No political system is without it's flaws, and regrettably it won't be a political powerhouse for the foreseeable future, but...
I think it has it's merits. Your thoughts?
"libertarianism" is a code-word for "Anti-White"
I just think not everything is in perfect balance and eventually one company is going to gain the power to royally fuck everything in its path. I wish we could have one decent government that doesn't turn into shit for once.
>>71124476
great shitpost
>>71124396
> tfw you had so much libertarianism you are missing communism
>>71124396
Just don't call it government!
>>71124476
Used to be libertarian
Now I'm more of a national socialist though not entirely
I'm Hispanic
>>71124636
Son you just leaped the entire political spectrum.
>>71124636
yeah I feel you, my libertarian side is slipping in the face of degeneracy, hispanic here too
>>71124706
just show how bad of a model it is desu
Government has a role an advocate for ordinary people. Libertarianism seeks to undermine regulatory power and reinforce the extant power of businesses. Businesses themselves are generally run top-down and autocratic.
It's an anti-democratic worldview that aims to subjugate ordinary people and remove their freedom.
>>71124706
How so?
I still hold most of the same beliefs i did before
I must admit I was a fedora at the time I was libertarian
Since I've been finding my faith I have moved further to the right
>>71124770
>becoming socialist
Libertarians havent been able to break the "8 Year Rule" for alternating presidents:
Truman (Dem) 8 years. Eisenhower (Rep) 8 years. Kennedy/Johnson (Dem) 8 years. Nixon/Ford (Rep) 8 years. Carter (Dem) blew it and donated his 2nd 4 years to Reagan/GW Bush (Rep) 12 years. Clinton (Dem) 8 years. Bush (Rep) 8 years. Obama (Dem) 8 years. Every 8 years voters elect a janitor from the opposite party to clean up the mess left by the previous one. They never catch on to the fact that both janitors work for the same cruddy company. Since WWII the party controlling the Oval Office changes every 8 years. (Oh, and don't give me that "what about 1980?" junk. That was just "emergency surgery" to remove a bad case of the Malaise. lol)
>>71124396
IF you don't believe in using the government or paying taxes just don't do it. No one fucking cares. You're basically women crying for attention to show how much you don't care.
>>71124997
> how so
>>71124997
Social Issues are meaningless. Who do you want running the economy, the government or the corporate elite?
>>71125089
We are coerced into paying taxes. Don't pay taxes get forced into jail and stripped of your property
>>71125012
He's Hispanic what can you expect?
>>71125089
Troll or female?
>>71124396
Gov't should only do police, military, local roads, justice system and emergency services.
>>71124396
Libertarianism and it's influence is the major reason behind the globalization that will destroy the west. You are a cancer and should be sent to the gulag.
>t. Socialist
>>71124396
I'm okey with Austrian Economics and Milton Friedman thesis. However, when lolbertarians start with TAXATION IS THEFT and MUH MORALS and WHY I AM LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO FEED MY CHILDREN? then this movement goes to the shit
taxation results in having a judicial sustem and infrastructure
>So I'm cool to start a child brothel, an opium den and a hitman service? Don't be a statist.
All politics is barely concealed psychology, which is the depressing thing. Some people, like libertarians, don't give a fuck: they just want to stick to their own things, they don't want to rule anyone and they don't want to rule. Other people have an insatiable desire to rule, to make everyone conform, and stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Other people are extremely self-pitying and resentful of other people, but identify and sympathize with the oppressed strongly.
There's no way to get rid of this without some fascist "destroy everyone with X personality type". Humanity will always be divided and unable to understand each other.
>>71125694
Such oppression we are COERCED not to rape. If we rape we get thrown in prison! Don't tread on me!!
You realize the legal system that makes you pay taxes is the same legal system that defines certain property as private?
>>71125863
Taxation is theft though, because essentially the government is forcing you to buy something, you want it or not.
But that doesn't mean that taxes shouldn't exist, to some extant it is a form of a necessary theft.
>>71125863
Also this:
>be american
>go to life insurance
>I had leukemia when I was 12
>it seems I don't fit in the criterion of the insurance company
Nothing wrong with it, right americans?
>BUT MUH FREE MARKET
I love free market, but there is a thing in europe called "Ordoliberalism" and "social market economy" who solves stuff like this.
Thoughts?
I used to be a libertarian, I grew out of it and am now a liberal. Being a libertarian requires that you don't believe or appreciate what US global hegemony does for the world.
>>71125613
It Depends
In American I would like to see a republic in the way the founding fathers meant it
I think facial would be better but I'm the son of two mexican immigrants
>>71126164
I agree with you. The problem is to determinate what taxes are necessary.
Millitary, Police, Justice, Firefighters, Basic education and Healthcare for the poorest 20%
a lot of copayment, checks that can only be spend in education or healthcare, transparency, free market adjudications, and other incentives to act morally with public money
>>71126441
>>71125613
Fuck sent before I was finished
>but I'm the son of two Mexican immigrants
My family didn't build this country so I don't think it's my place to try to impose a different political system
Tldr I would like to live in nazi Germany ideally but a republic will do
>>71126164
Theft is only possible because there is a government to guarantee property rights. The definition of theft doesn't extend outside of civilization so you can't say 'taxation is theft' because the definition of 'theft' is the legal definition.
Libertarianism has the flaw of being self defeating when given a problem that breaks libertarianism. IE, force has to be applied when contracts are broken, when a transaction or whatever doesn't conform to the free market, etc.
>>71124476
This is where laissez faire capitalism differs from libertarianism. Affirmative action is perfectly acceptable in laissez faire, but in libertarianism it means unequal opportunities and is therefore not a free job market. Libertarianism is anti white if and only if you believe it whites cannot compete equally against those effected by affirmative action.
>>71126817
Ya took the bait
>>71126817
>Libertarianism has the flaw of being self defeating when given a problem that breaks libertarianism. IE, force has to be applied when contracts are broken, when a transaction or whatever doesn't conform to the free market, etc.
Typical Aussie post. Incorrect, fallacious, a strawman and cocky.
Thats not libertarianism you are an idiot
>supports open borders
>worthy of notice
Yeah, no thanks.
>>71126817
>compete equally
By that you mean, compete within an arbitrary set of rules that we pretend are natural.
>>71126477
>Basic education and Healthcare
No if people don't pay for education by themselves it's worthless 90% of time, same with healthcare helping people with cancer is ok but fuck you for making me pay for your nicotine or fat related problems.
>>71126990
Did you have an argument?
>>71127080
Rather without arbitrary rules meant to combat what is natural.
>>71124396
>Being an individualist
>Not understanding that humanity is to stupid to govern itself
>Not being a fascist
>>71127082
>libertarian society
>I am a father
>I don't want to spend money on education for my children
>my son grews up without knowing how to read or do basic maths
>there is absolutely nothing wrong with it
You are a living meme
>>71124396
Because life is ultimately determined by economic relations between the members of a society. A totally libertarian world would end up becoming just like any other political system within the first two generations.
That leaven libertarianism in a severe contradiction. Libertarians are all for individual freedom (obvious) but once the economic relations have been settled, said individual freedom will be stepped on if necessary.
>>71125970
>Not wanting to give the government 50% of your income is literally RAPE
>I need the government to tell me when something I own is something I own
>Sweden
Remember when your country was known for beautiful women and a high quality of life?
>>71127317
>Being a fascist
>suddenly the dictator turns into a crazy assfuck bitch
>he is 100% right
Yeah, nah
>>71127331
No anon they should be bound to educate their children but public education is a fucking joke.
