Find a flaw.
Pro-Tip: You can't
>>72180405
MNUH RAOADSSFDAS
I like to think I like libertarianism but wouldn't a lack of protectionism fuck over worker wages?
>>72180405
:^)
>>72180405
But what of our roads? Our interstate system?
>>72180405
what's stopping an invasion?
>>72180405
>Your dollar will buy more groceries without farm subsidies and trade barriers
But... subsidies keep things cheap. If not for subsidies, farmers would have to make their good REALLY expensive to break even.
>Schools will deliver the promise of education through competition and freedom of choice
No, because the south will pay for conservative propaganda, and the north for liberal propaganda.
>Workers will be free to compete for good pay without protectionism and extortion
Big companies will collude to make sure workers remain poor. In fact, these greedy fucks will become the new government.
>Every person will be treated equally and be afforded full protection of the law
What about poor people who cannot afford lawyers? And who decides what's fair? Mickey dee's and Walmart? Surely that won't lead to corporatism!
>>72181569
Can I still be considered a libertarian if I'm not necessarily for free market roads? I'm on the fence of it desu
>>72182212
We had free market roads for a long time in the US. Ever see a "Turnpike"? That was a free market road.
>>72181435
>>72181569
>>72182212
Goddammit guys I really shouldn't have to post this is every thread.
ROADS ARE NOT HANDLED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Neither are fire departments, EMS, or most police forces.
States, counties and local governments would be (and are) free to build roads as their people permit.
>>72180405
>>Corporate Overlordship
May as well name the CEO's of the Fortune 25 companies as the new rulers of the nation.
>>72180405
>one post by OP
this is a bait thread
>>72182882
>Corporations can't lobby the government to strangle competition anymore, but somehow they will still have more power
WEW LAD
>>72181882
1) They're not subsidies, it's artificial demand caused by government buying farm goods that keep farmers 'gainfully' employed. Quantity demand pushes up the Price demand of any good. Always.
2) Because a giant, over-funded bureaucracy is the only way to develop education?
Oh wait.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/03/29/feds-charge-9-current-and-former-detroit-school-principals/82375712/
3) Without government regulations to eliminate smaller companies, there would be no such thing as 'Big' companies. There wouldn't be colluding because the competition that ensues would put their own survival at stake whether from a potential competitor or a real one.
4) Yeah, because having 80,000 pages on the federal register is a sure fire way to ensure that poor people don't get trapped by the law...
>>72182212
You'd be opposed to Google or Tesla making high-quality, high-speed roads and openly competing against one another?
Btw, most roads/highways were thruways developed by the people before being taken over by the government.
>>72181608
The Army
>>72181569
>>72181173
>>72182516
>>72182212
Tolls make roads nice.
>>72181403
protectionism fucks over consumers with high prices
>>72183161
wew
>>72181882
Hey, take your logical arguments somewhere else. This is a libertarian thread!
>>72183459
>make government non existent so whos going to stop them
>ITT: Anarchy = Libertarianism
>>72180405
No one has tried my brand of libertarianism, but trust me it will work goys.
>>72181608
A well funded, strong military who's sole responsibility is protecting our land.
>>72183882
> protectionism fucks over consumers with high prices
but protectionism UN-FUCKS productibvve people so they can have their wages to buy shit instead of sending all real productive industry to china and mexico.
you are retarded.
a nation that imports everything is DEPENDANT and dependency is suicide.
youre sliding down the rabbit hole with "The Black Community" and other dependent fools.
>>72181403
Protectionism will cause consumer prices to rise SIGNIFICANTLY.
I'm sure you'd much rather retrain for a job field that is demanded (i.e. not low-skilled labor pretty much anyone can do, anywhere) where you can earn a decent wage than to entertain a world where even the highest wages couldn't afford the bare necessities.
>>72183882
B-BUT RAOIOOADS
Engineers wearing hard hats at a desk meeting inside.
>>72184434
division of labor. You produce what you're best at producing and other countries produce what they're best at producing-- thus all of humanity benefits with the abundance of goods, low prices, and having to work less to attain material well-being.
Or you can ban goods outside your little enclave and try to make everything yourself and become destitute, like North Korea.
>>72184632
that just goes to show the instability of buildings once regulations disappear in this Libertarian society.
>>72184659
>You produce what you're best at producing and other countries produce what they're best at producing-- thus all of humanity benefits with the abundance of goods, low prices, and having to work less to attain material well-being.
