>2016
>Not being Libertarian
MUH NAP
>>70642237
This guy is the embodiment of cognitive dissonance.
>>70642237
Who builds the roads?
>>70642757
You got me. Only the government has the means to build roads, without them nobody knows how to.
>>70642237
I'm starting to read up on libertarian stuff. Some of the ideas are a bit extreme e.g. borders and immigration but still I find myself agreeing with Austin Petersen on a lot of things.
Libertarians are just republicans who want to impress their friends by saying that they are in favor of abortion, gay marriage and drugs, while being a know-it-all about economics.
Prove me wrong.
>>70642870
Say that I am living in Ancapistan and that I buy a piece of land. Then some rich guy buys all the land around my land. How the fuck am I suppose to leave my land if I need to go somewhere, like the store for example. If I do leave my land I will be forced to walk on his land, which is a violation of the non agression principle, and by walking on his land I am by definition, initiating violence with him and he has the right to shoot me. Do I just have to sit on my land and starve to death or what?
>>70642966
Neo-Cons are the antithesis of Libertarianism
>>70642757
>>70642237
>Stefan
> Libertarian
Ok
>>70642916
Austin "Sharia Law is Libertarian "Petersen"?
>>70642916
austin petersen is a cuck libertarian save yourself now. Start reading christopher cantwell, and hans herman hoppe and murray rothbard.
>>70643046
That doesn't seem like a problem exclusive to ancap
>>70643046
>This scenario would happen
Love the statists nitpicking Ancapism. Keep it up.
>Who owned the land surrounding your plot beforehand
>What is right of passage
>>70642237
What would happen if there was an important intersection between two roads that a lot of people use, but the roads were owned by two different capitalists who absolutely hate each other & refuse to negotiate a deal on how profits will be shared, and the intersection is forced to close down?
Roads simply can't work under libertarianism. I'm sorry.
>>70642966
libertarians aren't all pro-choice, and no libertarian supports any government subsidies for either family building or avoidance; that is not a function of the state OR compatible with free-market anarchy
no libertarian favors "gay marriage," because "gay marriage" is a legal fiction, enforced by the state, the license for which is nothing but a piece of paper for which you must surrender a tax, even though it is "a right"; none of this is a function of the state OR compatible with free-market anarchy
etc. etc., you're literally the definition of low-information
>>70643310
Fuck doge
>>70643259
>What is right of passage
Certainly not one that exists.
>>70643146
I just looked and I don't see him saying anything other than sharia law is incompatiable with libertarian principles and he doesn't see it as a threat.
>>70643162
Will do, leafbro.
>>70642705
>>70642757
>>70642966
Not an argument
>>70643133
Libertarianism is a blanket term covering many schools of thought including his.
Try again, commie.
>>70642237
Hurr look at my new superior ideas and philosophy that are litteraly 400 years old
>>70642237
Didn't he become a trumpfag when he realized he could make more money off shitty internet memes?
>>70643446
He said it in the first Libertarian debate
I hate that most of your argents against libertarianism is the fucking roads. Obviously there needs to be some government, but it should be limited in scope.
>2016
>Not being an argument
Libertarianism is good in the confines of a secured nation state. That means functional border controls and rigorous deportation of illegals.
>>70643046
>implying there is a peaceful solution to this contrived situation which could not occur in anarchy, but CAN occur when there is a government
>government is the monopoly on force
>using government to resolve the situation is never not force
>we need to live in a society with government, but i don't want it to ever do anything, i just want it to be there like a bogeyman and threaten rich people so they don't mess with me
>no i don't believe in god, heaven or hell
>why do you ask
think critically sometime. you might like it.
>>70643373
>State can't restrict gay marriage and abortion
So you're in favor of people being able to do these things, therefore you are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage
It's not complicated lolbertarians. Pro-life people want the state to OUTLAW abortions. Saying that the state should "play no role" is a total cop-out.
>>70643310
>muh roads
Libertarianism, not ancap
>>70643310
probably a third party would buy the intersection, and realize a profit on it.
>i can't envision a peaceful solution
>we need government to come up with these things for us, they're smart, they have good words
>>70643621
>which could not occur in anarchy, but CAN occur when there is a government
Why do you act like anarchism has anything to do with "anarcho" capitalism?
It's like you have never read any anarchist author, and all you have done is watched some videos by stefanbot.
>>70643621
>force is bad
>a society without a monopoly on force is possible
>no mom, this is not a phase, it's who I really am
>>70643651
Government should enforce the laws.
Murder is against the law, I think even the most hardline libertarian believes murder should be legal
>>70643061
> Le rugged
You must think you're some John Wayne cowboy faggot don't you? In reality you're a meme created by Jews in Hollywood. An atomized faggot who contributes nothing of value. Muh rationality muh reason you faggots think you're captain Spock. The alienated geniuses of Ayn Rand, the Nietzchean ubermenches, the most special of all special snowflakes stuck in perpetual teenage rebellion. Fuck lolbertarians and fuck Stefan Molyneux. He is a faggot who rules over a kingdom of gamers, hotpockets, MRA's and man-children you fucking cancerous cuck you
>>70642237
Not an argument.
>>70643996
Do you support me getting shot?
>>70643046
>>70643310
not an argument.
this vid is actually perfectly appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzPVQuHVSC0
>>70643950
Pic related is me.
Also
>Jews
>Wanting small government
>>70643651
that's correct: "controlling abortion" is as effective as the war on drugs. until abortion is correctly identified as murder -- which it absolutely, positively is -- there will never be a valid libertarian position on it. but you cannot be "pro-choice" in a world where that REQUIRES you to support a state function which is Not Even Minarchist, thus not libertarian.
