Why are u still not an libertarian?
Actually Iam an anarchist tho so I don't believe in government at all
>>71667191
What sort of degenerate creature is that, where did the statue of liberty go? Maybe I didn't get the memo?
>legalize marijuana
DUDE
>>71667191
Becayse look at that faggot pinecone. Who would want to be a chinchilla? Out of every animal you pick a fucking pricklypear?
How about a cool animal?
>Grizzly Bear: fucking badass and and anthropomorphic.
>Bald Eagle: Classic.
>Owl: Reflective of a libertarian's superior intelligence.
>River otter: Cute as fuck so all the children would buy the plushy and be brainwashed to be libertarian early on.
Red fox: Can hear low frequency sounds thus be able to hear America's silent majority.
But of all things, a fucking cactus? Fuck libertarians. Can't even pick a good animal.
>>71667191
Why is it a Bosnian porcupine though?
>Left wing positions
>Personal freedoms, tolerance of others' peaceful choices and civil liberties
Pick one
>>71668192
>left wing
>peaceful
pick one.
>>71667898
That's a point.
>>71667898
Should have gone for snake. Better tradition, cooler animal, same premise.
>>71668722
ayo hol up.
River otters eat snakes bish. River otter is superior.
Because Libertarians are so insufferably holier-than-thou that if they were scientifically proven to be right about everything, I would still not join them.
>>71668192
>the regressive left
>tolerance of others' peaceful choices and civil liberties
>>71669334
>the regressive left
Hello Sargon of Jerusalem
>>71667191
Because Libertarians are smug-cucks and either nobody votes for them or they don't vote at all.
+Plus cuckbertarians hate NATO and unironically love ultra-Statist Russia because they perceive Putin as "anti-globalist".
>>71669442
I think it was Rubin who actually came up with the term.
>>71669442
Sargon, Milo, and all of that lot are just pseudo-intellectual faggots.
>heh heh, watch me DESTROY this feminist in a sentence by sentence basis in my YouTube video.
>>71667191
>>71667379
What's the answer to immigration according to libertarians and especially anarchists/anarcho-capitalists?
I dislike statism by principle, but how would a libertarian or anarchist society prevent the flow of immigrants getting hired for lower wages?
>>71667524
>continuing to waste billions of dollars a year to arrest and incarcerate people for a plant is a good idea!
>>71667191
The problem with libertarianism is that it's hypocritical, generally. "Robust national defense" requires tax money, and collecting taxes is theft. Less theft is still theft.
Libertarianism is babby's first step to the only truly moral political position, voluntarism.
Because Free Market Economy doesn't work, mostly
>>71670506
They would welcome them
>>71671074
Why?
>>71671074
>Because Free Market Economy doesn't work, mostly
it just helped making your nation the last remaining global super power
>>71671312
Why do you think it was due to free market?
>>71671162
I'd like to hear the answer from an actual libertarian or ancap, though.
>>71671225
Monopolies, mostly. Labor Unions, minimum wages, etc. are all in place in the U.S. because we tried a freer economy before and ended up with Oil and Steel barons. The recent lapse in our country's economy and the well-being of the lower class can be attributed to a lack of government regulation on private and federal loan services, and the ensuing washout from that.
I still think capitalism, while flawed, is one of the most practical forms of economy today. But without any regulation, it causes huge problems. When the mentality is "build the best the cheapest", manufacturers stop caring about the environment. When products are as cheap as possible, firms try to cut costs by lowering worker wages. Quality goes out the window. These things are all happening in the U.S. today, and the government has failed to step in.
Libertarians suggest that the actual problem is that we're not free ENOUGH, but a freer economy, in my opinion, would just be a regression. The laws we have now, and ones like Glass-Steagall that we lost, were put in place as the result of experiencing failures in our economic past. They should stay and be improved upon.
>>71672201
They will say something about no wlfare blabla, no entitlements blablabla, you jon with your peers blablabla, and the free market corrects itself
>>71672612
Good post
Mandatory reading to every lolbertarian
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
>>71667191
>No government!
>Nonexistent government to protect liberties.
Anarcho-capitalists never change.
>>71672612
Rational constructivism the post. You realize in a competitive economy there would be no monopolies, right?
>The recent lapse in our country's economy and the well-being of the lower class can be attributed to a lack of government regulation on private and federal loan services, and the ensuing washout from that.
You're kidding right? Also, you realize these big banks and institutions, insurance providers, etc. all write the regulations for themselves. Any "common sense" regulation you or Bernie would want will never make it in there.
>I still think capitalism, while flawed...
Welcome to globalisation. Why do you care about worker's wages here when workers abroad are seeing increased wages? Capitalism and markets literally bring people out of poverty. Example: China.
Also, I just want you to realize you just regurgitated every leftist talking point out there without actually putting any thought into it.
>muh glass steagall
>muh capitalism is flawed
>muh lack of regulation
Just, come on, man.
You need to read some Hayek buddy
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs
>>71672612
Labor unions seem negative to me as a whole.
Would totally unrestrained capitalism really cause many problems in the long term?
Companies wouldn't be able to lower worker wages too much without hurting consumption. Also, there will always be a market of consumers for quality services: it's absolutely impossible to stop producing qualitative goods.
>a freer economy would just be a regression
Because it would create stronger monopolies? Wouldn't a truly free market eliminate monopolies because of competition?
The problem with protectionism is that it leads to abuse.
>>71672787
I don't see how any of these arguments are illegitimate despite your attempt at trivializing them, though.
>>71673353
>Companies wouldn't be able to lower worker wages too much without hurting consumption
Export. And not to mention vital goods.
>Wouldn't a truly free market eliminate monopolies because of competition?
Why?
>I don't see how any of these arguments are illegitimate despite your attempt at trivializing them, though.
Crime pays better off in richer countries mate.
>>71670506
This is where stand too. And the reason why I'm not a true libertarian, I don't see how society doesn't devolve completely. Some people would thrive and others would not be able to exist without being pampered.
And I feel like I am being hypocritical calling for absolute freedom whilst I am opposed to immigration.
>Can I just call myself a conservative liberalist?
>>71673980
>Export.
And cease all local sales? Come on.
>vital goods
Which are a specific type of commodity. Either way, price elasticity has a limit despite what theory says.
>Why?
Because of competition, as I said. Without protectionism, competition swells, and the formation of monopolies becomes increasingly difficult.
>Crime pays better off in richer countries mate.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>71667191
I am tho
>>71667402
It's a hedgehog
I think the idea is that it's all cute and cuddly until you try to hurt it, in which case it fucks you up
>>71670761
IT'S ILLEGAL
AND THEY KEEP DOING IT
IT'S NOT EVEN IMPORTANT
>>71673162
That's anarchy, I think libertarianism involves a small government dedicated only to protecting civil liberties (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness ONLY).
So in a time of war the government would probably collect taxes, although most citizens would likely be smart enough to enlist and provide funds already if the war was entirely unavoidable in the first place.
Look at it this way: in a Libertarian society, the USA would've only gotten involved in fighting against Japan (which attacked first) during WWII. There wouldn't be a Vietnam war (it was very controversial, ergo not enough voluntary funding) or at least it wouldn't be the grand affair that it was.
The libertarian ideologies that I personally disagree with are open borders and tolerance of multiculturalism, which allow and support alien ideologies to corrupt the original message.
Evidence: the evolution of US politics throughout the years.
