So why do some of you hate Libertarians? Whats wrong with having The government stay the fuck out of your personal life and having them stay the fuck out of the free market? Enlighten me.
>>76140925
I wouldn't mind libertarianism catching on more in the republican party, but the libertarian party is a joke that helps Hillary, and I've got no love for Open-Borders Johnson.
>>76140925
OPEN FUCKING BORDERS
You can't build a libertarian society by importing people who are not and will never be libertarian.
>>76142803
>>76142888
Guys, Im talking about just the principles of Libertarianism, im not talking about the fucking party, yes its a huge joke, im aware.
>>76142996
toss out the open borders and I'd be alright with it
although it seems a lot of libertarians are just dude weed lmao
>>76140925
It's great. Bring us back to the role government played in the 1870s. Stay the fuck out of my life, monopolies are a false devil, welfare is theft, pollution is perhaps a violation of property rights and might need to be taxed, but over all leave me alone. Also people are kinder to each other when there is no government safety net. You reap what you sow.
>>76143152
Yes I agree open borders are an atrocious idea that would kill this country further. But I dont think most people who identify as Libertarian hold that view, if they do than my mistake. The ones I have spoken too oppose that leftist bullshit.
>>76143201
And problems like monopolies can be solved with a healthy free market, plus when government gives alot of power to a corporation that usually creates a monopoly.
Libertarianism is just as Jewish as Marxism.
>>76143444
Thanks for the input.
>>76143638
Enlighten me.
>>76143263
Open borders are consistent with libertarian principles.
>>76140925
The people are today not responsible enough to handle unmitigated freedoms. There's also the clause in the Constitution about "Promote the General Welfare" part which could mean that things that people may want to do, like own a tactical nuke, or get diagnosed with HIV and not have to inform people, aren't promoting the general welfare of the nation.
I see true Libertarianism as selfish and cold hearted towards people's common humanity. They only care about the individual rather than the group. They are automatically anti-populist and anti-nationalism with a nasty penchant of promoting open border policies.
>>76143638
I'm starting to see it that way too.
Both were started by Jews as was Neoconservatism.
>>76140925
Ramzpaul summed it up pretty well.
Libertarianism has become fucking clown town.
Come to the alt right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmfQmkad_2Y
Give me a 100% white country and Im on board
>>76143732
I believe in personal freedoms as long as they dont infringe on other people freedoms or hurt them, So having HIV is obviously something you should tell people because that would infringe on their safety. And they can want to own a nuke as much as they want, will they? fuck no.
I would consider myself libertarian. However, I am for strong boarder control.
>>76143814
This ones actually kinda funny
Free market is a meme. When you trade with a economically hostile power, you are working against the interests of your nation, especially when they are trying to undermine your currency and your manufacturing. Not to mention that by trading freely with a power that is NOT free, you are tacitly supporting that regime, so in effect your "free market" helps steal the liberty of those citizens suffering under that regime - while undermining the liberty of your own country.
Free market, in a world where everyone is a perfect conscientious actor with no ulterior motives, would maybe work. But we don't live in such a world, and that's not a bad thing, but simply reality. Protectionism is not evil, it's good sense, and it must be adapted to fit an economy's needs. Sometimes you need a lot, sometimes you only need a little. Protectionism should be seen as a tool of the market, not an enemy.
autistic teenagers that are as annoying as bernouts
>>76144268
>"Sir this is olive garden"
Every time
>>76140925
open borders
muh roads
no health care or research spending
but libertarians are way better than neocons
>>76143730
ideally yes, but pragmatically no
this is one of the few places the government should be in charge of considering the current situation
>>76143732
Such feels from this response. Either people are compassionate and don't need government, or people are "greedy, callous, and self-interested" and should not be holding government positions. Which is it?
>>76140925
because it doesnt work. grow up
>>76144326
I do agree that Protectionism is necessary
>>76140925
Long story short libertarianism is just another word for feudalism or oligarchy. All the resources inevitably concentrate in a small handful of families who are defacto kings and everyone else is their slave.
>>76142888
How the fuck does this even make sense
Libertarian = NAP. Those imported people can't do shit bc there is no government or welfare system to cradle them
>>76144236
That is defined as paleo-libertarian, kind of like Rand Paul.
>>76140925
the hidden and not so hidden globalists within
> The gubment should stay out of our personal lives.
> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.
Fucking lolbertarian movement
>>76144489
Do you think its better for the state to control those interests? In that case everyone will be equally miserable.