>which is why i left the libertarian party
gays can pretend they're married all they want. but you cannot be "pro gay marriage" and a libertarian in a world where that REQUIRES you to support a state function which is Not Even Minarchist, thus not libertarian.
>which is why i left the libertarian party
>>70642237
>being over 16yo
>still thinks Atlas Shrugged is great
Oh dear
>>70642966
Basically, except I'm pro-life. I favor a libertarian movement within the GOP than the Libertarian Party.
>>70644040
>not an argument.
It wasn't an argument, it was a question.
Governments are "in theory" the only means by which common people can have their interests represented. Otherwise, you would inevitably have rule by an entrenched nobility and in an extreme case, feudalism. Libertarianism does not make anyone more free, it simply takes away the limitations on those who are already powerful.
If you want to know what it's like to live in an unregulated economy, move to Saudi Arabia and become a slave to a wealthy family.
>>70644192
Not an argument
>>70644147
Shit, you really got me there.
>being over 16yo
>unable to read
>>70643917
>mischaracterized my argument
>didn't make his own
>>70643911
>mischaracterized my argument
>possibly can't even read english
did you want to argue about libertarianism instead? why did you start with "ancapistan" if you didn't? why did you manufacture "the right to shoot me" when nobody relevant else ever has, and then question whether i've read the relevant authors?
>>70644038
You've had your chance to speak, it's my turn now and I need to tell you the average black IQ in the United States is 85.
>>70643950
10/10 copypasta
>>70642757
>roads are paid for by a gas/petrol tax
>govt abolished
>oil companies have a vested interest in road maintenance as it is a necessary input for their product
>oil companies raise petrol prices to cover the cost of roads
Everything is back to normal
>>70644383
not an argument.
Oh and also, do you support me getting shot?
oh and I almost forgot, not an argument.
>>70642237
Free market till I die.
>>70644459
or, you know, paying a toll automatically for right-of-way use. modern technology we have right now in texas, for example, that cave-dwelling europeans hate for some reason.
>>70644097
>abortion is murder meme
Are you one of those "life begins at conception" faggots? Or is there some other arbitrary line you draw where a non-viable collection of human cells becomes a person?
Ancap will never work in thé long term beacause the corporation will become their own nation/tribe which wont be ancap in the end
State will allways form itself because its human nature
>>70644459
>oil company is going to pay to fix the country lane to some irrelevant village
The villagers would have to pay, desu.
Everyone is always free...
...to be absolutely terrified of others having freedom.
>>70644383
>doesn't put forth an argument
>complains that others mischaracterize it
>>70644682
>>70644508
Is funny because image is stick figure cartoon but is really straw man cartoon.
Are you people seriously this retarded?
Libertarianism is for limited government, not for no government.
>>70643162
Name a better canidate?
And don't say Gary "Nazi Cake" Johnson
>>70644091
You're CLINT EASTWOOD!!?!?!? WOW it's awesome to meet you. I always figured some celebrities browsed the chans but I never thought I'd meet one of my FAVORITE ACTORS ON 4CHAN this is the best day of my life
>screenshot
>>70644508
don't become dependent on others, nigger
>>70644192
watch the video, especially around 8:30 on wards.
>>70644769
McAfee is the true madman's candidate
>>70644040
yeah, first thing I thought too was this video
>let's keep creating highly unlikely scenarios until something sticks because I want to prove them wrong by any meanings necessary
>>70642237
>implying that's an argument
>>70644536
Those are generally failing (http://www.wsj.com/articles/frugal-motorists-test-private-toll-roads-1458379807), but that is the model that worked for Eisenhower's highway system so I agree it could work. I was just providing an alternative
>>70644616
They're also the only people who would use it
>>70644560
Define viable, I'd it when they can feed themselves or when they reach a critical mass of cells or when they can financially support themselves.
Conception is the least arbitrary line
>>70642237
Far-right libertarianism is as destructive to a free society as far-left socialism, there must be balance between individual rights and the collective good of the community. The sovereign man cannot resist usurpers of his sovereign nation alone, he cannot even equip himself to die fighting without the combined industry of the sovereign people.
>>70643310
Always blown away by this argument. I don't believe I've ever heard of a libertarian suggesting a free market solution for public roads.
>not knowing the difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitialism
>being this dumb
>>70644769
donald trump is the true libertarian candidate, as he both has a chance of winning and holds more libertarian positions than any other individual running that also has a chance of winning.
>>70644040
Typical Stefan. BTFOing socialist nitpickers left right an center.
>>70645262
>Forcing US companies to reshore manufacturing capabilities
>Libertarian
choose one
>>70642237
The vast majority of people are stupid and do not possess enough knowledge and insight about the bigger picture of how things work. No country operates in a vacuum, you have to balance local and foreign interests to coexist and trade.
This is where you need a handful of seasoned experts with absolute power to impose the required decisions so real progress can be made. Democracy allows idiots to get in the way of capable people because they all have equal vote and free speech regardless of their caliber and contribution to society.
Autocratic leadership for at least 10-20 years is the only way the world can overcome all of its problems, after which the so called democracy can be implemented.
You cannot help the poor by being one of them.
>>70645258
They're either deliberately making a strawman arguement or just plain stupid.
>>70643046
>I was dumb enough to buy this plot of land. Government protect me from my bad decisions.
The cool think about ancap is that you are forced to be responsible and actually think
>>70645230
you can engage in collective benefit through voluntary action. That is literally the main thing about libertarianism/ancap that you engage voluntarily. I.e. in the case of culture or preserving huwhites, you have the freedom to discriminate in a covenant community on who you let in and who is allowed to spread their ideas etc because property rights trump free speech.
>>70642237
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-11/bank-bail-ins-begin-eu-bank-%E2%80%9Cbailed-in%E2%80%9D-austria
>>70645411
The market has perfect knowledge, no individual can have perfect knowledge regardless of how intelligent they are. Central planning by the elite doesn't work, neither does democratic majority rule people-make-the-decisions.
