It's kind of depressing but i don't have faith in any position
For people who advocate capitalism I often just see it as people who want to get ahead by any means necessary, control by corporate power
For communism, socialism or basically anyone who promises people more resources, I think they're all just bullshitting and as soon as they get into power, all of that crumbles apart
Where do I go from here?
Shoot quickly ahead
Slowly go down and lose speed
Stop completely
Shoot quickly ahead
>>72296537
I mean, you're not wrong about the capitalism one. You just have to understand that it's built around the fact that competition and everyone trying to be successful builds the society.
Start from basic principles
Freedom is a moral good, we should attempt to maximize everyones freedom, while staying practical.
Then you compare every decision and historical precedent to those principles
>>72296537
Also in a purely capitalistic country, corporations would have no power over you.
You have all the buying power.
Monopolies would be possible, but unstable without constant government intervention
>>72296849
Freedom is definitely good
But freedom has also caused many of our problems
Their needs to be a way to maintain freedom, but also a good culture.
Otherwise the freedom comes back and fucks us
>>72296738
This is far too insightful for me to read, stop making me hate myself
>>72296983
Or rich people working together to keep down everyone else.
Just because the goverment can abuse, doesn't mean the rich won't also find ways to abuse on their own
>>72296537
THE BLACK PILLLLLLL
Libertarianism is literally the third position, except it does have more in common with the right wing than left, so we are framed as Nazis here and there.
>For people who advocate capitalism I often just see it as people who want to get ahead by any means necessary, control by corporate power
Libertarianism shouldn't be seen as straight advocating capitalism.
It's really where libertarians differ from the right wing, in libtardia the market is more competitive because smaller businesses have privileges/tax cuts that larger businesses don't have. Because it's so easy for small business, there are a lot of growing companies offering lots of junior/graduate jobs. Libertarianism is therefore inclined to promote competitive practices and promote the losers advantage rather than the winners advantage which simply makes the rich richer. Libertarianism is like how men date, we prefer the virgins. Right wing capitalism is how women date, they prefer experience.
Meanwhile in straight right wing capitalism, it's the other way around because larger companies can lobby more effectively and have somehow convinced the government that the best job growth is in big businesses rather than microbusinesses and startups. Because these are multinationals, they're capable of outsourcing their junior/graduate positions increasing youth unemployment and making an impossible situation for graduates where they need experience to get a job but need a job to get experience.
The youth are getting pretty thoroughly fucked by both left and right. It's why all the sane, intelligent youth are libertarians. We want jobs, not handouts.
>>72297157
How so?
They can't force you to buy their products
>>72296983
Such a system is unstable though. Why would two firms choose to compete in a race to the bottom instead of colluding?
There are plenty of good that people effectively can't just go without or can't wait to acquire.
Nothing wrong with capitalism so long as it's somewhat controlled. Communism is shit and an alright amount of socialism (so long as you don't put it too much) is good. The problem with socialism is that it gets bogged down in bureaucracy and expands to a degree that becomes worthless.
You have to become cynically optimistic. Hope for everything while being scornful that it might turn out shit because people have good intentions but are shit.
>>72296537
Monarchism/traditionalism.
>>72297520
Because if they colluded, then whoever broke their collusion first gains a massive advantage in the market.
If you colluded with 10 other firms to sell gas at 10 bucks a gallon, then one guy started selling at 9 bucks a gallon, he would get massive profits.
HOWEVER, if you could somehow enforce this collusion using government laws, then it would be the situation youre talking about.
Also if you can't go effectively without a product, the demand would be massive, and it would be simple matter to gather capital to start a new business to compete.
Rational self-interest is the only way
>>72297022
culture only happens with max freedom
>>72297453
I'm curious about this.
What happens in a libertarian society to all the people on welfare that still don't want to work?
People just won't lay down and die. And many won't look for jobs, instead choosing to wip themselves into a frenzy.
If they riot, what happens? Do the police subdue them? Then what?
If they refuse to get jobs but refuse to just die, than what would be done?
>>72297904
Most white people would be forced rightfully to get jobs.
I think you overestimate the willingness for white people to riot or steal.
>>72296537
Start with the greeks
>>72297855
That is so incredibly wrong.
Did the ancient Greeks and Romans have max freedoms? No they didn't.
Most people althrough-out history had very limited freedom, especially when compared to what we have today. And yet they still had culture.