1700s: rebels against tyrannical nation, is essentially a libertarian republic (not 100% democracy because only land-owning white men could vote). This made sense then because non-whites were generally foreigners who had no stake or knowledge about US politics, and those who didn't own land were usually uneducated workers so they're political opinions could be easily bought/swayed due to ignorance. And of course men-only because women back then usually didn't know ANYTHING.
1800s: removes land-owning, allowing the common man to vote. IMO this was a good thing because it extended the vote a bit, but education was slowly improving.
1900s: women can vote, social security becomes a thing, US goes to war twice, blacks get the vote, etc
2000s: basically everyone over the age of 18 can vote
2010s: Emperor Trump reigns
I am but the party isn't serious, it's a fucking joke, they're a tool for the dems and republicans to siphon votes. I'm voting Trump this time and not wasting time with these idiots again.
>>71674290
>Some people would thrive and others would not be able to exist without being pampered.
I don't really see the problem with that, people who aren't willing nor capable to work shouldn't expect to be rewarded for doing nothing. It's pretty basic stuff.
>I feel like I am being hypocritical calling for absolute freedom whilst I am opposed to immigration.
I think that sovereignty is important and should be taken into account. The citizens of my country are inherently more valuable and deserve more rights than non-citizens.
However, I don't exactly see how ancaps could apply nationalism to anarchism. Of course handouts would greatly decrease immigration, but it would still be allowed.
The argument I often see is people claiming that the NAP would allow citizens to eliminate immigrants, since it would be treated as invasion (therefore, initiatory use of force). But the NAP has always seemed a bit vague to me.
how do people not realize the facts? the deregulation, privatization, union busting that has happened since the 1970s has decreased EVERY economic metric.
wage growth has been zero since the 1970s, unemployment is MUCH higher, GDP growth is lower, productivity growth is lower.
EVERY economic measure is worse since the 1970s, and that is EXACTLY when the 'free market' reforms started with declining power of unions, privatizations, deregulation of the financial sector, increasing executive pay and increasing inequality.
these are highly documented facts that are clear for the collected data. "free market" economics doesn't work. what works is keynesian full employment policy with high unionization and tightly regulated financial markets.
oh, and zero immigration too.
>>71667191
The democrats in the "Agree" section represent none of those things desu senpai.
>>71674672
this is one retarded post
>>71667191
I'm a Christian.
>>71674351
>And cease all local sales? Come on.
Not necessarily. It's not one company paying higher wages that will have a noticeable effect on economy.
>Because of competition, as I said. Without protectionism, competition swells, and the formation of monopolies becomes increasingly difficult.
And who says this? Libertarians say this based on thought exercises that themselves make that, and definetely not on purpose, solve one of the major libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic issues.
Yeah right. I am a man of science, show me why there wouldn't be monopolies in a libertarian society.
>What does that have to do with anything?
Crime pays better off in USA then Malawi. There would be immigration obviously.
>>71674940
But only Right looks ok.
>>71673311
Hayek, who you cite for most of your stances here, himself admitted he was wrong: http://www.alternet.org/economy/big-economic-theory-underpinning-libertarian-economics-total-baloney
I think you put much less thought into your reply than I put in to my original statement. You have no proof of this "no monopolies" idea, and history, certainly in the U.S., suggests that free market economy leads directly to monopolies, plus boom-and-bust cycles which completely undermine this "competitive economy" you're referring to.
If for your "globalisation" bit, you're referring to workers whose countries were turned into single-product-exporters and in turn lost their entire economy and identity (read: The Open Veins of Latin America), and are now somehow "benefitting" from American generosity as we give them the jobs of our own workers to fill our backward need for cheap labor because we don't have laws to defend our own citizens financially, then yeah. I guess that's a good thing. And I'm not sure how you're using China as an example, nor of what (capitalism?), but I'm not sure I want to compare the U.S. economy to China's.
I don't especially care for Hayek. Like Friedman, his ideas weren't bad on their own, but in practice they tend to flunk.
>>71674842
it's all true though, look at employment figures, growth rates, productivity growth rates etc. since the early 1980s. then look at the policies that started in the 80s: neo-liberal style deregulation, privatization and union busting.
this is established fact.
it would be one thing if free market reforms increased growth and employment. but it DECREASED growth and underemployment skyrocketed and inequality went up huge.
during 1945-1973 governments had full employment policies, strong unions, no outsourcing, were explicitly keynesian in their policy, and were expanding the welfare state. the unemployment was LOWER, growth was HIGHER.
libertarians are just like SJWs: don't care about the facts, only how they feel. "free markets" make them feel good so they don't care that their ideology has verifiably been a failure.
>>71674507
>small government dedicated only to protecting civil liberties
Why? Doesn't the free market protect liberties? Doesn't the free market correct itself? Why do you want gov?
>>71670506
They claim no one will come, because libertarian society will be so poor and miserable
>>71674369
Gary Johnson is like the T-Mobile of candidates. You get promised cool shit like affordable coverage and more control but you sacrifice the national coverage.
>>71675219
*affordable contracts
>>71675144
>neo-liberal style deregulation
you have no fucking clue whats you are talking about
the regulations in america today are retarded, businesses are leaving because of them
>>71674507
>social security becomes a thing
Because "free market" fucked it up in '29 and people were genuinly hungry.
>claiming that the NAP would allow citizens to eliminate immigrants
This is literally initiation of force
>libertarian
>not anarchist
>>71667191
It is a self-evident truth that freedom is negatively correlated with population density. The quantity and severity of negative externalities grows exponentially as population density increases.
Capitalism is by far the best economic system for producing wealth and lifting the people out of poverty. The problem with Capitalism is that it has been too successful in this regard.
It has saved life, extended life, and enabled life to such a degree that global population is exploding. The largely free and high-consumptive lifestyle of the West is incompatible long-term with a population in the high billions.
For this reason, unbridled Capitalism and a limited government are major threats to our long-term prospects for freedom, as they both allow and encourage excessive population growth and mass immigration.
It is necessary to give up some of our freedom today in order to preserve freedom for future generations. Authoritarian measures such as population control, eugenics, and closed borders would have the net result of increasing freedom and the quality of the nations genes, and would prevent the greater loss of freedom that would naturally result from extreme population density.
By taking an isolationist-nationalist position we can both curb the efficiency of free markets and can protect Western nations from the harmful effects of falling wages, increasing population, and mass immigration, while still enjoying a relatively affluent lifestyle.
An isolationist-nationalist position also falls more in-line with human nature, which has evolved to be fundamentally tribalistic. Fostering nativist attitudes will generally reduce crime and strengthen the social cohesion and cultural progress of the people.
Ultimately, free markets and free governments are self-destroying entities. Unrestrained growth is unsustainable in a world of fixed space and resources. The only way to preserve liberty long-term is to strategically give up some of our liberty today.
>>71675007
If most companies are exporting, the situation wouldn't be viable anyway. Higher-priced goods and lower wages would make consumption plummet, thus undermining the companies' profit.
Competition would increase without government protectionism and harsh labor laws, that is a fact. The deregulation of the market and nonexistent labor laws would make small, recently created companies much more likely to succeed, and bigger companies would have a much less predatory influence since they would not have the privilege of government subsidies and lobbying.
What kind of crime are we talking about here?
Most crime done by immigrants consists of drug trafficking. Anarchism would completely eliminate the black market when it comes to illicit substances.
>>71673353
>it's absolutely impossible to stop producing qualitative goods
Untrue. Just wait until we have no more resources available. If you're a libertarian, typically you don't want to regulate those resources, because the economy shouldn't have to concern itself with protecting the environment.