>>70642237
It's easy to not do things when you have no power to do anything.
>>70643310
Each builds a bridge to avoid the other road then a deal is negotiated with a third party who wants to build 4 smaller roads to allow passage between the two roads that used to be an intersection.
>>70644560
>time of conception
>arbitrary
>>70644038
>Do you support me getting shot?
You specifically? Yes.
Btw this is not an argument either, it's just a meme to tap into an emotional response and drive a wedge between you and family/friends so you'll rely on him more so you can donate ONE dollar to him.
As for the larger picture...
Statism is inevitable. If you have 5 communities/ villages, whichever has the cunningness and selfishness to build centralized power will end up dominating those that refuse to do so.
If they aren't cunning enough and the others find out in time, the other 3 or 4 can band together to prevent this domination. But there'll be some fucker that tries to leverage that to get more power.
And even if this doesn't happen you'll have a tiny ass nation like britain or japan, both build up of warring states that eventually united, that will project their power onto your land of 5 villages that weren't smart enough to become as strong as possible.
I should know, I'm aquafresh and we dominated the world shortly... Although there was continual tension between our statist royal house and stadthouders that wanted a republic.
Eventually a naval blockade happened and the merchants just weren't willing to break our fleet on the brittish blockade.
Eventually our power waned but the statists assholes (yes they're invariably assholes) managed to stage a glorious revolution in england and put our royal line into their royal line.
Statists always win because they're assholes willing to shoot you.
This is something americans get and why we should be willing to pay the blood price for guns.
>>70645358
>forcing
I also never said he was the perfect candidate you cuck, but his foreign policy and policy on the second amendment as well as healthcare and most of his economic policies align with libertarianism better than most other candidates.
>>70645262
What libertarian positions?
>>70642757
>Who builds the roads?
Where we're going we don't need roads
>>70645532
Agreed, the self-interested man supports his community and the people in it out of his own desire to improve his welfare. Other people are a resource to you as much as you are to them, that's where social contracts even came about as an idea. True Anarchy cannot exist in an effective state, Republican Anarchy is the closest you get to an independent and beneficial society.
>>70645358
Economic warfare exists, creating uneven tax advantages and international subsidies to leech wealth out of a competing state through corporate infrastructure is a long-plan form of attrition.
Every dollar is a bullet, every credit card a select-fire weapon, every bank an arsenal, and the Fed and IMF hold the nuclear revolvers.
>>70645585
>Market
There is no such thing as a market, most exchanges used to be run by the government and then became private but still require government oversight. So what market?
You cannot entrust the private sector for maximizing the welfare of all citizens as by law they only work for their shareholders.
My idea of a handful of experts is reasonable. These people would be well paid and taken care of so they can focus on creating solutions not merely solving problems.
Without absolute power, nothing can be done.
This whole thread is not an argument, sorry
>>70646000
I'd say I made a rather strong argument.
>>70644652
>>70645788
Who will generate the wormholes?
>>70643671
>>70645258
Here's the problem with libertarians saying that public roads are ok: as soon as you do that, you are admitting that there are some things that the government can do more efficiently than the free market. This brings up the question, why not other things like education and healthcare? You can't use any free market/profit motive arguments anymore, because you've admitted that there are some exceptions to the rule.
Now what I typically hear from libertarians is
>the military and roads are fundamentals for an economy, and the free market should do everything else
OK, but think about this: WHY is it that roads are fundamental to an economy? It's because we all drive cars and trucks, right? Well why do we do that? Because the government built roads. The only reason we drive everywhere is because the government built roads first, not the other way around. So we had a big government program (roads), which allowed the automobile industry to flourish and allowed for the development of a profitable transportation industry, and yes, today, roads are essential to the economy. But it's only that way because the government built them first.
I've actually heard libertarians (and I think it was actually Molyneux) argue that if the government hadn't built roads, we might all be flying around in private helicopters or all living on the coast like in Australia and boating everywhere.
The point is, the way you feel about roads (they're necessary because the government built them and society grew around them) is the way other people feel about other government programs. They might say "we need social security because the government invented it and society has evolved around it", the same thing you argue about roads. Or maybe "the government should be investing in solar the way it once did for roads, so that one day the economy can be structured around it, which never would have happened with roads if not for the government".
>>70642237
"Being current date" is not an argument. It is, at best, an attempt at shaming.
>>70645585
>markets have perfect knowledge
Inefficiency of markets doesn't exist eh? Or bubbles?
It's the best way we know of allocating capital and resources, but it certainly isn't perfect.
>>70645644
Defining personhood at conception isn't only arbitrary it's retarded friendo. Doing so would make miscarriage murder or manslaughter at the least.
>miss, you have an entopic pregnancy, there is zero possibility of you successfully carrying this pregnancy to term, attempting to do so would most likely kill you.
>sorry though, that 4 week old mass of cells in your stomach is a fucking person though and if we try to take it out that's murder. LOL!
>>70646147
Anyone come to the conclusion that the market works best when people buy what they think they need and companies take those buying trends as a forecast?
Oh wait, we have marketing to distort the economic weather with forced models of behavior and desire.
>>70646126
Not a counterargument.
>>70646122
Personally I don't believe the government should be "investing" in anything primarily because they are notorious for "investing" in politicians' self interests
Alternative forms of energy simply will not be used by the public until it is in their best interest financially (again, free markets).
My main point is that roads already exist, if this were the past, I may agree with you. But from a purely financial standpoint, the benefit that comes from facilitating free trade (by roads) heavily outweighs the cost of maintenance.
>>70646122
Are you comparing shallow holes filled with cement to the human body and a complex economy?