>>71124396
Not initiating force against one another and living peacefully and voluntarily is the only moral political system.
In the long run as religion and other moral systems disappear because of an increase in rationality we'll need secular moral systems in order to function in society and libertarianism will be the obvious choice.
There's no place for big government forcing people to do things in a moral society who wants to eliminate the use of violence against one another.
Reminder that the only economic systems which have empirically been shown to work are right-wing statist-communitarian structures. These structures are defined by an ethic of order and hierarchy (which is right wing) but are also pro-labor in effect; neither anti-labor nor anti-capital.
Japanese War Economy, De Gaullist economy, German National Socialism, Henry Clay's American System, German post-war Ordoliberalism, FDR's New Deal, and others are the only economic systems which are proven to result in creating prosperity for the middle class and enabling of population growth.
Free market capitalism takes credit for all of these systems while actually producing none of their effects. These systems are all defined by: heavy state involvement in the investment process, protectionist / dirigist trade models, negotiations between state, business, and labor, intensive infrastructure spending in transportation, energy, etc.
Capitalism is inherently demand-deficient and needs to be coddled and daddied by a state which places long-term interests over short-term ones.
>>71127317
>Not understanding that humanity is to stupid to govern itself
who will do the ruling, then? is The State God to you?
I just want to see America the way our fore fathers inteded it to be. With freedom #1. And libertarianism is exactly what they had in mind.
>>71126817
Libertarianism is not pacifism.
>>71127545
most humans are to stupid to govern themself.
Not all. But humanity as a whole are.
>>71127317
>people are flawed
>we need flawed people to govern over other flawed people
Oh, let me guess, you want this specific group of people - that coincidentally are not flawed - to govern.
>>71127685
>backpedaling
zozzle
Oh, its a libertarianism thread
>Shit that makes no sense
>Shit that has nothing to do with libertarianism
Every time
The only bitching in this thread that's actually coherent is the fact that libertarian philosophy lends itself to lax immigration laws and globalism, which /pol/ understandably hates.
>>71127266
Yeah, you get it. Force is what is natural and we should avoid it. But the libertarian ruleset is just as arbitrary as the varying degrees of socialism, yet they think they are somehow exempt.
>>71127335
>The Heidelberg group owns the minerals of my country by natural, god-given right.
Stupid libertarian fucksticks when will you realize!
>>71127877
>I don't understand so it doesn't make sense.
Cute
>>71126817
Libertarianism allows for self defence and the defence of ones own property. Contracts can be made up with a clause that if you break the contract you consent to repercussions and 3rd party agencies can enforce those contractual obligations.
Libertarianism is a prerequisite for capitalism, all other political systems confine the free market in some way but libertarianism doesn't.
It's not designed to grant equal opportunities it's designed to allow people to live freely and pursue wealth and happiness free from institutional aggression of others.
Political systems mean nothing. They exist in our mind and are imaginary.
We are ruled by the ones who own the guns and can issue currency.
If someone with more guns and more money takes over, the public submits to them because the new master owns the monopoly on legal violence (police/army) and currency (debt).
The true state of politics is the law of the jungle. Does anyone have the screencap of the Bosnian guy who wrote what happened when society breaks down.
Stop with the sophistry and get real.
>>71127531
My fucking nigga.
>>71127667
>Thinks it has to be all or nothing.
I would consider myself a libertarian, but I am not for removing government. I believe government has its benefits, and is put in place to represent the citizens of its nation. However, I do believe government needs to be reformed. As for corporate freedom, I do believe regulations from the government necessary, as in the past, it has been proven that they cannot function morally without laws. If we did not convict companies of their actions, they'd still be committing their wrongful deeds. Corporations should not have too much power, and neither should government. I don't believe in extremist libertarian ideas, but I can dig most of their policies. We do need a government, just not an overpowered one that doesn't work in the citizen's interest.
>>71127880
This "ruleset" is based from reasoning, observation and is thus almost scientific. Socialism is not as based in reason and that's its current major criticism, it doesn't hold when you start ignoring the appeals for emotion.
This "ruleset" you're talking about are described as "inalienable" in the American constitution. If they can't describe why it goes without saying, fuck you I certainly cannot.
>>71128109
If a free market means equal pricing, and a job market is a type of market, then it's only fair that libertarianism stretches to include equality of opportunities.
Anti aggression is just a by product of capitalism. Disputes can be settled without raising troops.
>>71128306
>If a free market means equal pricing
Why the fuck would you think it means that?
>>71128306
>Libertarianism is science
Oh, I guess I'll take your word for it...
>>71127960
Here, let me explain.
Libertarianism has never been anarchism, or we would just call it anarchism.
Libertarianism believes in government, laws, taxes, and a standing army. Libertarian philosophy is not free from coercion or authority. Most the the variation in libertarians is about how much the government should provide for the general welfare.
For some reason this is the hardest ideology to comprehend, despite pol being 90% libertarian a few years ago.
>>71128424
>A free market contrasts with aregulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry orprice fixing.
From Wikipedia
I would call affirmative action both a market barrier and a form of price fixing, namely that the standards for someone effected negatively is either much higher or impossible.
>>71128533
Against marxism? Against ideologies that are self contradicting? Fuck almost.
Libertarianism is at best a branch of economics that touches politics, it's therefore not a science but still follows reason like other sciences.
>>71127877
>The only bitching in this thread that's actually coherent is the fact that libertarian philosophy lends itself to lax immigration laws and globalism, which /pol/ understandably hates.
No.
Immigrants move to areas that offer the most free stuff, which is why they travelled through most of europe to get to places like Germany and the UK which have massive amounts of socialised healthcare and free stuff.
A libertarian society would be one with tiny government which doesn't hand out welfare and so there would be no incentive for immigrants to move to the area unless they believed they could compete and offer better services for less, which would only benefit that society.
It's governments that cause differentials in power and wealth that create mass immigration to begin with.
>>71128193
>We are ruled by the ones who own the guns and can issue currency.
I mostly agree, but force and economy aren't the only institutions of power. There are social and psychological ways of control.
>Political systems mean nothing. They exist in our mind and are imaginary.
Second part is true, first is not. You underestimate the complexity of the jungle, the fact that people live in political systems shows that they are powerful.
>>71128193
This one?
>>71126817
Shh, we're trying to ignore the contradictions so we can get our taxes down!
>>71128881
OK, and that has nothing to do with a free market being about equal pricing.
The GOAT political philosophy. Humanity has been tending towards libertarianism since the dawn of mankind. We'll throw the shackles of the state and anti-liberty culture in time.
>>71128306
>If a free market means equal pricing, and a job market is a type of market, then it's only fair that libertarianism stretches to include equality of opportunities.
It doesn't nor has ever meant that. Free markets mean markets that are free of aggression, it means that contracts between people are only ever made voluntarily and outside of coercion. That requires that the state cannot get involved in private transactions, they're not allowed to interfere in any way.
>>71128306
>This "ruleset" is based from reasoning, observation and is thus almost scientific.
Without gathering data and controlled experiments, there is no science taking place. It's just a brand of reason.
>Socialism is not as based in reason and that's its current major criticism, it doesn't hold when you start ignoring the appeals for emotion.
I think socialism is retarded but it's still only retarded with your brand of reason.
>>71128306
>If a free market means equal pricing, and a job market is a type of market, then it's only fair that libertarianism stretches to include equality of opportunities.
What?
>Anti aggression is just a by product of capitalism. Disputes can be settled without raising troops.