The idea of a free market eliminating monopolies is an absurdity I've heard cited a lot, and the truth is no. Monopolies exist because they are the strongest suppliers, which in theory is the economic equivalent of Darwinism. Laws and government regulation of economy are the equivalent of the wildlife protections placed around Sea Turtles that recently got them taken off the endangered species list. Nature on its own kinda sucks.
People will use their freedom to take it away from the people.
If they manage to take away a freedom, then freedom cannot be used to take it back without a revolution which doesn't come easily.
Equally, defending a freedom is only a temporary measure and doesn't stop the next attempt to take it.
It's inevitable that freedoms will be gradually stripped over time until the society is no longer libertarian.
>>71674663
>I don't really see the problem with that, people who aren't willing nor capable to work shouldn't expect to be rewarded for doing nothing. It's pretty basic stuff.
Yeah, sure but it would lead to immense crime when they are unable to supply for themselves
>>71670506
One of the answer to that is that without a welfare state the immigrants would have no intencive to come to your country if they are not needed. If there is unemployment in your area and no welfare state why would a migramt come? If there is jobs, and your society is propserous immigrants are not a problem.
>>71674672
Of you actually think the market has gotten more free over the last several decades, you are a moron. The decline of every economic metric is correlated with the rise in big government.
>>71667191
Libertarians want government, which is merely the apparatus of a nation, from operating at all. They therefore (and now quite proudly say) that they are against the nation state.
There is no left and right anymore. The real battle for the survival of the West is Nationalist vs Globalist. You can be the latter, and see your nation, culture and race slide into an amphorous gloop like mess purely because you want to smoke weed and have cheaper tacos, or you can be the former, and sacrifice the little "freedoms" libertarians and globalists trumpet in order to save the very civilization that raised you and your people from ignorance to total mastery of the Earth. Which will it be - getting stoned and fatter, or taking pride in helping defend and stole the fire that burns within the Watchtower of Western Civilization?
>>71675299
some regulations are dumb, especially administrative regulations. they should be gotten rid of because you want markets to function to some degree.
the problem is the libertarians want total deregulation in terms of employment law, unions, finance, etc.
deregulating finance literally ruined the entire world's economy. libertarians said it would be a good thing, then in the 1980s they did it, and it failed massively. libertarians said less unions would be a good thing. since the 1970s unionization has declined dramatically and unemployment is MUCH higher than it used to be and wages have been stagnant for 30 decades.
get rid of dumb administrative regulation but you have to keep unions, you have to VERY tightly regulate the finance industry and banks, you have to have high government spending to stimulate demand, you have to have strong unemployment programs so corporations don't have too much power over workers.
these programs are verified by history to work. libertarian economics is verified by history to fail.
and of course, you have to have 0 immigration.
>>71675684
rofl, you think deregulation caused the financial crisis? it was literally the government who caused it and the only reason we're currently in a recession is thanks to the same government
>>71675652
government spending was rising at a higher rate 1945-1973 than it has been since the 1980s to now so your graph just shows that you're wrong.
government spending is so high largely because of dumb "muh free market" american healthcare. government spending used to be more productive, now more of it has to go to healthcare.
>>71675167
In theory, maybe the free market protects liberties. But I'm not 100% anarchist yet so I don't really know. I think taxes (most if not all) should be voluntary and dependent on what services you use.
Example: You send prefer to use a private emergency services business, so you don't have to pay for state service. Eventually the state won't be required to provide these services at all, so all in all taxes will go down.
>>71675536
>The deregulation of the market and nonexistent labor laws would make small, recently created companies much more likely to succeed
Because? What would stop monopoly from buying up the startup?
>The deregulation of the market and nonexistent labor laws would make small, recently created companies much more likely to succeed
At what cost? Environmental cost? labor cost? What would stop companies from paying 1 dollar per hour?
>What kind of crime are we talking about here?
Any crime. It pays better off in rich countries, but libertarians societies would be poor as fuck, so i conceed you this point.
>>71675808
it was caused by large volume of trading of worthless assets for large amounts of money because bankers and degenerate scum who are out to look for the next scam to make themselves richer. since the deregulation of finance in the 1980s the finance industry has grown by a lot even though it's unproductive and destructive to the economy. this is what libertarian economics gave us.
"b-b-but it wasn't real libertariansim". thatcher and reagan etc. were influenced by hayek, freedman and the mont pelerin faggots, all this stuff was influenced by libertarian economics.
>>71675589
Only the minority of people who are:
>non-immigrants
>capable of working
>not willing to work
>willing to commit crime
There are not a lot of those.
>>71675641
Wouldn't there still be a flow of immigrants coming for jobs?
>>71675567
Monopolies exist because they are allowed to stay the strongest suppliers, through a combination of predatory behavior towards smaller companies (allowed by oppressive state regulation) and lobbying. Generally speaking, laws make it easier for large companies to maintain a monopolistic hold of the market.
>Darwinism
I'm all for that, but government regulations do not prevent monopolies, they subsidize them.
True Darwinism in the economical sense might lead to the formation of monopolies, but they wouldn't last long as soon as a viable competitor shows up.
>>71675641
Crime.
>>71667191
because mainstream libertarianism thinks importing socialists is a good idea
>>71667191
Because libertarianism just allows liberals to force degeneracy on society while the right hoards all the wealth.
The only solution to the left-right system is national socialism.
>>71675808
It was due to deregulation you retard.
>inb4 the big bad meanie govenrmnemt forced the dindu nuffin little frail banks to make those loans to worthless lazy people
>>71675679
I remember someone saying that at this point it's only really a choice between implementing moderate nationalism before the collapse can occur, or extremist nationalism being implemented due to the collapse.
Might have been Millennial Woes.
>>71675958
>In theory
I don't care for thoughts, especially those made by thinkers to justify their own thoughts.
>But I'm not 100% anarchist yet so I don't really know.
How is highschool?
>>71676001
>What would stop monopoly from buying up the startup?
That's irrelevant, if competitors provide better services, monopolistic companies would be forced to adjust themselves.
>What would stop companies from paying 1 dollar per hour?
If they did that, consumption would decrease drastically, and those companies would crash and burn. Local businesses would pop up.
>libertarians societies would be poor as fuck
Why?
I also explained why crime wouldn't necessarily be more prevalent.
>>71676346
It was the central bank's fault in the end. Investment banks were just the actors.
>>71667191
I am
>>71676677
how did the central bank force investment banks to bundle securities of mortgages to each other and sell them at high prices? how did they force investment banks to hold billions of dollars of these assets on their balance sheets? how did the central banks for credit rating agencies to certify these assets as safe investments (biggest LOL of all)??
all because of deregulating the finance market. the finance industry should be small and tightly regulated.
>>71676107
How can you live in a modern society with humans co-existing and working to avoid conflict, yet claim that Darwinistic ideals are worth striving for. You're naive.
Monopolies don't buy out smaller companies because of "the law", they buy them out because they can. Generally speaking, Laws should do their job, and if they aren't doing their job (preventing monopolies), then they should be revised. Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt only got their monopolies truly because the government supported them. The government should not have joint interests in the market.
>>71667191
It has no chance of success among the electorate or powers that be, while most of its factual claims are true.
>>71667191
I am
Though libertarians have become synonymous with poz and anarchy
10% state or bust.