Karl Marx basically advocated all of this lol. He was vigorously in favour of free trade to weaken national boundaries and the idea of abundance is central to communism.
>>72183664
>Because a giant, over-funded bureaucracy is the only way to develop education?
Over funded? You have one of the most anemic and underfunded public education systems in the developed world.
>3) Without government regulations to eliminate smaller companies, there would be no such thing as 'Big' companies.
Then how do you explain the fact that even before the government grew to its current size, companies grew into bloated giants? On top of that these massive trans-national corporations already exist, so simply implementing libertarian policies wouldn't break their power.
>There wouldn't be colluding because the competition that ensues would put their own survival at stake whether from a potential competitor or a real one.
Companies would do whatever benefits them the most. If a handful of large corporations can band together to muscle out the competition then that's exactly what they will do.
>>72184434
holy fug
can one man really be this retarded
>>72184659
Then why has globalization and free trade led to the systematic reduction wages and loss of jobs all across the Western world?
>>72185320
You nailed it. Capitalism and communism are a false dichotomy, they are the same materialistic and international philosophies with different pathways to the same goal.
>>72185807
This is actually not entirely wrong. People talk about communism like its something separate from western liberalism and libertarianism. They are all descended from classical liberalism and share the same philosophical basis. The fact that both leftists and rightists are constantly at each other's throats but fail to see how similar both their ideologies are is truly mind boggling.
>>72180405
well I consider myself to be lolbertarian on some issues, but consdering that farming subsidies are supposed to give farmers an economic incentive to farm (since it's so lacking in profits otherwise), how are we supposed to get rid of them? Really, I'm curious.
>>72185595
that's simple...
Govt is succeeding in destroying the value of our currency and making it harder for businesses to be profitable-- jobs are ONLY created when the conditions for profitability exists, which is facilitated by a lack of tariffs (i.e. lower raw material costs) and lower regulatory burden.
>>72181882
The canadian tries to pull off a reasonable argument
>>72186116
Exactly. Both have roots right in the enlightenment. We can also look how they end up: communism has become more capitalist and capitalism has become more communist. You can talk theory all you want but this is what has happened. They are the same. In communism the state is just a big corporation and everybody is an employee. It's just corporatism to the max. Consumerism to the max.
>>72180405
>schools will deliver the promise of education through competition and freedom of choice
Enjoy having half the country be under-educated fundamentalist retards, then.
>>72180405
now color them all Dem-voting browns because that's what libertarian open borders looks like
>>72180405
lolbergtarians seem to overlook how bad global trade deals are. Theres a big difference between free trade and fair trade. assuming we accepted a lolbergtarian structure, the ultra rich would just buy everything up at the start and then create monopolies, governments would be buying up entire states. They are already doing these things.
You need government intervention for A) oversight and B) insurance.
otherwise taco bell just imports mexicans directly, charges them 1.25 an hour and we're all fucked.
>>72180405
Riddle me this Libertarian fags:
Would not all, or nearly all property in a truly libertarian country be privately owned? Now obviously this implies things like toll roads but what about sidewalks? Since all property (or pretty much everything but court and military property) is private wouldn't you be unable to walk down the street without trespassing or paying a toll? If you didn't own any property of your own and didn't have the cash to pay for rent/tolls you would end up in a situation where you couldn't even exist anywhere without trespassing or racking up debt from tolls. Is this really the reality you want?
>1) They're not subsidies, it's artificial demand caused by government buying farm goods that keep farmers 'gainfully' employed. Quantity demand pushes up the Price demand of any good. Always.
Evidently you don't understand the national security importance of a strategic food surplus. Have you ever had to live through a famine? No? That's because farmers are paid to grow more than they would normally be able to sell under market conditions. That means if there's a drought or something else that fucks up food supply there's plenty extra to prevent bread riots.
>>72187386
>lolgbertarians seem to overlook how bad global trade deals are.
assuming these trade deal are made mostly by the "big nanny" state i don´t think libertarians ignore them
>the ultra rich would just buy everything up at the start and then create monopolies
actual monopolies where free trade is restricted ussually happen thanks to the state providing rich people the ability to make them
>governments would be buying up entire states
wtf
>otherwise taco bell just imports mexicans and pays them 1.25 an hour
a libertarian country wouldn´t necessarily let illegal immigrants, also, why are you so concerned about taco bell jobs? are you so dumb and useless that you can´t get a better job?