What?
>>71127960
Do you see what I mean now?
>>71128881
>Libertarianism is at best a branch of economics that touches politics
no
Libertarianism is a value system. Economics is a study. Know the difference.
>>71128797
I'm hardly knowledgeable on this, but would libertarianism be to anarchism is what socialism is to communism?
it's a con party where poor people are paid to steal votes from republicans
>>71128797
The problem is that people who argue for libertarianism think they can get away with 'muh rights'.
When really they have to argue for utility and justice like anyone else.
>>71128881
Libertarianism fails to provide evidence of it's utility. Why should I believe that the market regulates itself, and by what principles does it regulate itself?
What makes libertarianism better than the prevailing doctrine of regulated capitalism?
What, so we understand the market enough to know it's super fair and great, but not enough to regulate it intelligently?
>>71128293
we are one and the same
Libertarianism is a cuck alternative party where they channel dissatisfaction into an explicitly pro-open borders agenda.
Everything else is irrelevant, the libertarian wants the west to become the third world. For that, fuck em.
>>71129578
If you're only comparing them in terms of how extreme they are, sure
Well maybe more than that. Both Anarchism and Communism strive for completely decentralized control, libertarianism and socialism don't.
>>71124396
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda
>>71128967
>This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the work force, ultimately affecting thefree market.
Also from Wikipedia article on affirmative action. It really is against the free market, it should be illegal to prefer anyone based on any characteristic that doesn't intrinsically impact their ability to work.
>>71129158
Would you call naming and shaming a company that wasn't diverse a form of aggression?
>That requires that the state cannot get involved in private transactions, they're not allowed to interfere in any way.
Again, government intervention is required to enforce a free market. Libertarianism is not laissez faire capitalism.
>>71129266
>What?
You are not intelligent enough to form coherent arguments, you are not intelligent enough to warrant a response.
>>71129390
I guess.
But the best libertarian minds are professors of economics, the best socialist minds are professors of sociology. Which one is relatively closer to reason?
>>71129604
>Libertarianism fails to provide evidence of it's utility.
As opposed to socialism, which has provided evidence to its destruction.
>Why should I believe that the market regulates itself, and by what principles does it regulate itself
Because competition is a productivity maximiser.
>What makes libertarianism better than the prevailing doctrine of regulated capitalism?
Actually, I'd argue current capitalism isn't regulated enough.
>What, so we understand the market enough to know it's super fair and great, but not enough to regulate it intelligently?
The market isn't super fair. That's the point. To get off the affirmative action shit, something like bank lending is also dreadfully one sided and requires regulations to become more fair and resist things like debt caused bubbles.
Libertarianism is like national socialism in that it would have to be implemented in a country with a fairly intelligent, largely homogeneous population.
>>71129266
>Do you see what I mean now?
Regarding the mental faculties of some posters in this thread? Maybe so.
>>71129604
>Why should I believe that the market regulates itself, and by what principles does it regulate itself?
>What, so we understand the market enough to know it's super fair and great, but not enough to regulate it intelligently?
Not sure if you're asking about only free markets up to libertarian standard with practically no regulations, but markets are the most efficient economic system in general. This is all thanks to the price system, and no individual or group is capable of judging prices better than a free market. This is why the most successful countries that call themselves socialists still rely on markets for most economic activity.
you don't build a better world with a political ideology that works best for sociopaths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
>>71124396
lolbertarian plotting to leave us alone...
....so that everyone EXCEPT the government is free to exploit the weak and vulnerable
>>71129869
>You are not intelligent enough to form coherent arguments, you are not intelligent enough to warrant a response.
I didn't make an argument. I either didn't understand your statement or I rejected the premise. Rephrase it if you still care.
>But the best libertarian minds are professors of economics, the best socialist minds are professors of sociology. Which one is relatively closer to reason?
Most professors of economics are neither libertarian or socialists. If this was a metric to how "reasonable" an ideology is, you'd dump libertarianism and go to New Keynesianism
>>71129869
>Would you call naming and shaming a company that wasn't diverse a form of aggression?
Nope.
Aggression with regards to the NAP which is often used by libertarians is typically defined as physical violence, coercion (basically threats of violence) and fraud.
Certain circumstances gaining someones custom by lying to them by spreading rumours about how bad competition would be arguably seen as defrauding someone, but that would be taken up between the person defrauding and the victim of the fraud, and not the person/company being lied about.
>Again, government intervention is required to enforce a free market. Libertarianism is not laissez faire capitalism.
Absolutely wrong. There's absolutely nothing to stop enforcement of a free market itself being a free market of competing businesses that enforce laws in exchange for money. People have talked at length about this often referred to as dispute resolution agencies or something similar.
There's no reason why things such as dispute resolution cannot also be a free market entity and people like David Friedman have proposed the basis for these ideas. He has loads of free talks and free books on the matter.
But more generally the state isn't fundamentally needed for anything, you can turn any system the state provides into a free market including law making, law enforcement, etc.
Who builds the roads?
>>71130514
I guess going to court and just paying for a favorable verdict isn't too much different than what we have right now.
>>71129804
>libertarians are cucks
>This is why I vote for the conservative party of Canada, who opens the door to immigration and pretends to be right wing.
Guys check out this new Trump video "The Evolution of Donald J Trump" it's super short and its good. Wach it now!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofZsphTPf-U
>>71130514
There isn't a bright line between government and not government. A corporation or a family has a governing structure.
>>71124580
but still nobody has liberated you from cleaning the toilet
>>71129869
>something like bank lending is also dreadfully one sided and requires regulations to become more fair and resist things like debt caused bubbles.
The lending side of the economic crisis was caused by the government. They forced banks to lower their standards and lend to people who couldn't pay it back.
What needs a look at is how the bond rating agencies falsely rated mortgage-back securities. Banks could lend to people who couldn't pay it back, accumulating risk, then sell it off to someone else who had no idea it was garbage because of the good rating.
>>71130237
>but markets are the most efficient economic system in general.
To know what is efficient you must have some idea about what is sufficient. And that is a human judgement.
We go above the point of sufficiency when the market forces become capable of engineering demand, something that they have every incentive to do.
Meanwhile there lots of human incentives, that there is no market incentive to match.
And so we end up in a situation where we exhaust resources for ends that are completely undignified. Going through fossil fuels accumulated over millions of years to make quadrocopters and nuclear missiles that hopefully will never be used.
>>71130985
The government mandated subprime loans accounted for 1/5th or the total number. Government wasn't the only problem.
>>71124396
I'm a libertarian. As a movement we need to become realists about race and borders. I'm disappointed that too many leftists have infiltrated us and seem to have the loudest voices/tantrums.
>>71130627
>I guess going to court and just paying for a favorable verdict isn't too much different than what we have right now.
Except that no one would use a court in a free market of courts which didn't provide what was considered a fair outcome.
See this is the benefit of a free market over a regulated statist one. The state can be bought and paid for by the highest bidder and because they maintain rule through force they can keep that monopoly.
Where as a free market system people get to pick and choose between things like courts and dispute resolution agencies and since they're businesses who want to make money they have to attract customers by providing them with what they want, which is things like fair and impartial trials.
No one is going to use a court system that they believe is being bought off and the option is to go to a better one. Thus the bad businesses go under the better ones thrive and we get a fair system that involves choice and consent. Compared to a corrupt government court system which you have no alternative too, has no reason to improve its services because is never threatened by competition and you are forced with violence or coercion to use.