>>71676561
>I don't care for thoughts
Then why have a conversation? People are fallible and most things are dictated by thoughts until they can be proven by facts, and even still facts will be disproven.
>how is high school
How is ad hominem? You didn't contradict or argue against anything in my comment. Did you even graduate high school?
>>71667191
The dilemma inherent to Libertarianism is that people are always free to be retarded and the government will always indulge them with permission.
I find it quite depressing.
i'm getting real fucking tired of captcha
>click the water until it goes away
>takes 5 seconds for the new image to show up
>takes 5 times for the water to all go away
>copy this code and paste it in a box
>you've timed out, now start over again
>oops! your request didn't work, start over
oh, and libertarian principles are good, but the libertarian party doesn't follow them.
>respect other's property rights
mexico doesn't respect our property rights and the part is weak on immigration.
>>71667191
Because of their near-pathological inability to ever front a candidate/voice of leadership that isn't some weird cross between Mr. Magoo, a fortune cookie, and a stack of Keebler elves in a trenchcoat pretending to be human.
>>71676879
The Federal Reserve was the initiator of the problem because of its interest rates. The bailouts also came from the Fed.
>>71676883
Darwinist "ideals" aren't worth striving for, they happen. Darwinism is the law of nature, it's about as far from naive as you can get.
>The government should not have joint interests in the market
I agree with that. What's your point?
An oppressive monopoly in a totally deregulated market will be faced with difficulties if it decreases its workers' wages while increasing the prices of the goods it produces: at that point, smaller businesses will pop up or consumption will simply die out completely.
>>71670506
>but how would a libertarian or anarchist society prevent the flow of immigrants getting hired for lower wages?
Closed borders
We're not all open-borders cucks
>>71676102
>>71676346
Perhaps you should look up who the biggest purchaser of MBS was and who instigated the sub prime loans to be made
pro tip: it wasnt the banks
>>71677279
But that's against the free market principles.
>>71676677
>That's irrelevant, if competitors provide better services, monopolistic companies would be forced to adjust themselves.
What do you mean?
And i think forced is not a really good term when talking about monopolies, especially when applied to the monopolies.
>If they did that, consumption would decrease drastically, and those companies would crash and burn. Local businesses would pop up.
They would lower the wages and be reliant on exportation, for example
And in necessity goods (housing, water companies, roads...) they could jack up the prices, because people will still need to use the roads. I have a example for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riots
>I also explained why crime wouldn't necessarily be more prevalent.
No, you didn't. You just did some wishfull thinking. People would steal, murder. And gang up.
I don't know how libertarians still exist post-Moldbug.
>>71667191
Because libertarians write fucking stupid sentences like "an libertarian" and don't understand remedial math.
>>71677174
Another one is that you can't fund political campaigns and retain power if you don't provide economic advantages to special interests. This is why they never get much traction in Washington.
>>71676677
>It was the central bank's fault in the end. Investment banks were just the actors.
Central banks are private for the most part. Also their decisions are heavily influenced, if not dictated, by bankers.
>Investment banks were just the actors.
They dindu nuffin? They wuz gud boyz? They were forced by the big bad wolf to sell subprime investmeents?
>>71667191
I'm mostly libertarian but I believe in government regulated morality and I'm ok with military conquest, but I think it should be like the good old days of colonialism where we actually go take over their land and goods to build their empire, not just try to put some cuck into power
>>71677261
>The Federal Reserve was the initiator of the problem because of its interest rates.
It's a private entity, in wich the board directors are chosen from private banks
>>71677301
Who was it?
>omg the free market is destroying our economy!
>pls save me government regulation!
>>71672612
This so much.
http://www.exposingtruth.com/new-un-report-finds-almost-no-industry-profitable-if-environmental-costs-were-included/
>>71677747
ta-da, the US government
>>71677261
Darwinism happens when people who have the power to prevent it choose not to intervene. Ever wonder what the Moa Moa bird looks like? Isn't it going to suck when Rhinos and Elephants are hunted to extinction? Humans have the ability to fly in the face of nature and create something better for ourselves, that is the entire point of society and government.
Your idea of smaller businesses defeating monopolies naturally doesn't work because of the availability of resources. Established monopolies always have better resources than unestablished businesses, and only fail when they fail to stay the most innovative (theoretically, they should be able to always stay the most innovative). Free market =/= unlimited market.
>>71677795
I love this picture, perfect example of government intervention and central banking.
>>71677355
Look, there's a breaking point, it's not all just theory. When a monopolistic company jacks up its prices and lowers its wages, especially in the case of necessity goods, workers won't just abide.
To be precise, in the case of necessity goods, boycotting or local production (even if it has to be done via agorist means) will become more prevalent.
On the other hand, if a company lowers its wages while being entirely reliant on exports, a competitor will pop up and hire its workers by providing a higher wage, therefore eliminating a competitor entirely by cutting off its means of production. This is the first example that came to my mind.
>People would steal, murder
And people would defend themselves.
Crime would decrease, because gangs today exist primarily because of drug trafficking.
>>71677486
>>71677747
>The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States.
Sounds like politics are too complicated.
>>71677795
>lower worker's share of economy
because of union busting
>student loan debt
because states slashed funding to public universities and tuition increased, and because there are no jobs for high school graduates anymore thanks to free market globalization and jobs going to china
>health insurance costs
LOL look at the great american free market healthcare vs. socialist universal healthcare, prices are much lower elsewhere.
>food stamps
most people on food stamps work, but are in low wage jobs because no unions.
>family income
stagnant/declining since the 1980s when libertarian-influenced reagan/thatcher economic policy took hold. before that we had keynesian economic policy with high unionization and wages were growing and unemployment was low. too bad libertarian "muh free market" economics ruined it!
>>71677995
>availability of resources. Established monopolies always have better resources than unestablished businesses
In the case of the breaking point I mentioned here, >>71678068, workers wouldn't have the choice and will simply choose an option that would allow them to survive.
>Free market =/= unlimited market
Of course, which is why I mentioned local production as an example of a counter to oppressive monopolies.
>>71678162
>muh union busting
no
>because there are no jobs
Because the economy is in a recession, thanks to the US government, also student loan debt is due to socialist policies that everyone no matter what should get a loan to pay for school, has nothing to do with globalization or jobs going to china
>health insurance
Due to government, see Obamacare
>food stamps
Not unions, but again, a shit economy while the government encourages taking money from them rather than get a job and work hard
>family income
Again, r e c e s s i o n
>>71667191
A
FUCKING
HEDGEHOG
>>71673311
>Rational constructivism the post. You realize in a competitive economy there would be no monopolies, right?
There's no such thing as competitive economy unless there are rules and regulations keeping the corporations from fucking up each other and the world in the process. Bigger corporations would just buy off the competition and use lawsuits and copyrights to mess up with the rest.
>libertarianism
>anarchy for rich faggots with delusion of grandeur
>>71677975
What is MBS?
>>71678068
> it's not all just theory. ´
Then show me.
>When a monopolistic company jacks up its prices and lowers its wages, especially in the case of necessity goods, workers won't just abide.
Because?
>boycotting
There wasn't a single sucessfull boycot that was grassroots. I dare you to give me one.
>local production
Artisanship? hello middle ages again
>a competitor will pop up
If it pop ups. If it isn't bought up from beggining. Even if it's not destroyed early on by marketing. Even if it's not destroyed by shaddy dealings.
>And people would defend themselves.