>>70646126
>Being this retarded
Québécois, I presume.
>>70646556
Miscarriage isn't a willful process tho, it's an involuntary action. The actual argument you mean to take is that birth control, especially morning-after pills, that are taken willfully to force a miscarriage in the beginnings of conception should be charged as murder or manslaughter.
Except you'd need total comprehensive surveillance of every woman's chemical intakes and uterine processes and IIRC, most of u here are staunchly against such draconian pogroms.
>>70645996
> There is no such thing as a market, most exchanges used to be run by the government and then became private but still require government oversight. So what market?
Sooo... Governments are eternal and a prerequisite to trade itself?
> You cannot entrust the private sector for maximizing the welfare of all citizens as by law they only work for their shareholders.
No, you entrust every single being to their own welfare. You don't tax them. You don't brainwash them. You don't bribe the wives to kick out the husbands.
> My idea of a handful of experts is reasonable.
Putting enlightened despots and expecting that
>A) they're going to put everyone's well being ahead
>B) they're going to resign
is laughable. Problems we are now are caused by gunpoint. Besides, people are idiots as long as they're paid for remaining such. When their well-being is dependent on their smarts, a lot of them wise-up.
>Without absolute power, nothing can be done.
I would argue the opposite. Absolute power creates resentment, which turns into passive-aggressive sabotage. Free market leads to ambition, creativity, collaboration, clear hierarchies of leadership and self-ownership.
>>70645182
Drawing the line at conception is retarded because there are still so many things that can and do go wrong after conception. If a united egg and sperm are a person and the woman's uterus they're inside of doesn't accept the egg by your definition that would be murder. Miscarriage is now murder. Obviously that makes no sense. Viability is defined by the ability to survive outside the womb. With modern medicine that time is somewhere around 6 months. There's an non-arbitrary time for you.
>>70642681
Not an argument, but good job on first post
>>70646122
What is the Silk Road
>>70646577
Still valid.
>>70646678
Not an argument.
>>70646727
No I meant to make the argument i did make. A morning after pill would be straight up murder, while the accidental ending of a "life" such as through a natural miscarriage would be manslaughter.
>>70647037
a natural miscarriage classed as manslaughter? what next? antibiotics is murder?
I'm tempted to call you mentally dysfunctional for taking that kind of stance.
>>70646833
You are retarded. Murder is a voluntary action.
>>70646122
>Why are roads fundamental to an economy?
1. Travel
It's NOT necessary, but would provide a way for people to get from point A to point B much more quickly. And while a government entity would be inherently less efficient, it would provide an IMPARTIAL (that is, Wal-Mart can't put toll booths so K-Mart trucks can't get through) mode of travel.
>You can't use market/profit arguments for A and not B
That's fundamentally wrong because physical travel is different than other market forces. Keeping a market competitive is part of the idea of having an impartial legal system fundamental to a Libertarian state.
>>70642237
>implement libertarian ideology
>suddenly he is obsolet
>no more money
>has no useful skill set
>muh NAP
>>70647156
Damn roads. How do they work?
>>70646653
>roads already exist
So just to be clear, you are admitting that the government came up with a program, taxed, borrowed, and spent some money, and it wound up being a net positive to the overall economy that you feel should continue? If that's the case, you can no longer use any free market/profit motive arguments, because you've admitted that the government did something right. Your solution, going forward, must be "better government" not "smaller government" in order to stay consistent with your view on roads.
>>70646666
Can you explain? Not sure where I mentioned the human body. I'm also not suggesting that because the government did one thing right (roads) it should do everything. I'm saying that if libertarians admit that the government did one thing right, it must also admit that there's a possibility there's other things it can do right.
>>70646886
?
>>70643785
Why sell the only intersection to a third party?
Roads? Where were going we don't need roads. Fucking libertarians in space nigga
>>70645641
libertarian solution: build a bridge and more roads
That sounds like the mindset of a government with to much money
>>70647156
I'd say the biggest issue is who has a right to pave a collectively worn footpath/dirt road and then charge the persons walking across it?
A group that did so would be inherently staking claim over formerly public land and then denying its use to the public for the sake of individual/intergroup profits against the public's trust.
Creating a system of public roads, paid for by a levy or toll, then is the best method of creating an impartial solution to the dilemma posed by private ownership of roads. And I probably just elaborated your own opinion back to you, sorry.
>>70647241
>Germany creates Socialism
>Slowly destroys European Liberalism
>Creates Communism
>Germany becomes National Socialist
>Starts war
>Gets fucked by Communists it created
>Half Communist
>Becomes Socialist again
>Get invaded by migrants
>Gets fucked
>>70642237
libertarian noborders and nominimumwage are a big part of sustaining a permanent underclass
of course that phrase implies that underclasses are socially constructed and not an inevitable consequence of variability in human genetic potential
>>70647139
If you say life begins at conception, then from the moment of conception that "person " has all the rights of a normal person. Manslaughter is defined as "the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder". It doesn't matter that you didn't want to miscarry, you did, and now a human bean is dead. There are legal consequences for such actions. Now its my turn to call you a moron for not being able to think the ramifications of your stupid ideas all the way through and for not being able to google a definition.
>>70647156
>Why are roads fundamental to an economy?
>1. Travel
But isn't building roads an unfair subsidy by the government to cars and trucks? Why shouldn't roads have to compete on equal footing with trains/subways, boats, and airplanes/helicopters? Isn't the government spending a bunch of money on roads "picking winners and losers" in favor of ground transportation at the expense of the others?
>That's fundamentally wrong because physical travel is different than other market forces. Keeping a market competitive is part of the idea of having an impartial legal system fundamental to a Libertarian state.