>>72187073
>probably most under-educated fundamentalists were raised in public schools
>>72188125
Perfectly stated anon. This shows the mentality of libertarians. They don't care for anything but their immediate standard of living and they will sacrifice anything for it. They have no sense of kinship among society. To them everybody is on their own and everybody is out to get them. Completely atomized. That's why many of them have autism.
>>72187807
use common sense, man
this type of problems are created without any type of critical thinking
of course you would be able to walk down the street, just like roads, sidewalks can be bought by a group of people agreeng to pay equal amounts of money to a private enterprise to build it.
in a big city, people would just agree to pay an amount to build new roads and sidewalks
Notice how libertarians never mention immigration.
free trade = free movement of people, goods and services = millions of 3rd world citizens moving into your country to look for jobs.
>>72188125
>there´s a drought
>no food produced from local producers
>buy from anyone else
i really can´t see the problem
>>72189157
That's purely speculative
>>72189513
how is expecting someone to pay a toll every 2 feet they make not speculative anyways?
that´s the thing with this kind of situations, they just wouldn´t happen
another answer would be the government defending its citizens right to move freely without invading anyone else´s private property
>>72184615
>>72185320
marx's thought of this was that it would basically spread industry/industrialization around.
>industrialization that would see nations consolidate as far as identities go.
>industrialization that would be a repeat of the industrial revolution in each country.
>with mass urbanization, land consolidation, peasant cultures basically being stamped out.
>then essentially popular culture from home and abroad seeping in.
>along with a weakening of traditional values and roles.
>basically leading (centuries later) to a humanity that only has class-divisions, as language, religion, and ethnicity have become non-existent or irrelevant
>>72189465
Prices go up and the lower classes starve, thus causing bread riots and/or general social unrest. I thought you guys understood basic supply and demand.
>>72188125
>strategic food surplus
What are you going to do stick all the food in freezers, vacuum pack it? Suspend the laws of entropy?
How absurd. Food should be in people's tummies, only socialists would stash it in warehouses for undetermined number of years.
>>72180405
>free trade
>open borders
>>72190883
Everything that made America great.
>>72190736
Except seeds. Having a world seed bank is actually a great idea incase of an ecological problem (Example: A parasite ravage corn fields. We just wait it out, Then replant corn all over the place.)
>>72190736
Staples like wheat can be stored for decades.
>>72181403
Workers can still collectively negotiate.
>>72191275
But that's unions and unions are COMMUNIST
>>72183994
Not an argument
>>72191413
syndicalist.
>>72190736
What is first in first out? What is adjusting production as needed so that you always have roughly the same amount of crop in storage? What is exporting what you can't sell domestically or selling it for none food-stuffs purposes?
>>72180405
>tfw we will never get to live in a libertarian utopia
>>72190883
Implying that having zero welfare benefits wouldn't attract the best of the best immigrants and not the low life piles of shit that Europe is currently getting
You forgot one
>With open borders the white race will be exponentially marginalized until the US is rendered a third world country
>>72191853
No it won't. That only happens when you have a generous welfare state. There is no mass migration of spics from one state within the US to another state within the US because there is nothing extra to be gained by doing that in terms of welfare benefits. People of the same race tend to congregate together, you only get this forced assimilation when the state sets up massive ponzi schemes and their natives stop breeding, creating an incentive to bring in third worlders. The third worlders are also choosing to move to places that have the most generous welfare benefits. Look at the movement patterns of the current migrant crisis, they're passing over several safe countries to go to places like Sweden and Germany that will give them free shit.
In a libertarian paradise, there is no incentive for this mass movement of low IQ, skilless third worlders because there is nothing waiting there to be handed to them for free. If they come, they'll need to provide for themselves.
Who will secure our borders when there is economic benefit to hiring foreigners?
>>72192333
Why would it ever be cheaper to fly someone halfway across the planet and have to deal with their lack of knowledge of the culture and language vs hiring someone from your community?
>>72192221
They'll provide for themselves not by getting jobs but by being criminals. Be realistic here. They will go where it is rich and they will leech on it until it's all dried up.
Lack of basic understanding of human nature:check
>>72193131
Do you think crime will flourish in a society where every individual may or may not be concealing a firearm?
>>72192559
Because you can pay them less. Don't act like it's more expensive for plane tickets and language classes for somebody who will work for way less money a year. You're really fucking stretching it, don't act like the well being of your own people has a place in your fantasy paradise.