Hello wild west all over again
And even if what you said was true, that monopolies aren't sustainable, what would happen in the meanwhile? The monopoly would be able to jack up the prices it wanted, and there would be nothing you could do.
libertarianism is a code-word for anti-white
Is there such a thing as libertarian right?
>>71674672
this is going on in Australia right now and its shitting the place up.
neo liberals have there fingers in the political parties. Our LNP are basically neocon preppers.
>>71671074
>baiting this hard
>>71678608
no recession in america for at least the past 4 years and the trends have been similar since the 1980s.
economy wasn't in recession because of the government but because the banks built up billions of dollars of worthless assets on their balance sheets. libertarians and "the government" are like feminists and "the patriarchy." it must always be to blame no matter what, despite all facts.
student loans were an explicitly pro-market policy orientation. right wingers inspired by libertarian economics said that states should cut funding to public universities and instead students should have to take out loans to pay it themselves. look how well that worked out.
and debt is so high because everyone has to go to college now, even though many people shouldn't. this is because there are no jobs anymore due to outsourcing -- which is thanks to free market globalization.
US health insurance cost has always been high, because we have a market-oriented system.
family income is down because wages have been stagnant since the 1980s. you understand the policy shift that started to favor libertarian-influenced free market ideology since the 1980s right? it happened everywhere.
>>71678608
>Because the economy is in a recession
Why is it that? Oh it's because the banks failed, but only because the big meanie gov forced them to
>also student loan debt is due to socialist policies that everyone no matter what should get a loan to pay for school,
>Every student should have a loan
>But those loans can't be defaulted
Hmmm, i wonder who truly benefits from this...
>>71669672
At least he doesn't sit in an echo chamber all day.
>>71670506
If they can purchase property, I don't see any issue. Further more the changce law will bend o there religion is close to nothing.
Maybe some communities would accept them and offer them cost incured places to live but no one would be force to endorse or pay for them.
>>71678804
>Because?
Because they want to survive.
>boycotting
I explained that the workers would ensure that their basic needs are being met, since they want to survive. Either a competitor would offer better wages, or the workers would switch to a local system and completely undermine their employer's means of production.
>Artisanship
What's so bad about that as a last resort?
>If it pops up
In such a situation, it would.
>If it isn't bought up
In the case of agorism, you can't buy what isn't supposed to exist. In other cases, small, local producers would continue popping up relentlessly, similarly to what we're seeing on the Internet right now concerning copyright laws.
>Hello wild west
What are you implying?
>what would happen in the meanwhile
If such a shitty situation erupted despite the deregulation of the market, of course some people would die. But it's an unlikely situation, and would eventually be dealt with accordingly.
You can try to jack up your profits all you want, but you can't have your workforce be comprised of dead men.
>>71678877
/pol/ calls it national libertarianism.
>>71679070
>because there are no jobs anymore due to outsourcing
Well, we have service jobs that pay marginally above min wage.
Aggre with your post. There isn't many level-head american posters in this place.
>>71669672
No. It was Maajid Nawaz.
>>71678804
Mortgage Backed Securities, basically you bundle up a bunch of mortgages into a derivative and sell them which is fine when you have good loans that you bundle up, but when the banks knew that 1. the government would buy everything regardless and 2. the government would cover them should they fail (i.e bailouts) so they started taking on more and more loans, also way riskier loans such as sub prime. They then together with rating agencies rated these AAA, AA, A+ etc to make them look like good investment when they werent, knowing that the government would pay for it regardless because of the government policies started under Bush that every american should have a home.
This of course got out of hand, banks started giving out loans to everyone, no down payment, no credit, no income statement was needed etc and the government just kept on buying and buying.
>>71667191
>libertarianism
>multiculti society
What could go wrong?
>>71676107
>Wouldn't there still be a flow of immigrants coming for jobs?
That assume people have a place to live and that they have money a prima fesci to support themselves.
In early america self-deportation was something.
>>71679070
>no recession in america
Currently in one which you would know if you paid any attention to the economic data coming out these past few weeks.
Again, you seem to have no clue of what happened, I encourage you to go read up on it, there's tons of information out there for you.
>>71667191
Because utopian ideologies are just unfeasible and stupid.
>>71679076
Yes, banks failed. In a "free market system" which you people seem to think is what the US is currently under, these banks would fail and that would be it. But since it's not a free market system these banks got bailed out, but all that junk they had is still there.
The economy hasn't recovered, it is basically an alcoholic who keeps on getting alcohol to stay drunk, only that the alcohol he's getting does less and less for him each time he drinks and at one point, the alcohol will do nothing anymore.
>>71679574
Giving yourself and ideal to strive for is not stupid.
Think of Tesla. Great thing are made by people who idealize things and then create them through moral means.
>>71670506
Open borders, the state has no right to control the movements of people. However we have to remove welfare before that is possible. If you cut welfare the majority of refugees would disappear.
>>71679735
Schiff approuved opinion.
This man knows it.
>>71679560
bruh stop, america isn't in a recession by any definition and hasn't been for years.
america's economy is still fucked up, thanks to right wing economics, but it's not in recession.
please find me any verification that the US is now in recession, you won't.
>>71667191
Because the Libertarian economic model would be catastrophic for the average person. Much like Communism, it depends on humans not acting like humans in order to properly function.
>>71679479
This. It was a fault of government first, creating a situation to manipulate the market by essentially promising free money for the banks.
It was the fault of banks for misleading both clients and investors, and it was the fault of idiots for taking out mortgages on homes they damn well knew they couldn't afford.
But mostly the fault of government.
>>71679787
Private people can do it just fine if they purchase the property all arund a certain area and build a wall.
>>71679837
peter "muh inflation(that never happens)" schiff
there doesn't exist a bigger hack anywhere.
>>71679837
A lone sane voice in a world of insanity.
>>71675068
>alternet
No.
>>71679865
Yes, the financial institutions did bad things, people were stupid to take out loans but it literally would not have happened if not for the government.
>>71679348
>Because they want to survive.
Workers, especially those that have a family, have a tendency to take shit.
But yes, nice fix. They would't do something because workers might revolt.
Wake up bro. They have been doing this to us and some of us are happily chering for it, like you.
>basic needs are being met
In victorian times basic needs were a shck and 2 meals a day.
>Either a competitor would offer better wages
If it pop ups. If it isn't bought up from beggining. Even if it's not destroyed early on by marketing. Even if it's not destroyed by shaddy dealings.
>What's so bad about that as a last resort?
It's very unproductive.
>In such a situation, it would.
Because?
> small, local producers would continue popping up relentlessly
And if it is a car manufacturing company? A road company? A telecomunication company?
Some companies can't just ""pop up" overnight.
>Internet right now concerning copyright laws.
>torrenting movies is the same as building complex bussiness
Grow up kiddo
>What are you implying?
That people would have to relly on themselves for every little thing. We would have to watch our backs constantly
>But it's an unlikely situation
It's a very likely situation.
>but you can't have your workforce be comprised of dead men.
What do you mean?
>/pol/ calls it national libertarianism.
Oxymoron?
>>71675068
Actually monopolies in the us have been linked to crony capitalism. Government is the biggest monopoly of them all, ironically you dont realise this fact.
>>71667191
Because of their tolerance for fags and Mudslimes. If you'd just get rid of those 2 you'd have my vote
>>71679951
Jag håller med om allting du har skrivit hittils. Synd att det inte finns fler som du i detta sosse-paradis till land vi lever i.