But couldn't you also use that same argument to argue for spending on education and healthcare? E.g. if we have more healthy/educated people, we'll be more competitive?
>>70647285
those same people would construct a new state in the wake of a power vacuum created by lolbertarianism/ancap philosophy
how the hell do lolberts even envision the creation of their ideal state, anyway? humons won't stand for it and take any opportunity to gain a monopoly on force
>>70647151
Manslaughter then.
>le retard
Go back to plebbit
>>70647477
>creates communist
stopped reading right there, should have stopped at
>creates socialism
>>70647517
But I don't necessarily support the idea of life at conception. I don't even necessarily support the idea that the idea of life as a thing is a cogent, let alone sound, formation of thought.
>>70643046
>unsheathes katana
>teleports behind your land
>"Heh, nice try capitalist pig"
>lets in all the refugees to destroy your land
>>70647477
Your image is the best anti-libertarian argument in this whole thread. Weak people will join forces in a socialist community and kill the libertarian community easily.
Libertarian and communism have something in common, they both ignore human nature.
>>70642757
Private comanies hired by the State
>>70647652
You've already been shown to be an idiot. So I won't go into why it isn't manslaughter either.
>>70647592
>you might get a state if you try to drastically reduce the power of the state!!
Kind of a self detonating argument
Do you think if the USGOV had no military that China could take over America?
>>70647671
I don't know what to do with the second half of your response and it's off topic so I'm going to neither agree nor disagree.
I also don't support the idea of life at conception, obviously. I guess we're done then.
>Libertarian thread where no one understands economics
The free market doesn't work for roads because they are a public good (more accurately, roads are non-rivalrous, but the term 'public good' is more well-known).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
>>70644410
underrated
>>70647844
Great argument there. Truly reddit tier thinking.
>>70647306
Once again you seem to be mistaking anarcho-capitalism for libertarianism. I don't think anyone would argue that roads are a "waste" of money in that they provide a CLEAR benefit to the free market
>>70642237
>Be free market
>He does not know that the state is the biggest spender in the economy by far
>He does not know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inventions_of_the_Third_Reich
>He does not know that all our developments and inventios come from the military industry, with 100% with gov money, that in other case would have taken decades to come since the profit margin would have been too small
>He does not know that govs makes money to boost the economy by signs a huge amount of contracs with big corporations that in the end of the day move the economy
Face it, the gov is the unlimited stream of fresh cash to the free market, and other ways the economy will freeze, and even if we do it other state economies will overtake us
One sistem as as good as are its components
>>70647475
That's about right, yes.
>>70647585
Yes it is. The reason I said roads is because it's currently the most "personal" mode of travel. With no waiting for public transport. That isn't to say a private enterprise would be forbidden to build trains or planes (and use that inherent efficiency of the market over government to keep prices lower).
>>70647585
>But couldn't you also use that same argument to argue for spending on education and healthcare? E.g. if we have more healthy/educated people, we'll be more competitive?
On one hand, basic reading and math is essential, but trying to make an argument for education past that is tough (especially if you're advocating for free college). Because there's an inherent problem with trying to train people for a job (like a college degree) before the guarantee of employment. Which is why we're seeing the predicament with college grads being unemployed today.
>>70647941
Dude, you don't even know what murder or manslaughter is. Why the fuck would I waste my time?
You literally said a miscarriage would be murder. That's dumb even for /pol/. You should be proud of yourself for being unique. A special snowflake.
>>70644097
> but you cannot be "pro gay marriage" and a libertarian in a world where that REQUIRES you to support a state function which is Not Even Minarchist, thus not libertarian.
I am against the government-enforced institution of marriage. I believe marriage should be a contract between two people where a woman's fertility and fidelity is traded for part of a man's capabilities and resources. Such a contract between men in such an utopia makes no sense, although if they want it anyway, who's to stop them?
But, in the society in which I currently live, I support the government getting his nose out of personal stuff. If you don't like it, refuse to deal with those people, don't use the government's guns to do so.
> Until abortion is correctly identified as murder -- which it absolutely, positively is -- there will never be a valid libertarian position on it.
Well, if you get your emotions out of the way (I know, it's hard), there's no murder until the being reach sapience. Abortion doesn't destroy a being with plans, dreams, projects... only the potential for such a person. One's genetic pool can be done great disservice by forcing the offspring to live, as it is an immense strain on one's ability to care for itself and build a safe environment to care for it.
That said, if you're morally / emotionally against such a course of action, you are completely within your right to shun that person and refuse to deal with him/her, or to offer economical / emotional support FROM YOUR OWN RESOURCES. Just don't force others at gun point. And don't believe you'll be able to do it for everyone without reducing the resources to your own offspring.
Furthermore, if you're such a fuck-up that the offspring you release into the world are at society's great detriment, you should be held responsible and tried in court for the damage they caused and cannot reimburse themselves. Which make your right on their lives that much more essential.
>>70647851
I'm just confused as to how you can apply legalism to a natural biological process.
I understand the literal application of law you're using and agree that it makes sense by the letter, but it's unsound to assume that you can arraign the person for the actions taken by the organ.
In your interpretation, any doctor who loses a patient is culpable for manslaughter, ergo, doctors should not treat patients nor develop any collection of medical knowledge or advice because it would be manslaughter to even suggest a cure or remedy and then have a person follow that advice and then die.
It's a ridiculous extension of litigious thinking that goes beyond sanity.
in a libertarian society the poor would have to work 24/7 to put their kids through middle school and stay alive, due to the privatization of education
>>70647585
>>70648085
As education currently is, I think you could cut it down by 6 years and not have any of the people less "educated" than they are now.
Also, healthcare as we know it is inherently monopolistic. With many attempts at controlling prices by limiting avenues for generic medicines and disallowing competition between hospitals and pharmacies leads to the high prices we see now.