>>71131101
Yeah that's what my second sentence is for
If those securities had been rated correctly, their price would be correct, people wouldn't buy them, and banks wouldn't lend to broke people knowing they wouldn't get paid back.
libertarians yammering on about every man for themselves and free market fairytales
you ever hear them talking about the real world?
>>71130888
>There isn't a bright line between government and not government. A corporation or a family has a governing structure.
The line is voluntrism. A corporation is joined voluntarily and you agree between you and the corporation to terms of employment and you enter that structure with consent.
A government you don't consent to, they rule through force.
>>71130374
>you don't build a better world with a political ideology that works best for sociopaths
Sociopaths can exploit just about any government under any ideology they want. Communism was thought to be compassionate and humane, until Stalin showed up.
>HA! JOKES ON YOU I'M NATIONAL SOCIALIST
So is Cuba.
>>71131154
>Where as a free market system people get to pick and choose between things like courts and dispute resolution agencies
What if the offending party just says fuck you and won't go to this private court?
>>71131126
>letting racist stormfaggots on a Korean box sledding forum influence your views.
>>71130514
Eek machinery of freedom.
"Right enforcement agencies" had only just stopped giving me nightmares, thanks for that buddy. No seriously, what a fucked up idea, there is no way a group with no official accountability could be trusted to treat people (besides their clients) fairly. Bouncers are great examples, they're horrible.
And if fraud is considered aggression, then a social media campaign against a company that employed a man who made a "dongle" joke is clearly aggression as well. Whatever the reasoning, there is coercion towards practices that are not align with the free market and a currently existing mechanism has to stop it.
>>71130508
You're a tool, Keynesianism isn't a political philosophy.
>>71130985
>>71131101
There are debt problems outside of America you know. Besides, I'd never disagree that governments can cause debt problems, just that the deception surrounding it and other colluderism and bad things are bad and that bad things require something... Bad... To stop it.
Fuck you, impeach the politicians and imprison the bankers.
>>71131289
Well, working when you need money to eat isn't exactly voluntary.
It seems to me that the dividing line is democracy. You have the legal right to representation in government, the same is not true for a corporation.
>>71130501
>waaah I'm a pussy
>daddy gov! PLEASE HELP MEEEEE!
>>71124396
The end goal of libertarianism is anarchy, don't fall prey to the appeals of a flawed system
>>71131607
>end goal
Libertarians reject utopian ideologies. We understand the world is a flawed place and that the core functions of government will always be necessary (police and military). Don't fall prey to people like this ignoramus.
>>71131228
If the private actors were smart enough to look beyond the AAA ratings of the faulty derivatives they wouldn't have gotten into trouble. There was a breakdown in communication between the CEOs and the risk analysts. Risk analysts understood that the derivatives were priced incorrectly and of systemic risk of devaluation when the underlying loans went belly up but the CEOs did not act on this knowledge at a number of large firms. There was failure in the private sector as well.
>>71130985
The problem was with the bailout, these corporations were considered too big to fail and so when they crashed and burned the government wanted to protect the banks and desposits of people, THAT was the mistake.
What should have occured is that these banks were left to fail and the deposits forfeit. What that does is it causes people who deposit money into banks more weary of how that bank behaves and that creates a market for safer lending and more responsible banks.
What people have to realise is that you're responsible for your actions, if you deposit into a bank who is acting irresponsibly with your money then that's a risk you accept when you sign a contract with them.
Letting the banks and all these systems fail would have instantly re-adjusted the entire market to be safer and better for consumers, but it requries lazy and stupid people getting stung by their irresponsible actions first to cause that re-adjustment.
>>71131607
>The end goal of libertarianism is anarchy
The road to anarchy is increased corporate hegemony? How does that work?
>>71130935
And no one has liberated you from shit-filled streets. What's your point?
>>71124636
same and I'm Hispanic too lmao
>>71131466
>You're a tool, Keynesianism isn't a political philosophy.
Yeah but it's not compatible with libertarianism, the point still stands. You said that libertarianism was more reasonable than socialism because you think libertarian authorities are more qualified. If you kept going instead of stopping there, why shouldn't you adopt the positions of an even larger group of qualified authorities like new keynesianism?
TLDR: It's an appeal to authority and a bad argument
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
>>71131289
My unspoken point is that if you destroy government which rules through force, private actors will fill the hole. Modern governments are the evolutionary result of thousands of years of history and stuggle to relieve the problems that come from government by voluntary association or subjagation.
>>71131821
You do know what would happen if the banks weren't bailed out?
>>71130935
We clean our toilets because we actually use them Pajeet.
Try it sometime.
>>71124396
I disprove of it.
>>71131821
Point 1: the firms that were saved were sold at a small percentage of their original value, something like 3%. the equity holders were all but wiped out.
Point 2: if the government did nothing more banks would close their doors and access to money in the form of loans would collapse and therefore so would the money supply. The fed doesn't have the tools to get money into the economy without branch banks. We needed the bailout to avoid a full blown depression.
when will libertarians start talking about the real world?
who here /roadposting/?
>>71131847
The libertarian doesn't understand that government by corporation is still government.
>>71131607
lolwut. Libertarians still support strong national government as long as they are restricted the core necessities I.e. national defense and national Infrastructure being the defining point, while individual states maintain police forces and infrastructure.
>>71131419
>What if the offending party just says fuck you and won't go to this private court?
Then either you can go resolve it yourself directly with them or which ever dispute resolution agency you have a contract with to resolve your disputes would be contracted to go and do it for you, using force if necessary.
Likely that the offending party also has the same kind of contract to resolve disputes and so instead of the 2 agencies fighting (which costs more) they'd arbitrate between themselves for a solution which was fair and likely hand off judgement to a 3rd party impartial court that they both trust.
This kind of thing has been proposed already, as i said before David Friedman has outlined how this would be possible, this talk is really good I think the free market law stuff is somewhere around the 40m+ mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxGXcmr4ig
>>71131466
>there is no way a group with no official accountability could be trusted to treat people (besides their clients) fairly
Hahaha what like the government? Listen to yourself for a second.
Yes it's interests to treat their clients fairly and resolve disputes fairly because that's what the market demands, the market demands fair arbitration and so in a free market of different ways of doing it people will flock to the fairest.
>>71131547
>Well, working when you need money to eat isn't exactly voluntary.
Sure it is. Just because you have a requirement to eat doesn't mean you don't have a choice, you could decide to steal food or go hungry or grow your own or buy some using money. That's a voluntary choice.
>>71131547
>It seems to me that the dividing line is democracy. You have the legal right to representation in government, the same is not true for a corporation.
No the dividing line is consent, I don't consent to a government or taxes or any of that, and their response is "do what we say or we'll put you in jail". A business response is "Ok we wont do business then".
>>71132863
There are some really cooky libertarians out there who believe everything can be left to voluntarily association and that the state of nature is a desirable state of the world.
>>71126754
>Theft isn't theft because I'm using a more recent definition of theft.
>>71132863
Why do libertarians support national infrastucure and defense be handled by the gov?
>>71132958
A business response in a world without government is something straight out of a mafia movie.
>>71130706
I like it anon!
libertarians are all about the rich's freedom to stick it to the rest of us
http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=trump-organization
a gift. more then most ppl will make in their life time
This is just a phase for (American) /pol/. This board will be staunchly libertarian again within a year and vehemently deny they ever supported Trump, book it.
Libertarian here and I just want to be left alone.
>>71132958
>grow your own
I always forget that libertarians believe basic resources like arable land are infinite.