Everything built by man has something pulling at its seams, whether it's gravity and weather acting on a building or self interest eating away at public resources.
Human nature with a healthy dose of necessity bound us together in the past. Today, nature still defines us as social animals, but necessity has been less of a factor for some time. People can easily enrich themselves or in-groups at the cost of others and still get goods from those same people or others still in order to survive.
The point is that you need people to cooperate or agree to some rules for any system to work. Obviously, nothing is going to guarantee harmony. Not even AI.
I think it worthwhile not to be paralyzed by skepticism and instead do the best possible under the circumstances. Gather and evaluate your values and go from there.
I think that any state should allow the superior man to rise above others in his field, for example. I also think that a state exists solely to serve its people, and that it should make sure that said people is healthy and safe. I also think that economic behavior that harms the state (ie the manifestation of the people's will to live) is should be curbed while preserving private property and inheritance.
>>72296849
How is freedom a moral good? Isn't it just slavery to one's desires? Why not be a slave to virtue?
>>72296983
Welcome to Wilson's coal company. We don't give you safety equipment here, and the pay is 3 bucks an hour. If you get sick or injured, you're fired. You'll work elsewhere? Good luck, this is the industry standard.
>>72298067
In less than ten years white will be a minority. Mexicans and blacks will riot much more readily.
And while I agree whites would be more hesitant, whites have rioted many many times in the past. They will do it again if the conditions are right for it
>>72298382
Form a union, strike for better working conditions
Publicize your conditions, get people to boycott the company
Find another job or create your own
If you wanna argue about freedom not being a moral good I'll pass honestly
>>72298497
I'm just asking as to what the argument is. I've never heard it. Would you mind at least setting it out for us in the thread so that we can think over it? What won you over?
>>72297743
>one refuses to join collusion
>assuming the merged don't just kill the owner, undercut until the one goes out of business, repeat
>same thing happens to newcomers
>>72297904
Libertarianism isn't a unique system to itself, we're not looking for revolution like the left wing, we just want to adapt and perfect the current system into something fairer and more (naturally) equal. Like, we'd repeal AA because it creates an unfair job market, but we wouldn't prop up syndicates.
>What happens in a libertarian society to all the people on welfare that still don't want to work?
Most libertarians want less welfare, many want no welfare and such to be replaced by removing all taxes from people living under the living standard. Others want working welfare, or rather welfare only to those in low paying jobs. In my opinion, if you don't contribute to society you shouldn't expect society to contribute to your lifestyle.
That being said, most welfare recipients are actually (technically) children who are incapable of working and it would be barbaric to starve them. With this in mind, welfare can better be resolved by allowing planned parenthood and promoting the nuclear family in favour of the sexual revolution.
>instead choosing to wip themselves into a frenzy.
You'll find the people comfortable not having a job will have an alternative income. You'll also find that the people in such a frenzy have had contact with Marxists or people educated by Marxists.
Life is pretty uncomfortable with absolutely no income and when you don't qualify for any welfare.
>If they riot, what happens? Do the police subdue them? Then what?
Police still exist in libertardia.
You're setting up a violent scenario and asking how a humane society would handle it, actually it's a loaded question because a humane society wouldn't allow critical theory at all because such a thing only convinces one to be miserable, refuse jobs and riot.
>>72298617
Well I've always viewed Kantian ethics as an argument for freedom is a moral good.
I mean obviously you don't want other people to force you to do things or force you to make choices.
So by kantian ethics, you would do your best to universalize that principle.
But I'm not saying any actual arguments for meta-ethics or whatever the word is for it, just kind of my thoughts.
>>72298711
murder is illegal, cant argue that a system wouldnt be corrupt when literal corruption is happening
Also corporations dont just go under when their owner dies, it wouldn't do shit to a corporation working on the level of national monopoly.
Also, undercutting a business until it goes out of business is a valid business practice, the business doing the undercutting is risking just as much by cutting their profit margin, called the free market
So youre basically undercutting every newcomer that comes along, this system is working exactly as it was meant to work.
>>72296537
You have to start ironically picking up avant-garde positions
Recently I've been advocated for absolute monarchy with a libertarian socialist/mutualist socio-economic system
>>72296537
If you don't take a position, everyone else soon will, up your ass, and in your face.
Try red ice radio on youtube. Watch the one on post -liberalism AKA the fifth position.
>>72299378
*guild socialist, not libertarian
