does actually happen, most of our State Emergency Service is volunteers, but they still need someone to buy their radios and fire trucks and coordinate their operations and make them sandwiches. This all has to be done ahead of time so we are prepared, which takes money and effort
just hoping that people will be charitable when disaster strikes may be part of the solution but its not enough by itself
>>68649040
And so is wage employment, but somehow that is the dominant form of production. I do not think that is permissible, for the capitalist system will always make this so. If we want to see an improvement, we must redefine property so that mode of production can no longer exist.
>Still, even with no profit margin,
If there was no profit margin, the employer would just fire them
>Not only that, but the employer has to pay the employee his wage, even if he miscalculated and the enterprise ended up with less income than expected. He's doing him a favor by giving him a job and guaranteeing his wage!
Like I said before, if this happened, he would just fire them. That's how businesses work.
>They deserve a labor market that is flexible.
In what way?
>>68645986
>there is no contract I can sign with a capitalist were I am entitled to the full value of my production
Why do you need a capitalist? Produce your own shit on your own machines, in your own place, with your own marketing and you're entitled to whatever you make (after the government's cut).
If you want to use other people's shit, then you're only entitled to the market value of the labor you contribute.
>>68629306
kill yourself
>>68649191
>You're not actually suggesting that patents on DNA sequences and math formulas are integral to business are you?
Perhaps not, but defining a factory owner as the person with their name on the deed, or the stockholder as the person with their name on the stock certificate, is.
>Explain human resources departments.
The employer would make less money without them, otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Not all employees directly create products for sale, but they all work to help increase the value.
>>68649925
>If there was no profit margin, the employer would just fire them
That's up to him, he's free to decide.
>Like I said before, if this happened, he would just fire them. That's how businesses work.
Not before compensating the worker. Otherwise he might be sued. Working for no compensation = slavery.
>In what way?
The free market way, of course. And competing private institutions in charge of finding work for workers, training them, etc.