>>71132820
Libertarianism does understand that a government run by the people is the ideal system for every individual.
>>71133102
Specialization. Efficiency. If a couple of super wealthy merchants decided to throw money in a pot for an army it's not really as a effective as an organization who's sole focus and purpose is to fight enemies of the state and maintain and build infrastructure.
Current governments become so fucking bloated they're inefficient and useless at just about everything.
>>71132235
Yes private actions will rush to fill the holes of providing services to people that the government once provided, and they will compete with each other to offer the best service they can to win your business which means offering people things they actually want, services that are fair and in the consumers interest.
>>71132347
>You do know what would happen if the banks weren't bailed out?
Yes lots of people who voluntarily made contracts with banks would lose their deposits and that bank would fold and go under, and all the banks that didn't risk investors cash in bad loans would take up lots of new business.
Bad businesses go under and good ones thrive, all the people at the bank that made bad decisions are going to lose their business and their jobs.
Everyone is held accountable for their actions.
In a bail out situation the government pays for the cost of the lost deposits, no one changes their behaviour, the bosses get bigger bonuses and the acknowledgement they can just do it again safe in the knowledge the government will buy them out and nothing changes.
Meanwhile the people who pay tax are robbed of money at the threat of violence to pay for everyone elses stupid mistakes and perpetual cycle of stupidity where no one is held accountable.
>>71133292
Tell that to the slaves
800 military bases around the world
another business subsidy
>>71133699
but YOU have to go back
>>71133450
Slaves were in charge of their own lives?
>pro open borders
What you're forgetting is that we also want to remove welfare so that eliminates about 90% of people wanting to come here.
>>71133446
>Yes private actions will rush to fill the holes of providing services to people that the government once provided, and they will compete with each other to offer the best service they can
OK so Viking Incorporated which runs a looting businesses tries to best my lord who is middle management in a personal defense business. I'm still a serf with no possibility of economic or personal advancement because the CEO of the company has decided that I am tied to my lords land for an extended term by virtue of birth. How is this a good thing?
>>71133206
paultards wandering off the reservation
>>71133360
So you guys admit that government is more efficient at handling the army, roads, justice (?). So why do you guys think the state is not more efficient at handling education, healthcare...
>>71133105
>A business response in a world without government is something straight out of a mafia movie.
Nope because a world like that means that they create a demand for safety from coercion and businesses who want to earn money legitimately in the long run crop up to protect peoples property and rights, so people just pick from the many different protection agencies who all compete with one another and pick the one which best suits their interests and they stamp out mafia style operations.
Markets thrive on good returns on investment and the most expensive way of solving problems is with violence, it's hugely more expensive for businesses to fight each other than to simply come to peaceful agreements and if the motivation is money then theres motivation to solve things without violence. Long term reliable and trustworthy arragenments produce mroe value in the long run that decietful and violent ones which is why the mafia was dismantled.
Having no government does not mean the services they provide suddenly disappear in a poof of smoke, if there's money to be made by replacing them with something better then that's what happens except what is replaced with is a market of choice rather than a monopoly.
>>71133912
Crime pays better in America then Mexico and Nigeria
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare
>>71133835
They were until someone captured them and sold them into slavery. Self government is not enough without overwhelming force backing it.
Another single post thread by OP, who then immediately abandons thread.
Over 150 replies so far for nearly three hours.
>>71124396
>Libtardtarians
> has "merits"
nope.mkv
>hard mode: you should have listed those "merits" in the OP.
OP is a raging cumqueen amongst faggots.
>>71126990
This.
>>71126817
You're such a dumb fucking faggot. Go read a book and then please kill yourself.
>>71134148
>Nope because a world like that means that they create a demand for safety from coercion and businesses who want to earn money legitimately in the long run crop up to protect peoples property and rights, so people just pick from the many different protection agencies who all compete with one another and pick the one which best suits their interests and they stamp out mafia style operations.
And if the protection agencies allied and extorted the people?
It's not a far featched cenario.
> it's hugely more expensive for businesses to fight each other than to simply come to peaceful agreements
i.e. monopoly or oligopoly
>Long term reliable and trustworthy arragenments produce mroe value in the long run that decietful and violent ones which is why the mafia was dismantled.
i.e. monopoly of force
>Having no government does not mean the services they provide suddenly disappear in a poof of smoke, if there's money to be made by replacing them with something better
And if it's not better but still essential?
Thanks, i've never seen such a good libertarian refutation post
http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/chiles-plantation-economy/
>>71134118
Education is brainwashing when in the hands of the government. Always is, always has been. This is to be avoided.
Healthcare is just a subset of business. This is like asking why wouldn't government be more efficient at handling agriculture or Luxury goods. It takes the power of commerce away from the people into the hands of a few who never earned it. It's theft.
Not that healthcare isn't a bit of a grey area, however.
>>71134584
When lacking in pertinent arguments one must always resort to the mother of all poor debatind skills. Ad hominem attacks.
>>71128941
Not comparable to Libertarianism. That is a situation where people are blockaded into a resource-scarce environment. Of course they're going to fight over resources because there isn't enough to sustain them. Its an artificial situation.
>>71134848
a libertarians success fairytale
It's just polite anarchism until it turns into regular anarchy. It's a joke.
How's Sharia Law under Libertarian society?
>>71134148
Point 1: A world where thieves are on equal footing with good people encourages thievery and requires good people to divert money from more productive areas in order to protect their property.
Point 2: Organized crime still exists despite national initiatives to take the crime cartels down. Look at Mexico. There are towns and localities which are run by drug cartels because drug running is profitable.
Your picture of the world makes no distinction between choice worthy behavior and blameworthy behavior, as if the theif or drug dealer is as just as the factory worker who created something that benefits us all.
>>71134584
>American debating ability
No quick in breaths?
>>71134688
Again it's a case of demand, if you earn or own something valuable and you pay someone to protect you in a free market of protection agencies and they decide to gang together to extort you. Then that just creates further demand in the market for protect from extortion. People would stop paying those extorting them and instead give that money to a different protection agency who actually provide the service you want.
The fundamental thing here is that whatever there is a demand for in the free market, be that protection from violence or against fire, against risk or anything like that, demand for such things creates supply and those creating supply have to innovate and provide you with a good service to retain your business.
There's also a strong moral component here, mafia style operations require materials, men, guns, ammunition etc, and those things are provided by other businesses or transactions and no one is going to voluntarily transact with a business like that who threats the general shared well being.
>>71134688
>And if it's not better but still essential?
Well it's hard to imagine something the government does better, you only need look at what people with money do, they don't use public healthcare they go private, they don't use public schools they go private, they don't rely on government provided fire fighters they install sprinkler systems, they don't rely on police they get private security firms, etc.
>>71134889
>Education is brainwashing when in the hands of the government.
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#education
>Healthcare is just a subset of business.
And roads aren't?
>>71135039
1) Sure, in a world where there's evil people who lack empathy you have violence and crime and all sorts of things that require people to dirvert money for protection.
That's true with or without libertarianism except with the state you get 1 option which is the police and they have no incentive to do a good job because they get paid and you get taxed whether they do a good job or a fair job.
I dont support BLM but take that as an example, what can they do really, lobby government, vote for someone to reform the police who has no obligation to do so? In a private police system if the police service they paid money into was shooting black kids in the head unjustly they could simply stop paying them and pay another business and if everyone does that then police shooting people are going to go bust and the better services are going to win the business of the people.