>>72193131
Leech on what exactly? There is no welfare, no guarantee of anything. Anyone around you could have weapons. Doesn't sound like an area conducive to living off criminal activity.
>>72193218
Yes. It will just ensure a criminal is more likely to bring his own gun or just outright kill you. I believe in gun rights but you're not aware of reality. Guns won'the magically solve crime all in their own.
>>72180405
> all the pictures are white people
Yeah it's a fantasy.
>>72193439
Right, but the people now that are being replaced don't even have the option to work for less. Of course workers will have to bargain with each other.
>>72193672
I don't understand how you think crime will just go away magically. They're not rational people, they aren't going to analyze the facts and come to the conclusion they shouldn't be criminals.
>>72192559
nigger you're retarded, just like all libertarians. Haha/thread
Free trade is a myth so long as nations have borders in a globalized world. I'm not making an argument over whether it's a good or bad thing, just that it's a myth.
In a globalized society, jobs and labor can act just like commodities. Jobs can be imported, as is in the case of mexicans working for the Agriculture department, or any other industry that creates a pull from other countries, and labor can be exported, as is in the case of outsourcing. Jobs that can be sent, like call centers, to other countries.
Because of this, borders of states impede free trade. Because of this, it can't be free trade unless there can be a free flow of labor, and a free flow of jobs. That can't happen unless there are no borders.
>>72193672
>criminality only exist because of welfare
>muh guns will protect us
(you)
>>72180405
Absolutely no economic stability
>>72193994
I didn't say it would go away, ever. If you're point is that giving people free shit makes them less likely to turn to crime, you only need to look at the criminal elements within the communities that consume the most welfare. The inner cities are the most crime ridden, as well as the most welfare dependent.
>>72194175
Never said welfare caused crime, only that it doesn't keep people from committing crime. And yes, hundreds of thousands of people use guns in self defense in the US. I know you probably wouldn't understand, because you're supposed to let a home invader just have what he wants in your little socialist shithole. Wouldn't want to offend them.
>workers will be able to compete for good pay with Pajeet and his 200000 other Indian friends, Raj and his Bangladeshi cloth factory with child labourers, and Chang and his manufacturing sweatshop
>>72194273
>in high poverty areas there are criminals
>in high poverty areas there is also welfare
I guess we just remove the welfare then all the poor and the criminals just disappear magically.
>>72194273
My point is that letting diversity in because muh open borders is going to fuck everything up. They will move in and be criminals until there is nothing left anymore and then they will move on and start over. Open carrying guns isn'the going to make criminals magically disappear or prevent shitty people from all moving to the rich places to leech off of. Stay focused.
>>72194597
Where did I say criminality would go away? I said it wouldn't be a good way to make a living as opposed to getting a job. Petty theft isn't going to make you a lot of money, the "criminals" that make enough to support themselves now are the ones that sell illegal products, which wouldn't exist in libertopia.
>>72194401
this "little socialist shithole" has way less crime than your muh guns sperglord meme-country.
>>72194678
I know what you said. I'm asking what they would leech off. What does that mean? There is no government taking from the productive and giving to Jamal.
>>72194780
Is that because you give poor people free shit? If not, then it has nothing to do with the conversation retard.
>>72194852
Prisons and huge slums and massive poverty. Do you actually expect the poor to actually do things for themselves. or have you never opened a history book?
>>72187807
>Since all property (or pretty much everything but court and military property) is private wouldn't you be unable to walk down the street without trespassing or paying a toll?
It's wrong to assume that all property is privately owned. Even in a libertarian society you can have public spaces that are barred from being owned by men or corporations. This includes roads, sidewalks, town centers, forest and wild areas to some degree and everything else that many people have to use.
>>72194852
OK I'm going to go through it real simple to help you understand
>place gets rich
>open borders
>diversity moves in because they are attracted to abundance
>diversity wants piece of abundance
>diversity is too stupid or too lazy to acquire piece of abundance for themselves
>diversity resorts to taking abundance through criminality
>no, strong gun rights will not magically solve this problem and will likely escalate the criminality, guns are not the problem but they exacerbate the real problem
>>72195151
So poor people will live in slums and not be taking from the productive, which will somehow destroy the white race.
>>72195449
>open borders
Don't open the borders.
>>72191068
>open borders
>made America great
>>72195449
Where has this ever happened? Right now they take it through voting. Is there going to be a massive rise in the number of home invasions? What will these people, who are lazy, do to take from the rich?