>>71675371
quality shit right here
>>71675371
yep we gotta pad the population with worthless white trash and restrict everyone's freedoms so i can feel good about myself
there are more white people on earth than there ever have been in the past
>>71680208
D-du med.
>>71680196
What's wrong with fags? I understand your concern about Muslims, but government should stay out of the bedroom, just as it should stay out of the market.
>>71680173
This and also the fact that if a monopoly exist under a free market, that means said company does something way better than anyone else, that's a good thing for anyone involved.
>>71675589
>Profitable crime in a libertarian society
What are they going to do? Sell drugs which are totally legal? Or steal from homes in which everyone's armed?
>>71679735
And what do you think would happen if the banks went under?
>The economy hasn't recovered
Of course
>>71679787
Crime pays better off in advanced societies.
>>71680447
>Or steal from homes in which everyone's armed?´
Yes.
America is heavily armed, and it's still a crime ridden shithole
>>71680475
The economy would have recovered and a real recovery at that, the moral hazard of bailing out the banks makes the likelihood of another bailout in the next 50 years quite high.
>>71680475
If the banks went under? Short term pain but long term gain, now we have the opposite, long term pain and no gain in sight since the problem has only gotten worse each day.
>>71667191
It's of a similar tier to Socialism
>>71675641
>immigrants not a problem
>French
Kek. How well did immigrants turn out for you Islamic republic of France?
>>71680475
>Crime pays better off in advanced societies.
Can you explain/elaborate on this nebulous assertion?
>>71680170
>Wake up bro. They have been doing this to us and some of us are happily chering for it, like you.
What?
In my country at least, there's never been as many government regulations for companies (especially small businesses) as today.
What political ideology do you subscribe to?
>In victorian times
Why are you making this comparison?
>If it pops up
By necessity, it will.
>If it isn't bought up
I already addressed this.
>marketing
>implying starved workers give a fuck about marketing, especially in a local, voluntaryist context
>unproductive
Better than not productive at all.
>Because?
By necessity, there would be no other option. Eventually, someone would answer the overwhelming demand for an alternative.
>Some companies can't just ""pop up" overnight.
You mentioned worker revolts, which are also a viable possibility.
>Grow up kiddo
It was just a comparison to illustrate my point.
>relly on themselves
Is that a bad thing? I don't believe in handouts.
>We would have to watch our backs constantly
I'm ready to somewhat compromise my security for more freedom. Assuming it would indeed become like the far west, which I doubt, I'd prefer that to unrestrained statism.
>It's a very likely situation
I respect your opinion then
>What do you mean
If companies starve their workers to death, it can't be too beneficial to their productivity, can it?
>Oxymoron?
That's the question I wanted to answer by coming to this thread. I don't think it's an oxymoron, both things seem quite compatible.
I'll leave shortly. Although I don't agree with you, thanks for discussing things without memeing all over the place
>>71677738
>I'm a libertarian but I think the government should tell you how to live and take over other countries.
Do you even know what a libertarian is?
>>71680401
Because it's a legitimate possibly curable problem and instead of helping them and researching a cure we just tell them "it's ok"
We all told my brother "it's ok" still didn't stop him from trying to find a cure then shooting himself when he couldn't find anyone who even wanted to try helping him
>>71679946
>there is no inflation
>look at all the product not included in the inflation calculation
>find massive inflation
>bu-bu-bu-but there is no inflation
>why is my food basket always smaller? why are restrooms being compressed to unisex?
>bu-bu-but aggregate demande and fartfartfarts
A tool is what you are my kind friend.
>>71674507
but that's why we're a republic
>>71680266
Another moron who thinks absolute numbers trump proportions.
>>71681065
Sorry about your brother mate.
Many fags are fine with who they are, so why should we use the state to control their lives? If a cure came along then it would be purely optional.
>>71680638
America has lots of local variation in gun laws. Lots of crime in major cities where there's tighter regulation on guns. Having states with loose gun laws next to gun free zones is a horrible idea. In a libertarian society, criminals wouldn't have the advantage over others that they do in some places.
>>71670506
>What's the answer to immigration according to libertarians and especially anarchists/anarcho-capitalists?
Open borders.
>>71680646
>The economy would have recovered
Before that? what would happen before the economy recovered?
(I sort of aggre with you guys about the bailouts)´
>>71680688
>Short term pain
What are we talking about?
>>71680897
>Crime pays better off in advanced societies.
What don't you understand in this?
It's better to steal from rich norwegian kids then from nigeria slums.
>>71680913
> there's never been as many government regulations for companies
This is a subjective stuff. We can't really measure the amount of regulation.
~
But deregulation of finance industry is a real thing.
>especially small businesses
I aggre with you guys in this. Bearucratic paperwork is too much for small bussiness and start ups.
But i disaggre in environmental regulations, health hazzard regulations, anti-trust regulations...
>What political ideology do you subscribe to?
None, but in betwen National socialism and Scandinavian model is the better.
>Why are you making this comparison?
Basic needs are subjective.
>By necessity, it will.
What do you mean with necessity? My pants would drop if no one would start a bussiness?
>I already addressed this.
No, you didn't
>Better than not productive at all.
But not good enough for me. I don't want crumbs when we can have the whole bread
>Eventually,
Wich can take what? 2 weeks? 20 years? And in the meanwhile we have a monopoly. Thanks god we are libertarian now.
>You mentioned worker revolts, which are also a viable possibility.
Worker revolts always attempted to change laws or to attract the attention of the gov. What would workers revolt for? (You don't know, but i do : Socialism or communism)
>Is that a bad thing? I don't believe in handouts.
I like to know i have my backs covered. So do you. I enjoy trading some freedom for security
>If companies starve their workers to death, it can't be too beneficial to their productivity, can it?
No need, just pay them enough to live.
>>71681989
Short term pain as in the economy would go down and get back up naturally.
Now we have merely prolonged that which made it a hundred times worse, if you think the last financial crisis was bad you best be prepared for the one coming, it's going to hit way harder.
>>71680913
>I don't think it's an oxymoron, both things seem quite compatible.
Nationailsm is a major restriction to free market. By adopting that position, you are basically not free market advocates, but people who advocate for a better gov, like me.
>>71681738
> Lots of crime in major cities
Because there are more persons in major cities. What about per capita crime? Is it any different?
>where there's tighter regulation on guns.
Guns can travel too. You can buy guns in a state and then take them to inner cities.
>>71682137
>Short term pain
But what short term pain? GDP contraction of 20%? Massive inflation?
>if you think the last financial crisis was bad you best be prepared for the one coming, it's going to hit way harder.
I've heard this many tmes
>>71667191
Okay guys, shitty country is shitty, so logically, ban the state. Only non sheeple will understand
>>71682386
Companies going under, people losing money the usual stuff, either way it would be way better than what it is going to be like.
Of course you have since it's been looming since 2008. Only a matter of time now.
DUDE
>>71682292
>Guns can travel too. You can buy guns in a state and then take them to inner cities.
That's my point. Criminals get guns from other states and bring them to inner cities, while the average citizen won't, putting them at a disadvantage. If everyone could have guns everywhere, it wouldn't be armed gangs vs. citizens with baseball bats and pepper spray.
>>71682796
Yeah I agree, we should just keep people who choose to do harmless drugs in prison.
What gives your fat, ugly ass the option to point a gun at my head and tell me it's wrong to use marijuana?
>>71682971
So impose gun restrictions, like background checks, end the gun show loophole, tme betwenn buying and receiving...