2) Organised crime exists with or without government, the question is what is better at prevention. Is it the police force who have no resaon to improve becaue government simply pays them regardless of performance. What about a free market, well take a look at smart phones which come encrypted and with remote wipe, impossible to sell on and so are pointless stealing, or private security firms who can install alarm systems and offer services for protection. Or banks which innovate for your business by offering secure transactions, SSL tunneling for banking online, and all that good stuff.
The free market is better at solving problems because it has to be otherwise businesses go under, there is no competition for government services because they're monopolies maintained with force (pay your taxes or go to jail) and so will never be able to beat the free market in solving problems that there's a demand to solve.
>>71135610
>People would stop paying those extorting them
And would get shot. Do you understand what is extorting?
> different protection agency who actually provide the service you want.
And if there aren't any? Would the protection agency go to war to save you from the extorting one?
>The fundamental thing here is that whatever there is a demand for in the free market, be that protection from violence or against fire, against risk or anything like that, demand for such things creates supply and those creating supply have to innovate and provide you with a good service to retain your business.
Fairytales. The world is not that linear. Once you grow up you will know it.
>There's also a strong moral component here, mafia style operations require materials, men, guns, ammunition etc, and those things are provided by other businesses or transactions and no one is going to voluntarily transact with a business like that who threats the general shared well being.
Why wouldn't they?
>>71124396
The freer the market the freer the people.
where do libertarians get their wonderful ideas?
>>71136229
>Do you understand what is extorting?
portugal I know you don't have any guns, but it is YOU that does not understand extortion
its like you got stuck halfway and can only imagine a world of infinite extortion, instead of a rapidly changing market reacting to the events taking place
kek
>>71135933
>http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#education
I didn't argue whether it was effective in teaching but that it is abused by the government for brainwashing purposes. Don't move goalposts.
Infrastructure is a special case in that without it business is severely hampered if not impossible depending on the context. Getting that shit done without regards to economic viability at the time is too important. Also everyone makes use of infrastructure. Everyone drives on roads. Everyone walks on sidewalks. Everyone uses it. So everyone pays a tax for it.
Agriculture simply works best as free market enterprise. All historical state run agriculture examples turns to shit.
>>71135933
The guy you're speaking to doesn't know what he's talking about.
Governments are good at militaries and law enforcement because they have the monopoly of force that prevents us from settling disputes as they do in the Chicago ghetto. Their power discourages bad actors which frees up labor to create rather than maintain property.
Effective road systems require the emenient domain power to prevent hold outs that would impede the creation of the system. As taking is fundamentally coercive its must be done by government. As virtuous government doesn't transfer property from one person to another except as a remedy for private ills, government mist then own and maintain the roads.
There is no reason for healthcare or education under the libertarian theory. The purpose of public healthcare and education is to ensure equal access to these services that are not necessarily public.
>>71136533
because giving the goose that lays the golden eggs to the rich is what socialism is all about
>>71136229
>And would get shot. Do you understand what is extorting?
>And if there aren't any? Would the protection agency go to war to save you from the extorting one?
As I said free market where there's demand there's supply. If somehow we live in this dystopian future where everyone has turned evil and massive amounts of people are extorting a few high earners then there's always going to be people willing to offer protection for a price and if you want to win the business of people you have to be prepared to protect them.
The system of violent leeching only works when the people being leeched off are producing enough themselves to keep the leechers rich, so to some extent a violent dystopian future like that just has to be rejected as implausible. And yes look historically at the mafia in places like america, the vast majority of the fighting and violence was between competing mafias and not against civilians.
>Fairytales. The world is not that linear. Once you grow up you will know it.
What does linearity have to do with this discussion, you're dismissing things without making a case now.
>Why wouldn't they?
Why would people hand over tools and materials to a gang of thugs who are threatening people and who would almost certainly threaten you? Er...do you really need me to answer that?
>>71124396
To be honest, you're right.
Pic related, it's me.
>>71136672
sure m8
>>71136695
>I didn't argue whether it was effective in teaching but that it is abused by the government for brainwashing purposes.
Read the whole thing. I don't think we are being brainwashed in math lessons.
And private education could be used to brainwash, i.e. a commie could send his kids to commie schools.
>Infrastructure is a special case
You could argue that healthcare is a special case, since dead/unhealthy workers don't produce. You could argue the same with education, since educated workers are vital to our economy. Everyone uses education/healthcare. But you and i both know that gov should retain those responsabilities because they are more efficient then a free market.
so lets see
libertarian ideology looks sociopathic >>71129842
and their policy ideas come from hitler
>>71136533
what could go wrong?
>>71136760
So the Gov is more efficient at doing those things riight? So what happens to the idea that free market is more efficient then gov?
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_libertarian_vacation_nightmare_how_ayn_rand_ron_paul_their_groupies_were_all_debunked/
>>71137725
>>71137852
So, any major American city?
>>71136988
>everyone has turned evil
You are a kid. You will soon find out that most people are shit. When faced with a you vs me, most will always pick the me.
>massive amounts of people are extorting a few high earners then there's always going to be people willing to offer protection for a price
No, what if those "protection agencies" turned rogue? What stops them in a libertarian society?
>The system of violent leeching only works when the people being leeched off are producing enough themselves to keep the leechers rich, so to some extent a violent dystopian future like that just has to be rejected as implausible.
Rejected because?
>And yes look historically at the mafia in places like america, the vast majority of the fighting and violence was between competing mafias and not against civilians.
Wars betwen the mafia were rare, because war was bad for bussiness. It wasn't good to kill civilians because it was bad for bussiness. But extortion existed. Torture existed. Corruption existed. They were only breaked up by massive gov operations. Because they were wildly profitable
>What does linearity have to do with this discussion, you're dismissing things without making a case now.
You are the one giving simple answers of how the world works. It doesn't work that way.
>Why would people hand over tools and materials to a gang of thugs
Because they need to make bussiness. And if hey were actually asked to why they sell, they would claim ignorance. Simple. It's how they do nowadays.
>who would almost certainly threaten you?
Gangs don't threaten their arms suppliers r drug suppliers
You have a very simple vision of the world mate. Here is this case: You have 2 boxes of cereals. Box A is 50 cents, Box B is 80 cents. Both have the same taste. The A box is notorious for paying hios workers shit wages and engaging in dubious corporate practices. Box B is made by a good company, the opposite of Box A company. Wich box of cereals would you choose?
>>71136988
(Cont)
And i am assuming you are a informed consumer, a thing very few are
>>71124396
Literall cancer only thing qorse is anarcho capitalism
>>71137852
Sounds like Victorian England.
Who'd have thought.
muh economic freeydom
>>71137352
The notion the market is more "efficient" bullshit. It's a circular argument.
"Efficiency" is defined by the market so no matter the outcome of market transactions the result will always be the most "efficient." Millions of people might starve to death, but, if it was the result of market forces, that was the most efficient outcome.
Free market bullshit is bullshit.
>>71138597
Exactly. They call communists and socialist delusional and then cling to a ideology that never left books and very flawed trains of thoughts (I'm not commie)
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/3_inconvenient_facts_that_make_libertarians_heads_explode_partner/
>>71137352
Markets are good at providing private goods and governments are good at providing public goods.
>>71138597
Efficiency is defined by the individuals that use the service.
>>71138881
>>71138881
I'm not a Commie either, comrade. I'm a Democratic Socialist. The left needs to forgets its differences and unite to overthrow the Neoliberal hegemony.
Cultural Capitalism is overwelming, it poisons people's minds.