>>70647241
>implement libertarian ideology
>suddenly he is obsolet
Sure, human beings are one-trick ponies unable to adapt!
>>70647736
>Libertarian and communism have something in common, they both ignore human nature.
Libertarian is the ultimate embracing of human nature and natural law
>>70647961
Who gets to decide what does and doesn't provide a "clear" benefit to the free market? Is it you? What if somebody else thinks free college and universal healthcare provide a "clear" benefit, but they don't really care about roads?
Do we have an election about it?
And now you're right back to square one.
>>70647306
As for the human body:
Welfare, which the most contentious related topic today is Healthcare. A bit of a jump I know.
As for recognizing the government's potential for success in other areas, this is why we debate those topics. Being libertarian is a broad term that is generally taken to be distrustful of government, not necessarily fanatically anarchist.
>>70642237
Libertarianism is virulent in 2016 only because of its emotional appeal. Even though its arguments have been time and time again ruthlessly dismantled by every other intellectual movement - be it Right Hegelian NeoCons or the Frankfurt School - it still manages to eek out an existence because it sounss good. The arguments sound good because they appeal to "common sense," but are ultimately lack nuance or coherency.
>>70648123
>literally
Plz stop.
I corrected myself didn't I? The argument was revised to manslaughter. Which google says is "the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder". So are you going to address that point or just keep avoiding it by literally calling me a retard that's literally too stupid to understand the arguments that come from your big idea brain?
>>70648399
the NAP is inconsistent with human nature
>>70648249
then again, what I said can be used to justify a man run amok as being under the natural influence of a haywire fight or flight response and therefore not legally responsible unless we should extend the situation to his failure to remove himself from the cause of his incapacity- unless by physical or social restriction he was unable to without suffering infirmity of the self...
good lord, is this what lawyers do all day?
>>70647468
A libertarian economy will only do this if that's the most cost-efficient way to do so. This will strangulate the reticent owner of one of the roads, forcing it to go into disrepair or being a money drain on its owners.
Free market always find a way.
>>70642681
>>70642705
>>70642757
>>70642966
>>70643046
>>70643133
>>70643310
>>70643441
>>70643472
>>70643490
>>70643651
>>70643911
>>70643917
>>70643933
>>70644147
>>70644192
>>70644283
>>70644611
>>70645230
>>70645996
>>70646118
>>70646122
>>70647484
>>70647592
>>70647736
>>70647934
>>70647982
>>70648263
>>70648435
Not an argument.
>>70644508
Self defense trumps property rights. You can't violate someones rights just because they are on your property.
You are all fucking retarded.
>>70642237
>Libertarianism works
>ignores africa
>ignores warlords
>>70644040
>And I come up to you and say "Wow, you're a big guy!"
FUCK
>>70643162
kek. Funnily enough I saw this earlier today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuyHvaqd3w
It's so surreal, and I can't believe he's running for president.
>>70648505
Explain why basing law on the NAP is against human nature.
>>70642237
>we're not creating a permanent underclass
is this what lolbertarians actually believe
>>70648541
It's an assertion that you have chosen to concede upon.
>>70648585
In some states you can arrest them if the trespass become felonious, however.
Return of feudalism no thanks
>>70642237
>Not being Libertarian
Nationalist..., not being a Libertarian Nationalist. You dropped this.
>>70647934
>Implying roads have infinite capacity and don't wear
What are express/HOV/toll lanes?
>>70648435
It should be debated, you've heard rebuttals to many of your theories, so let's hear a theoretical rebuttal to the theory that "roads provide a clear benefit to the free market"
Likewise, the assertion that higher education and socialized healthcare provides a clear benefit is shaky at best. Hence, it loses the debate.
>>70648444
Yes, I suppose that largely ties into what I'm saying. The normal libertarian argument is that the government can't do anything right and the free market is better, etc. etc. which is fine, but then they make this weird exception for roads, and in doing so, they admit that it is possible for the government to implement a program that benefits us all in the long-run. To me, this naturally leads to the conclusion that there could be other things we should be exploring the government doing, and that "less government" is not always the answer, which more or less abolishes libertarianism as a separate ideology from, say, conservatism. Both want government programs, just different ones.
>>70648399
Sure, tell that to the criminals, maybe they wont rape and kill you.
>>70643310
>>70645258
A third road would be built.
Building roads is guanteed profit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785095/Businessman-built-toll-road-set-make-profit-month-100-000th-car-pays-use-it.html
How can you be so fucking illiterate in economics?
>>70648840
And yet the current direction of public schooling also raises the argument that there are some things the government should probably not be allowed to touch in all but the most extreme situations.
>>70648515
>forcing it
Any form of force is in direct conflict with the NAP
>>70644909
The issue is that the world is the complicated and issues like this will happen. You can't just say "well, it's unlikely to happen so we don't have to address it." That's not how the real world works.
Ayn Rand collected Social Security
In modern society we can either give everyone something that's just ok (I.e. public education), or we can let people fend for themselves which means many will go without altogether.
Personally I still think it's better to try and be universal but you have to somehow limit the scope of such benefits and ensure that they are done as well as they can.
This is the essential goverment ethos of a national socialist regime. I agree with it for the most part but we'd need serious reforms to our institutions to make them work effectively enough.
>>70648974
>two capitalists refusing to interact when necessary for the public good creates the opportunity fora third party to leverage their business into the market and create more diverse competitions
good point
>>70649026
Nice bait.
Force =\ aggression.
>>70649164
Not an argument, and even if it was, it is easily justified.
>>70648701
>muh ebil capitalists steelin money from da poor
Government creates low job opportunities and welfare dependency in exchange for votes.
>>70647982
Wow, your post is retarded.