>>72180405
BLUE LAWS
>>72195550
Libertarians argue that is protectionist policy preventing free market competition for labor
>>72180405
>low-cost care
The different aspects of care industries all are investing in politicians so they keep the bureaucratic mandates to increase their profit
>letting you keep the product of your labor
How many thousands of dollars each family pay to the Federal government?
>farm subsidies keep produce high
Farm subsidies makes produce cheaper
>better education
For the rich people
>Seniors retiring
Rich seniors
>nation at peace
Military adventurism is the one funding the Libertarian party
>Workers free to compete
Against people driving the wages down.
>deregulation and free trade
It harms the people. Mostly the deregulation part.
>Ending the Fed
Good thing that won't happen. The Fed is controlled by bankers who benefit the most from the Libertarian party
>Rights guaranteed
Pretty much the only thing they promise that they can back up. And it's the harder to measure
>government will mind it's own business
The federal government. The state governments will turn into an authoritarian nightmare
>every person treated equally
only if you can afford it
>>72195705
>Libertarians argue that is protectionist policy preventing free market competition for labor
As with everything, there is a spectrum of libertarianism.
>>72195518
You are simply foolish if you think poor people need the state to take from the productive. How might huge slums sprawled over your major cities effect businesses and property prices?
It will not take long for organized crime to increase massively and "tax" legitimate companies. How are you going to come down hard on these people with a limited government?
then add open borders to this shitshow and you'll have a fucking party.
>>72195637
You ever take a walk in a black neighborhood? You ever been a place with a lot of black people and said "gee, this would be a nice place to live?"
Probably not, because those are places where what I'm describing is happening every day. I'm starting to get the feeling that you rarely leave your comfort zone and are probably retarded.
>>72196151
No shit. Why would productive white people choose to live near blacks? They don't do that now. When blacks move in, whites leave. These pathetic communities are propped up by taxing the productive people.
>>72180405
>what is monopoly
>>72180405
Your image doesn't account for dindus ruining everything.
>>72180405
>thinking america could handle being libertarian
you have more faith in you fellow countrymen than i
>>72196547
Finally you rubbed 2 fucking neurons together, now think real hard about how these ghetto dwellers, who already commit lots of crime, would act if their food stamps stopped arriving
Then imagine you have a big open gate to let every plunderer who wants in our abundant country to show up, and none of them are getting food stamps
>>72197018
>you have more faith in you fellow countrymen than i
It's all theoretically. The people are too stupid to be on their own, the government isn't just decorative in this day and age.
>>72197119
Yes, if you flipped a switch overnight and cut everyone off, they'd chimp out. There'd be rioting, but that's because they're already dependent. Many would end up in jail. I don't see how offering zero welfare benefits would make more people like that more likely to come here. I'm guessing many would leave to find more generous governments.
>america will be a nation at peace with the world and avoid military adventurism
PUSSY
WAR IS HUMAN NATURE
TO KILL IS TO BE ALIVE
>>72180405
Libertarians are the communists of the right - minimal regulations, minimal government and then utopia. Works great on paper.
Guess it's just human nature that relegates y'all to what, 2-3% of the electorate. Oh sorry, it's the two party systems where you just can't earn a seat at the table. You have my pity.
We currently limit mergers and acquisitions that corner markets and create monopolies. With libertarianism we at times would go through monopoly cycles until laziness and innovation kicks in.
Also, no fed to control interest rates and inflation with limitless exposure to liquidity and credit risk with endless derivatives and no requirements on credit ratings would possibly lead to another financial debacle.
>>72180405
Why no Asians?
>>72191068
>free trade
America rose to prominence and industrial might under the import tariff. Another example, Meiji .Japan
>>72185248
kek
underrated
>libertarianism=ancap the thread
Minarchy is objectively best.
Honestly provide an argument against why government shouldn't handle exactly only the functions that cannot be handled by the free market, no more or less.
>>72182882
You stupid fuck.
Corporations are a legal fiction authorized by the government.
In a libertarian society there are no corporations.
a) How little government is still libertarianism without delving into retarded ancaps but without being evil statism?
b) How do you prevent said government from inevintably growing back into statism?
>>72202789
>muh statism
fuck off please
the governments are there for a reason, anarchism is really the stupidest ideology ever to be thought of
>>72180405
You really won't think mega corporations wouldn't want to fuck you over and everyone else for profit? Hell they don't even pay taxes and they still want to fuck everyone over by getting slaves to do all of the work in shitty countries.