>>71138986
The US is also a country where 75% of households are in the top 1% in terms of world income.
>>71139180
What is the border? Where are healthcare and education? WHo defines what are "public goods" and "pricate goods"?
You do know what is private and public? Private means it is in the hands of a private individual, public means it's in the hands of the people, or state. Reread your sentence and see if it makes sense
>>71139185
"Efficiency" is defined by the market. This is why markets are forever "correcting" as market conditions change. In other words, markets are perpetually wrong.
>>71139502
Public goods are goods that cannot be provided by private sector and benefit the whole of the public.
Law
Police
Military
Roads
Courts
Etc.
These are public goods.
>>71139424
they're rich because everyone has a smart phone and refrigerator
>>71139382
Me too mate. Your pic related sounds like a great guy.
>>71139424
I am pretty sure the same can be said about germany, luxembourg, UK... It's misleading statistics. Your homeless problem is not a big deal, isn't it?
>>71139502
Healthcare and education can be provided privately therefore they are not public goods under the libertarian theory.
>>71138213
You are a kid. You will soon find out that most people are shit. When faced with a you vs me, most will always pick the me.
I'm 32 and already an IT Director in a competitive online digital media business, I know how the free market works I battle in it every day. Everyone is self interested you're right so you need to pay people to motivate them to do things for you. That gives you a very functional free market but apply the same human nature to government and what you get is a terrible mess.
>No, what if those "protection agencies" turned rogue? What stops them in a libertarian society?
Already answered this if there's a demand for something in a free market someone will come to fill that demand. If you want to buy protection from something then someone will offer you that service. But as always consider the alernative in this situation where a government controled agency like the police go rogue or start acting in bad faith what option do you have? You can't stop paying your tax you'll be hauled off to jail.
>They were only breaked up by massive gov operations.
They were also caused by government banning the production and sale of certain goods which would be a private matter in a libertarian society so there would really be no demand for a mafia. Again economically it's just bad business to use violence to solve problems its better for both parties involved that disputes are solved with negotiation rather than violence because violence is a net loss. That's why the mafias used such little force against actual businesses, every shop they burned down was 1 less thing to collect on.
I can't comment on the linearity thing I only know the technical sense of the word I don't know what you're trying to say.
As long as workers are paid with a voluntary agreement and not coerced into working that wouldn't bother me, depends what dubious corporate pracitces are, if they break the NAP then I'd choose Box B out of principle.
>>71139762
>that cannot be provided by private sector and benefit the whole of the public.
i.e. the gov does it more efficiently? So what happens to your axiom that markets are more efficient then gov?
>>71134966
Resources are scare anon did you skip economics class? Every countrey is blockaded territory with limited resources.
>>71139583
If customers aren't satisfied by a service they will no longer use the service provided by that company. I'm not sure about your "millions of people starving to death" example since that has only happened in socialist countries, but a company HAS to be efficient in order to keep existing.
>>71125970
You had to be a swedish faggot. Rape is the initiation of force, so it's okay to coerce someone not to rape because they're initiating force (coercing).
Swedish retard, go learn what libertarianism is after watching your imaginary girlfriend be fucked by muslims.
>>71138295
>And i am assuming you are a informed consumer, a thing very few are
Very few care to be unless its convenient.
Ebay is the classic example, it's massively popular in part due to a rating systems that allow (without any government control) for people to rate interactions with others and use reputation to differentiate bad and good business practice.
And that benefits us all because in economics, long term transactions and repeat business with people and corporations you trust lower that transaction cost and net you more value for money.
Take insurance companies for example, premiums go down the less you collect because you become more trust worthy and thus the cost of transaction can be lowered. Take the opposite with mafia style economics, where everyone inherently distrusts each other and transactions require muscle and often end violently in huge loss of assets.
The violence of the state is what causes most of these issues because it has to be met with some form of counter violence somewhere along the line. Prohibition caused the mafia to crop up because govt didnt want booze, but people did and fought back by creatinga mafia to fill that need and then even more tax was wasted on fighting the mafia, when all said and done it's a massive waste of resources that could have been spent on making everyones collective lives better.
>>71139883
Roads can be private. So can courts. And military (PMC).
>>71139931
32 and still lolbertarian. SAD!!
>Already answered this
No, you said what would happen after the egencies gone rogue. So nothing would stop the agencies from going rogue except the promise of inter-agency war? Could be easily resolved by a agency oligopoly.
> If you want to buy protection from something then someone will offer you that service.
And if there aren't any other agency to provide the service
>a new one would appear?
And how long before it could outcompete the established one, if it could?
>But as always consider the alernative in this situation where a government controled agency like the police go rogue or start acting in bad faith
Most of them are bound by patriotism, honor codes, regulation by outside bodies, separation of powers. Also the police officers have families and wouldn't want to bring war to their houses. A Private police force would solve this by hiring ruthless foreign police officers.
>They were also caused by government banning the production and sale of certain goods
I aggre with you on prohibition of drugs. It should have been stoped a long time ago
>>71138986
Freedom or equality.
pick one.
>>71140010
yeah what do you do when the DMV gets privatized?
>>71140614
you think they're free?
>>71140625
>>71140614
Equality any day.
I would rather live in a golden cage (like we do now) then in a jungle free
>>71140864
Weak cuck.
>>71124396
Used to pure libertarian but I slipped a bit to the right in the past few years. I think they call me "right-libertarian"
>>71137352
>So what happens to the idea that free market is more efficient then gov?
There is thing called natural monopolies. Military for example is one of them. It benefits from scale too much. 2 guys with guns > 1 guy with gun. Same goes for roads. You don't need 2 roads connecting your house to the same place, you need just one, paying for 2 roads would be loss for you.
>>71126817
That's anarchism.
>>71140960
You think you are free?
>>71140998
The same can be said about healthcare. you don't need 2 hospitals. And what the fuck is natural monopolies? What makes them special?
>>71140010
> "millions of people starving to death" example since that has only happened in socialist countries
Ireland wasn't a "Socialist" country.
The Irish people were too poor to afford the cash crops produced in Ireland; they were out bid in the market place for food.
The result was: millions starved.
The more you know, the less of a cunt you are.
>>71140594
I was never raised to hold a strong political belief either way so I wasn't indoctrinated into one camp or the other. Libertarianism is just the best fit given my values which are that as a principle we should use aggression or violence against one another unless in self defense. Which makes a large state taxing people completely immoral.
No one knows the specifics about how things get resolved in a completely libertarian society because no one knows, the beauty of innovation is that you don't see it coming. But we know enough to know that if there's a demand for something like protection, someone will provide a solution and people will pay for it, it's not a unique problem in that regard.
I'll get straight to the heart of the matter, does libertarianism provide a completely safe and violence free society? No, it doesn't. Neither does one with government. Libertarianism isn't a silver bullet it's just more moral than what we have right now.
I don't want to get too deep into hypotheticals because I don't have all the answers for how things operate,that's up for constant market innovation to decide. But I do find it a little unfair to be arguing against an idea on the one hand that supposes ultra violent dominating forces that can't be stopped by any means in a libertarian society vs police officers who are perfectly moral and have concern for war on their own houses etc.
All I would say is when thinking about it, at least try and keep to fair comparisons and human behaviour when thinking about hypotethicals.
>>71141168
>What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.
Yes, I am free.
>>71141392
Shouldn't*
>>71139971
I'm avoiding that word because it's defined in economics by the assumption of a perfect market. It works only when talking about a system where goods are exchanged for dollars and that's not what governments do when they create public goods. They are creating the preconditions for markets.