>He does not know that the state is the biggest spender in the economy by far
It spends money stolen at gunpoint. Money that would've been spent or invested or stashed away.
>He does not know that all our developments and inventios come from the military industry, with 100% with gov money, that in other case would have taken decades to come since the profit margin would have been too small
All developments and inventions? Really?
>He does not know that govs makes money to boost the economy by signs a huge amount of contracs with big corporations that in the end of the day move the economy
Printing money to bribe people into inaction (a.k.a. welfare) doesn't enrich the nation, it only makes the middle class poorer through inflation.
> Face it, the gov is the unlimited stream of fresh cash to the free market, and other ways the economy will freeze, and even if we do it other state economies will overtake us
That which is unlimited is also worthless. Furthermore, if they print enough money for their costs to be higher than the money produced is worth, you reached a limit. If you increase the number of 0s to counterbalance that, people will cease to use your currency and trade with commodities that can't be mass-produced, like gold and silver.
What freezes an economy is replacing one's responsibility to get informed with layers of regulation and protected markets.
>>70649164
why not? they wanted to give it to her, why shouldn't the self-interested person take advantage?
>>70649026
any utilization of social leverage is a form of force, ergo social conflict violates the NAP
>>70642237
Being a Libertarian makes as much sense as being a Communist; both fairy tales based on "what could be" while completely disregarding human nature.
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it by 24 or so.
>>70648974
Nah, this would imply, that you own the land to build a third road. If both parties own the land and nobody is willing to sell their property, than you cant build the third road.
>>70644290
Thanks, i've been looking for this image ;)
>>70649255
semantics, nice try
>>70649344
If welfare is a form of theft then why would you accept stolen goods?
>>70649164
she wasnt a libertarian, though she her work can be considered partly libertarian
Either way, thats not an argument. Its like saying all of Marx work and ideas are moot because he "never had a job" or "leeched off from Engels" or whatever other retardation of this type
>>70648675
different ethnic groups have different basic values
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A
>>70648616
>a GREEK
>knowing anything about economics
Top kek
>>70649360
and who sells the land? the first person to claim it? why are they allowed to claim it
now we need to define the systems and rights of ownership to continue the debate
>>70649436
just because you don't like the food, doesn't mean you must pass up a free meal from an organisation you may have been forced to donate to
it's a non-hypocritical situation, Rand followed her rhetoric of self-interest accurately even if she stooped to collecting welfare while looking down her nose at it
>>70649255
Thank you. Almost replied to his comment.
People don't realize we're slaves, not because of "The Economy", but because, as biological being, we have needs.
You're not forced to work for food/shelter. But death from starvation is a possible consequence of your choice.
>>70648616
True.
We should take a leaf out of your book
>>70649409
No, these words are fundementally different you utter cretin, thus at best your argument was strawman. NAP has nothing to do with force, but how it's applied. The most unimaginably brutal use of force is consistent with a contractual/ free society as is anything that can be contractually agreed upon, to /pol/s delight including völkish ultra-nationalism.
Read hoppe you spineless dodo.
>>70649565
>an AMERICAN
>knowing anything
slip slop tip top flip flop shimizama toppy kekky kek
>>70649472
>http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html
>I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,”
She is so fucking on point, libertarians are the "hippies of the right"
>>70649699
>nature is oppressing us!
>>70648621
>anarchy of sub 70 iq monkeys is libertarianism
>>70649360
Imbecile, you build around the land you cretin, unless the example is two people owning the world, delusional cuckold.
>>70649344
> any utilization of social leverage is a form of force, ergo social conflict violates the NAP
No. It doesn't. While respecting the Non-Aggression Principle you can:
- Refuse to deal with someone
- Refuse to help someone
- Shun someone
>>70649358
Pray, enlighten me, how does egalitarianism disregard human nature?
>>70649832
nasty, brutish, short.
>>70648840
Well the fact they want different government programs points to a fundamentally different approach to governing, which is what makes libertarianism different from conservatism and socialism and so forth. Libertarianism being moral aligned with humanist theory, conservatism with theology and historicism, and socialism with Marxism. Therefore, socialism is only as different from conservatism than libertarianism. If you choose to define those as not seperate, so be it. In a different note, I believe with any functioning society, pragmatism must come before idealogy, which seems to be what you're saying. That being say, when not enough information is available, we must choose a set of ideals to base our decisions off of, and I choose a libertarian set.
>>70649436
Unless you're some poor nigger, you'll pay more in Social Security tax over your working life than you get out of it. She didn't accept any "stolen" money, only took back a portion of the money stolen from her.
>>70649798
And we're destroying it in retaliation with government grants!
>>70648846
>Tell that to criminals
No true criminal would refrain from raping and murdering you.
>>70649897
yes and no, a person suffering complete ostracism from their peers is a person being tortured
what you're talking about, social methods of behavior modification, is a significant form of force
in extremis, the NAP violates itself
>>70650258
didn't Rothbard or whoever justify parents not feeding or caring for their children on this basis?
what a fucking autist
Libertarians are for open boards and welfare so they're already plain liberals.
>>70649832
THe same will happen in your libertarian community, the monkeys will ignore your NAP and turn your community into africa 2.0
>>70650363
Libertarians are for welfare
wew lad
>>70649164
What the tripfag
>>70650406
And what's stopping them now?
How do libertarians/ancaps address the open borders problem and globalization?
>>70649862
So you wanna build a road around the land, maybe hundreads of kilometer longer than the shorter road. Sounds like a great idea . . .
>imbecile, cretin, cuckold
damn you sound like a college philosophy freshman
>>70650538
they say eliminating welfare will restore immigration to its natural balance
one of the reasons I advocate gassing libertarians
>>70649943
>egalitarian
>human nature
egalitariansim has nothing to do with human nature
>>70647844
easily
>>70650538
They don't. The only way to resolve those issues is to make a state with an enforcement branch that will fight to protect your borders.