Make it harder, so that retards now longer buy them, because it takes too much work, and those that actually care and want them get them
>>71682796
I fully aggre with lolbertarians in the end of prohibition
>>71683204
>So impose gun restrictions, like background checks, end the gun show loophole
those all ready exist. The majority of firearms used in crime are not legally obtained firearms. It doesn't work here and ends up only hindering the law-abiding gun owner.
>>71673311
Christ, you're cucked.
>>71670506
Doesn't matter, in a true ancap society you could refuse to do any business with them, and they wouldn't be supported by welfare.
So you would only get the cream of the crop of minorities, while all the mudslimes and niggers and spics would die out or at the very least not be allowed in the privately owned communit of /pol/ville.
That the genuis of it, cucks can be cucks, stormfags can be stormfags, and as long as you don't violate the NAP, nobody can do anything about it besides refuse to associate with you (though why you would want to do buisness with a cuck is beyond me)
Anarcho-capitalism: letting you decide
>>71667191
>Why are u still not an libertarian?
people with higher IQs gravitate towards libertarianism, so don't expect the MANY fedora tipping inbred morons that stink up /pol/ to understand its superiority.
>muh "conservative" values
>muh "progressive" values
how adorably childish and stupid of you.
>>71667191
Because I like my roads.
>>71672612
>Monopolies, mostly. Labor Unions, minimum wages, etc. are all in place in the U.S. because we tried a freer economy before and ended up with Oil and Steel barons.
You do know those monoplies only continued to exist because of government corruption and there being a corporation took them out of the normal process of the free market, right?
Without the government, bad businesses, no matter how big, would fail. And if businesses that exploit workers don't fail, then maybe people don't care about worker exploitation as much as they claim
>>71683615
> are not legally obtained firearms
And how are those weapons obtained?
>>71683840
Are you that weeabo faggot with a tripcode?
>>71683204
The solution to the specific problem I described is to have uniform regulations. It's gotta be hard to get guns everywhere or easy to get guns everywhere. I actually agree with you on background checks. We just can't have some areas that are gun free zones and others where you can get them, even after a waiting period.
>>71683907
Free market has and can do it.
Toll road, selling of advertising space (which would essentially make the cost you pay to use the road zero), part of the benefit you get for buying a house in a private community: there are many ways to have roads without the government paying for it with theft.
>>71679735
but it's hard to tell if more government oversight on future banking is less desirable than having the banks fail and that cycle repeating endlessly as they race to the bottom again
>>71683985
I didn't left implicit, but yes, uniformization is important. Gun free zones is not deterrement.
>>71683615
People can't buy wepons on Walmart?
>>71683907
>>71684061
>Free market has
No
>selling of advertising space (which would essentially make the cost you pay to use the road zero)
Source?
>part of the benefit you get for buying a house in a private community: there are many ways to have roads without the government paying for it with theft.
true, there are many ways. But are they better? I don't think so.
>>71684091
But the only reason they failed is because of government. Government oversight doesn't help, glass steagall did nothing, it will never do anything.
>>71677174
But in a libertarian society, the government wouldn't protect people from the consequences of their stupidity, and natural selection would work it's magic as it were
>>71683951
>faggot with a tripcode complaining about some faggot with a tripcode
butthurt "progressive" moron detected
stay insecure idiot
>>71684168
Roads are a very good argument agaisnt it. Even tough it is a meme by now, i haven't listened to a good alternativve to public state owned roads
>>71684285
> glass steagall did nothing, it will never do anything.
Are you highed?
>>71684167
>People can't buy wepons on Walmart?
They can. What has that to do with restrictions and background checks all ready existing?
Or people using illegally obtained firearms?
>>71683840
shut up inbred. you are childish.
>>71684340
Praceteom?
>>71684387
People can buy weapons on the day. It's a good restriction in my opinion, a waiting time betwen the purchase and the delivery.
Especially regarding suicides.
>>71670506
Without a welfare state this isn't a problem really.
I mean, just look at the refugee crisis right now, there's a reason the refugees don't want to stay in countries that are closer to Syria, but want to go to countries like Sweden, Germany and Denmark, and that's because their sandnigger family members have sent them e-mails from those countries telling them that the states are gullible leftists that give them money for doing nothing.
>>71684266
>No
Yes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States
>Source?
you don't pay for 4chan, do you? Do you know how it's funded? You see that smug little anime girl at the bottom of the screen telling you to use some weeb streaming site?
It's the same concept applied to roads.
>true, there are many ways. But are they better? I don't think so.
They don't require theft and a surrendered of rights and freedoms, and allow choice and competition, so yes, they are better.
>>71684061
Cool. What happens when you're at a toll booth, can't afford to pay the toll, and you can't go back because you're out of money, so you have to trespass... but wait, they have a right to defend their property so they shove shotgun up your ass?
>>71674369
>not wanting McAfee to be the nominee
>>71684589
Toll roads don't cost that much.
Also credit. Also something like the tolltag system.
>>71684703
Ok, you dodged that one. I'm going to ask again
What happens if you have no money?
>>71684168
>I can't think of an argument so I'm going claim that he's baiting.
>>71684773
Then you do something to get money, or alternatively you cut back costs so you have enough money.
Basically just be fiscally responsible.
>>71683907
oh shit i forgot nobody but government knows how to make roads
>>71684890
I know right.
Only a massive entity that steals your cash each year can lay down concrete and flatten it.
>>71684578
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States
Highways are not the same as the rest of the roads. Highways are, per definition, optional. I am talking about the common roads.
And if highways are some kind of model, the i am happy with the current system, thank you
>You see that smug little anime girl at the bottom of the screen telling you to use some weeb streaming site?
I use adblock. But this sitee is used by millions of persons everyday, and even that way Moot, with voluntary staff (lol) had troubles keeping this up and running.
Advertising in Roads could be feasible in some roads, but many would not because no one would pay to advertise there.
>They don't require theft and a surrendered of rights and freedoms, and allow choice and competition, so yes, they are better.
MUH FEE FEES!!!! WAHHHHHHH
fuck off with this gay shit
>>71684853
What if you're between tolls and can't pay the cost of either? Say you paid for a toll and got mugged in between. There are no other paths, but you can't go through the toll booth. That's what I'm asking.
>>71684890
Do you think owners are just going to allow you to drive on their property without business?
>>71684703
>>71684773
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riots
>>71667191
>government regulated morality
what is meant by this?
>>71685058
>Highways are, per definition, optional.
Not in the United States.
>>71685058
>muh roads
>>71684890
It's not the how to make roads, but how to manae them. But you are only kids, so it's ok. Just study functions hard Timmy
>>71667191
I'm somewhat libertarian but believe in public education and roads. However also that the teachers union should be busted and universities should be audited and made more efficient instead of buying more blue light rape phones and glass buildings.
>>71674491
>silly goyim, just take your pharmaceutical drugs, caffeine, and alcohol
>>71685058
>Highways are not the same as the rest of the roads. Highways are, per definition, optional. I am talking about the common roads.
>And if highways are some kind of model, the i am happy with the current system, thank you
In this case they are the same. And if you can build a highway and privatize it, you can do the same for a normal road.
>
Advertising in Roads could be feasible in some roads, but many would not because no one would pay to advertise there.
if people aren't willing to advertise there, then not many people are using it. If not many people are using it, then it's not that big a deal, is it?
>>MUH FEE FEES!!!! WAHHHHHHH
>>fuck off with this gay shit
>leftists saying this
>ever
Don't make me laugh.