>>71140594
They can be private, but they cease to perform their necessary function when they can be bought and sold for dollars. (Roads are an exception to this. The only trouble with private roads is buying the land to build them.)
>>71130935
At least he knows what a toilet is
>>71126167
You could always crowdfund a sob story campaign
Libertarianism is just made up word for Classical Liberalism.
>>71141387
Nice dodge.
>>71125970
What are you even trying to say?
>>71126817
>. Affirmative action is perfectly acceptable in laissez faire
NOPE, it literally breaks laissez faire
>>71126167
I do not understand? Companies are required to make bad investmants? Brilliant business strategy!
>>71141168
Natural monopolies are not improved by market competition. That's the difference.
>>71141654
>dodge
You think a fact is a "dodge"?
Did you know in the 1983/4 Ethiopian famine (caused by failed harvests and exaserbated by conflict), Ethiopia was a food exporting nation?
This is because the Ethiopian people were too poor to afford the food produced in their own country. They were out bid on their own food in the international market place.
Think about that.
>>71141800
Exactly, leave that to voluntary charity.
Of course the clinton foundation would rather assist the Saudi's also.
>>71141392
>I was never raised to hold a strong political belief
Neither do I. I don't identify with any movement, but my beliefs are more similar with democratic socialism
>Which makes a large state taxing people completely immoral.
kek
>No one knows the specifics about how things get resolved in a completely libertarian society because no one knows, the beauty of innovation is that you don't see it coming.
wat?
If you replace libertarianism with God in your post it almost seems like a deluded chritian
>>71141990
Good.
>>71128293
I can roll with that.
I identify more on the left-libertarian side of things, but I can definitely agree with all the thoughts here.
>>71141801
Because?
>>71141516
Are there any real life applications of this, or is it all theoretical bullshit?
>They can be private, but they cease to perform their necessary function when they can be bought and sold for dollars. (Roads are an exception to this. The only trouble with private roads is buying the land to build them.)
i.e. the gov is more efficient then free markets
>>71141410
By that definition everyone (non-retarded) is free
>>71142371
You're not responsible for yourself in a cage.
>>71141801
Natural monopolies aren't a problem, people and businesses still negotiate to trade at whatever price they find acceptable, if they try and charge too much then people will simply go without and spend that cash on other things.
As long as trade is voluntary and contains no violence it means that one side wanted the money rather than the product and the other side wanted the product more than their money, all trades in a voluntary society area positive otherwise they're not made.
In reality there's almost no sources of natural monopolies that can be dominated like that, and in a libertarian society you'd also have the prospect for mass boycotts if prices for one thing is a moral outrage. If you sit on a natural monopoly and that upsets people then that affects how much people will supply you with in order to operate that increases your costs and makes setting prices too high not worth it.
>>71140356
kek, nice meme magic
-------
If you wanna play in the big boy league you can read beyond the second line of my posts.
>>71142502
Golden cage is a metaphor
I am happy in our current state of affairs, in wich we give up some of our personal liberties and in exchange we get security.
>>71142553
>As long as trade is voluntary and contains no violence
how do you garante this?
>you'd also have the prospect for mass boycotts
Delusions
>>71141168
medical services could be transferred over great range. Single person yes don't need two. But million city will need 1000 beds capacity. It could be providing by several hospitals having competition, and those hospitals could service same areas without much loss (cost of transporting patients could be much less than medical costs).
>>71141705
That private property is about as natural as taxation. Namely, not at all.
>>71142553
>In reality there's almost no sources of natural monopolies that can be dominated like that
Military power.
>>71124476
Libertariaism is self-defeating*, making it anti-white by proxxy a despite being s substitute for racial nationalism in the US.
>>71142038
I don't so much identify with the movement rather I agree with the arguments that are made, I call myself libertarian because it's basically the closest thing to what I believe is right.
If you don't think taxing someone against their will is wrong then we simply hold different values, I wouldn't support a system that forces peaceful people to do anything, if you support that then we're never going to understand each others positions.
>wat?
A lot of libertarians believe that the use of force is immoral and should be ended despite the consequences. Consequentialism is an incoherent model to base moral systems on because people have competing interests and so there's no solution that suits everyone.
Libertarians can't always answer how something will operate in a libertarian society, people will compete to solve problems in new an innovative ways, ways in which we likely can't even imagine right now.
When slavery was ended it was ended because it was acknowledged that slavery is immoral, there wasn't a debate about how the jobs the slaves were doing would get done. It was ended regardless of that and then the free market went to work on those problems and now we have insane automation for tilling fields and picking cotton and washing clothes.
How the free market will address policing and dispute resolution and such like, that's not something we can entirely predict, when slavery was ended no one knew at the time there would eventually be this mechanical machines powered by electricity that wash clothes for you like magic, and to use the argument at the time "how will we wash clothes without slaves" would have been nothing but ignorant.
>>71142803
>medical services could be transferred over great range.
Sure
>But million city will need 1000 beds capacity.
Can be granted by a big hospital, or some hospitals without those 2 competing.
> It could be providing by several hospitals having competition
It is provided by many hospitals without competition, so that they don't waste money on marketing, and have the leverage in bulk buying.
>>71142961
>A feel good "quote" written next to a portrait by a meme politician is considered a argument
What the hell are you talking about?? Societies are based on giving up personal liberties so you can have security. i.e. you renounce your right to murder, so your neighboor doesn't murder you, simply put
>>71142371
>because?
If you have two lighthouses on one coast one serves no purpose. Or two sets of power lines or sewers or railroads or roads. So you build one and impose open access regulations to bring competition into the sale of services using the infrastructure.
>i.e. the gov is more efficient then free markets
You insist on using that language where it doesn't apply. There is no price system here to measure efficiency. We're talking about wholey intangible value here. You can't measure deadweight loss, etc. when talking about nonmonetary value.
>>71143262
>i.e. you renounce your right to murder, so your neighboor doesn't murder you, simply put
Sorry, I didn't realize you were retarded.
>>71142553
You can get more out of a natural monopoly by regulating the monopoly.
>>71143312
Wait, if you have two roads, one has no purpose? That just can't be right, where do you get this information?
>>71124396
How will you build roads and force poor people to pay for it?
In a libertarian society, the low class isn't treated like serfs, and that's bad.
We need boundaries. We can't have poor people using private roads, as they are dirty.
>>71143261
>If you don't think taxing someone against their will
I don't like rain, but it's needed. Society is not based on >"MUH FEELS!!11!".
>I wouldn't support a system that forces peaceful people to do anything
No one forces you to do anything in our society if you don't bother other people.
>A lot of libertarians believe that the use of force is immoral and should be ended despite the consequences.
And if someone uses force? Sudenly it's moral?
>people will compete to solve problems in new an innovative ways
Wishfull thinking.
>When slavery was ended it was ended because it was acknowledged that slavery is immoral
wew lad, you are entering Down Town. Slavery was ended solely because it wasn't as profitable and political reasons.
>>71143662
>I don't like rain, but it's needed. Society is not based on >"MUH FEELS!!11!".
Tax isn't needed though, anything that tax pays for can be paid for voluntarily, it only exists to redistribute wealth from the hard working to the poor.
>No one forces you to do anything in our society if you don't bother other people.
This is just blatantly wrong, tax is a good example, if you don't pay your tax the government applies force and coercion against you.
>wew lad, you are entering Down Town. Slavery was ended solely because it wasn't as profitable and political reasons.
OK now I know you're trolling. Well played.