Dinko can't hold them back alone.
>>70650538
No idea, globalist libertarians are fucking morons.
>>70650563
goddamn that's a perfect flag
>>70650106
duh, libertarian are the communists of the right
>>70643046
This is not a problem with libertarianism specifically, this is a question about property as a concept.
Firstly this is very unlikely to happen, as the people buying/selling the land would be retarded to have it set up like that and the market usually doesn't go full retard when there is a lot of money on the line. Secondly you are imagining that people will not come up with solutions that are peaceful and reasonable, and assume that therefore we need some contrived solution from the government. Pro-tip, people run both land and government, and there is no reason to assume that the state would do a better job coming up with a solution to this problem.
That question is the equivalent of this one:
"If the government has an army, what happens when the president declares war on Colorado? That why we can't have an army!"
You would tell me that was retarded, and not going to happen becuase we wouldn't have a military and president that retarded. I could give the same rebuttal to your question. Hope that helps.
>>70650507
State, police, prison-complex, law, welfare etc
>>70650626
Wouldn't there be less immigrants though if welfare was eliminated?
>>70650723
Aren't all libertarians globalist by definition?
>>70650363
Libertarians for welfare...explain
>>70648501
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
>intentional
>>70650984
I'm a reptilian, not a libertarian, so it doesn't matter.
>>70650683
Lol, no
Have you heard of Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam?
Now imagine a well educated guerilla force with hundreds of thousands of veterans.
>>70650907
>Law, Prisons, and a State wouldn't exist
Do you read what you're typing?
>>70644508
Under libertarianism the guy in the boat has every right to defend himself as the guy who owns the boat invited him on under false pretenses, you don't get to change the terms of a contract, written or not, after the two people have agreed to it.
>>70650984
Possibly, but I'm not interested in a world where the standard of living is equalized
>>70650538
There is no open borders, it's a meme. Can I violate your property rights and contracts?
>no
>libertarians actually believe this
>>70650689
Or.. Pay a company to do it or make an actual social contract that has border clauses via collective ownership. There you go, 4th reich.
>>70651622
Do you mean that the immigration problem would be solved by people on an individual basis, by applying force to those who trespass on their property?
>>70650893
>I could give the same rebuttal to your question. Hope that helps.
Nope, because some people wanna see the world burn. Look at all the socialist/communist countries that are shitholes.
>>70651223
Yep, next time ask a better question
>>70650809
Except that every libertarian diea in application has created success , not failure
>>70650577
So, in this arbitrary example, the lamd owned is hundreds of KM wide? Fine by me.
>so you wanna...
Yes, if there is demand there is demand, you cannot refute this dodo
>>70650258
> yes and no, a person suffering complete ostracism from their peers is a person being tortured
This is still self-inflicted. You either need to avoid such a behavior that causes everyone to ostracize you or leave.
> what you're talking about, social methods of behavior modification, is a significant form of force
Yes, and it is beautiful.
>>70651300
ah, but anon, the contract allows us, the providing party to alter the contract at any point for any reason we deem necessary without any recouse or legal repurcussion, and you, the undersigned have agreed to this provision
>>70650907
>state, police, prisons, courts, military, charity dont exist in a libertarian society
It's not anarchy m8. There are things in between everything and nothing, you know
>>70651908
List some of this "application that created success" - i talk about real life examples and not mental masturbation
>>70651846
If you read what you type and still come up with such asinine sentences you're either a moron or a liberal.
>>70651916
You really believe, that people would take the road that hundreads of kilometer longer? Wasting all the money on oil?
Nice try dodo
>>70651645
What's that? My city's government is so great we use cheap modified pick up trucks. And all it costs are a few dozen lives when it snows.
>>70650538
> How do libertarians/ancaps address the open borders problem and globalization?
By not addressing the matter:
If a sandnigger comes here and threaten the community, he violates the NAP and will be kicked out.
If a sandnigger comes over here and decides to do nothing of his life (like he would on welfare), he dies from starvation.
If a sandnigger come over here, integrates enough our society to be productive, trade what he needs for what he's able to produce, he's not a sandnigger.
The problem is not immigration, the problem is subsidized immigrants.
>>70652287
Nah, you have to reread the conversation, you made a mistake - you must be a liberal, its never your own fault,huh?
>>70651978
again, this works until you're ostracised for not going along with an alternate ideology or for not agreeing to a situation in which your self-interest and the interests of others is distinctly harmed, the NAP begins to break down on itself
at a certain point, to maintain the peace of the NAP's original intent, you are going to be put in situation were force must be utilised to defend your own welfare
I know I'm not explaining this very well, but my core argument is that a total pacifist can be manipulated into harming themselves to maintain unilateral peace. The NAP contains outlier situations in which the NAP itself must be violated to protect its own principles or else be destroyed as a functional social arrangement. The NAP cannot exist as an absolutist system of non-aggression successfully.
>>70650673
You are 100% right. I meant:
>>70649358
Pray, enlighten me, how does libertarianism disregard human nature?
>>70650538
First of all privatizing all land. Then letting people put walls around their property/communities, so you can only enter the "country" by being invited to someone's property or owning property yourself.
>>70649730
top kek
>>70651751
Yes, but that sounds inefficient to me. Or take this example;
Million people own 10,000,000 km square km of land.
As part of a contractual agreement between them, and in time as a prerequisite for owning the land, they have to pay money for common defense of "border land". This is paid to a company who specializes in this or even as part of the contract certain individuals are bound in service to do so. (Aka le nights watch")
Or perhaps something else, a contracts a contract.
>>70652058
>Someone has to pay for it
>Libertarians dont wanna pay taxes