Also, not an argument
>>71679348
thanks
>>71685154
If i want to make it to some place faster, i use the highway. If i don't mind the curvy roads, hookers, and low speed limit, i take "national" roads. If i want to evade police i take country roads. This is how we do it in Portugal
>>71685182
>>71685201
>>71684521
>It's a good restriction in my opinion, a waiting time betwen the purchase and the delivery.
Why does your opinion matter? Do you believe a suicidal person will stop being suicidal if they have to wait a couple of days? Why does your opinion matter?
If this was the significant factor in suicide, Japan wouldn't have over double the suicide rate of the US. But most importantly, why does your opinion matter?
again
>They can. What has that to do with restrictions and background checks all ready existing?
Or people using illegally obtained firearms?
>>71685327
Highways are for national defence.
>>71685094
>What if you're between tolls and can't pay the cost of either? Say you paid for a toll and got mugged in between. There are no other paths, but you can't go through the toll booth. That's what I'm asking.
Tolltag system. Look it up.
>War on drugs
You mean CIA sponsored narco trade.
>>71685397
In this case they're using this definition of highway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway
>>71685327
> If not many people are using it, then it's not that big a deal, is it?
Sure, let the only decent road that a small town has to a hospital fall in disrepair. I'm sure nothing will happen wrong.
>Also, not an argument
Not an argument was my argument agaisnt you. I literally don't care about what you think is moreal and what isn't
>>71677346
the real answer is, open but without welfare. only workers would have incentive to come
>>71674672
Decreased
Growth
Pick one
The basic problem with the rest of your rant is the belief that the magical 'free market' had any effect beyond rhetoric. Federal regulations alone are vastly greater than 40 years ago. Alabama had one office dealing with our family business when we started, a boss, a secretary and 4 in the field. The industry has nearly doubled in employees since, but there are over 20 in the Montgomery office, plus several satellites and nearly a hundred field agents, all with cars! The annual reporting was a page in 1978, now its quarterly with weekly updates and we have to have an accountant to dodge jail time.
These are highly documented facts that are clear for the collected data. Keynesian 'full employment' is slavery or make work.
I remember a time when /pol was all libertarians
>>71685354
>Do you believe a suicidal person will stop being suicidal if they have to wait a couple of days?
Yes, suicidal person sometimes act out of impulse and rash decisions. If they are so miserable, then a few weeks waiting period won't do no harm.
>Japan wouldn't have over double the suicide rate of the US.
Gun suicide is being discussed
>why does your opinion matter?
Because this is 4chan. Every opinion here matters. IRL it's different, but that is why we are here
>>71685856
>muh eco chamber
People grow up
>>71667191
because they are uneducated retards, on par with communists or anarchists. it doesnt work that way, humans are incompatible with it
>>71685343
>muh management of roads
If someone can buy and build them, someone can manage them statist scum.
>>71685642
>Sure, let the only decent road that a small town has to a hospital fall in disrepair. I'm sure nothing will happen wrong
If it falls into disrepair, then that means alot of people weren't using it, which means alot of people did't need to go to the hospital. If they need to use the road, they would pay for it. If they pay for it, people will build it.
Libertarianism is a stepping stone towards liberalism. You start disagreeing with the Republican party on social issues, then start to see the damage the bootstraping does to those people you're no longer considering subhuman trash.
>>71685856
Most of the natsocs and other more authortarian's started there or have some fondness for it but just prioritize culture/ethnicity over it
Though in an ancap society there could easily be a collection of same raced people or people only providing charity to their race and whoever does better does the best, and no one could force anyone in or to do anything.
They would easily be able to secure their group and do what they desire to help their group, and so long as they don't initiate any force against other groups they dislike they could totally disregard and do nothing with them.
>>71686216
My freedom shouldn't end where your feelings begin swings both ways, hombre.
>>71686016
MAnage them more efficiently then the state, and with a more satisfiable outcome to me. I never heard a libertarian system that did the above.
>calling me a statist
Nice way to insult yourself. And i am more disastified with gov then you guys
>>71686081
You may only need to go to hospital once in your life.
>If they need to use the road, they would pay for it.
And if only a couple of hundred cars passed trough that road? It couldn0t be profitable.
And the small town would disapear
>>71667191
>legal marijuana
Nah we should punish people harder for doing drugs fuck them
>>71686543
>MUH FEELZ
>>71686543
Better give up drinking, caffeine, and pharmaceuticals then.
>>71686543
Selling gold is a hell of a drug.
>>71686461
>And i am more disastified with gov then you guys
Only because you think it's fucking the wrong people. Statists like you think there's any real different between Hitler and Stalin.
>>71686461
>And if only a couple of hundred cars passed trough that road? It couldn0t be profitable.
>And the small town would disapear
your severly overestimating the cost of a road. a drivable road can be as simple and low cost as a trail covered with something like sand or gravel. In fact there are literally thousands of guides on the internet on how to make your own private road.
also, if that actually occurs, then clearly the town deserved to disappear. shouldn't subsidize things that fail.
>>71687011
Eisenhower has such a weird dichotomy. he says stuff like this, but he also continued things like social security. Still a rather based man though
>>71686638
Don't you have legal crack and heroin? Why don't you OD it's the best that any Portunigger can hope for
>>71686665
I agree, binge drinking, coffee and drugs are degenerate
>>71686828
Trudeau is not my prime minister, he's a commie pinko Muslim faggot who wishes he could Sikh some nice dick.
I didn't vote for him, he does not represent the DOMINION OF CANADA, my Canada does not have a flaming homo for a prime minister
>>71687167
>but he also continued things like social security.
Every single president since FDR has continued social security, even the most retarded Christian conservative Republicans.
>>71687011
>Only because you think it's fucking the wrong people.
Yes, it's fucking the Portuguese people
>>71687017
>your severly overestimating the cost of a road
no no no no, you underestimate the cost of a road
>trail covered with something like sand or gravel.
911, please come fast, my dad is having a stroke, use that 40 mile road made of dirt and gravel.
>also, if that actually occurs, then clearly the town deserved to disappear. shouldn't subsidize things that fail.
Ah, ok. Everything for the rich globalists amirite?!?!?
>>71687179
>Don't you have legal crack and heroin?
decriminalized, as in, people that are catched with consumer doses are treated as sick people, not criminals. Nowadays there are country with more advanced laws, such as Holand, Uruguay, and some US states iirc
>>71685182
>Repaving
>Building roads
These are the same people who look at a framed house and say "wow looks almost done!".
>>71687179
let me present an idea to you:
rather than outlawing drugs, you have no laws on the subject. however, there are no laws that also prevent discrimination of druggies, and no social programs to fund their lifestyle.
this would mean that you could flat out refuse to hire druggies, sell anything to druggies, or support drug users in any way. So, assuming that enough people dislike drug users, they would simply be forced to stop using drugs, go form their own place were away from you, or die out.
does this solve your problems?
>>71687294
>continued things like social security.
You know who used social security also? Ayn Rand
>>71670506
No welfare state
Also
What are Gated Communities?
>>71687509
>Be forced to pay into a system for 40 years
>leftist babbies complain when you get back what is rightfully yours
Top argument lad.
>>71687449
All the Catholics in Europe are becoming so degenerate, how sad
>>71687473
Or just throw them in jail and let them rot, they're supporting terrorism and cartels buying drugs.
>>71684839
Actually thought you were here to troll anarchists because "muh roads" is the best way to do that. I'm not an anarchist but this has been refuted a million times.