>>76144489
This is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. Competition will prevent any of that from happening. Your public schooling has indoctrinated you well
Because they're unpragmatic and autistic ideologues jerking off to unrealistic fantasies of a government free world. It's no surprise that their movement did gain traction from a boring novel essentially about self-importance
>>76144630
> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.
Libertarian != Republican. Idk how you shills come up with your arguments
>>76144630
>> The gubmemt should define marriage for us.
wat
>>76144748
>Because they're unpragmatic and autistic ideologues
Gary Johnson IS pragmatic and gaining media attention. Try harder, two-party shill
The weak fear competition and seek solace in a big government. This is true whether you're a fascist right wing or a fascist left wing.
The strong have the most to gain from a fair, equal, free market.
>>76144489
Nice meme bro. How can the de facto kings sustain their wealth if everyone is poor? People need to have enough money to buy their products/services. Worst comes to worse, we're back to subsistence farming which is the universal standard of human life.
>>76143732
So at least experiment with it, see how it goes - see what needs to be done in order to make people get prepeared, maybe that will happen on the go.
Can't be pussy-ass boi and use the same system forever, already two candidates failed so much and America is voting for Trump...
>>76144507
>Those imported people can't do shit bc there is no government or welfare system to cradle them
Right, because no one who is employed could possibly espouse statism, I mean our current situation just magically appeared out of the ether.
You seem to think this is an issue of personal situations but I'm telling you it's cultural. Savages don't just walk out of shitholes, get jobs mowing the grass, and suddenly become diehard capitalists.
>>76144042
So, you agree it's retarded to boo Austin Peterson for not wanting people to be able to sell heroin to 12 year olds? Or allowing the legally blind to get a license?
Personally, I'm against drug legalization for recreational use and I have never supported gay marriage. People have never had these kinds of freedoms in the past when the citizenry was more homogeneous and less crime ridden. I highly doubt you want to see the results of modern America left to it's own devices.
>>76144421
>Which is it?
There's a balance to everything. Libertarians just go to the extreme most of the time. I said nothing about anyone not holding a government position but I did say I don't believe a greedy mindset only concerned with self preservation is good for the nation as a whole. I can't have a President that says Fuck everybody else, it's about me alone.
It said a lot about the Republican establishment crowd at the debate booed Trump when he said he didn't want people dying the street because they can't afford health insurance.
>>76144816
The same could be said in reverse. The government is de facto the strongest player in the field, of which libertarians are jealous because it is government that controls the market. Perhaps we already have a free market, libertarians are simply dissatisfied with the result because they are not the ones in total control of it. They believe they should be rewarded for strength they do not possess.
>>76144924
>So at least experiment with it, see how it goes
I feel that way much more strongly with Trump. Free trade and interventionism isn't working so let's go the populist and nationalist route.
Trump is outside of the two party system but he's simply on the ticket. The GOPe hates what he will do and that's a good thing.
>>76145057
Yes the legally blind shit would infringe on the safety of other drivers so yes its retarded. And as far as drugs go, obviously dont sell them to minors but im not against the majority becoming legal for adults. some that generally just make everything about a person worse would stay illegal but weed? come on
>>76145071
Well ultimately the government passes certain laws that limit and hurt the market.
>>76145057
Before the expanse of Obama care and medicare/medicaid, Minnesota had $60/ month health insurance plans that covered most major incidences. When 95% of people somehow afford a monthly cellular data plan, they can afford this kind of private health insurance. People won't die in the streets. They never have, they never will in America, even with no welfare.
>>76140925
>So why do some of you hate Libertarians?
This completely depends on how you define libertarian. It's not some set-in-stone ideology, there are right and left libertarians just as the democrats and republicans don't represent strict ideologies.
The left libertarians are nutjobs who hug the marxist spectrum and push "progressive" ideas. Right libertarians can go from "dude WEED" to "smaller gubmit", although all libertarians tend to be a little "dude weed". The inherent problem with libertarianism today is that it's not helping us at all. Politicians will sometimes listen to libertarians and take a couple ideas they already liked then use buzzwords like free market, efficiency, fairness or some other bullshit. Meanwhile we continue to have a welfare state punishing successful people and subsidizing idiots who breed like rabbits. The 2 opposing ideas create the perfect storm to fuck over a nation and destroy it. Then you have the so-called right wing dipshits pushing anarchy. They'll always tell you it's the best or most moral system and put it in some unrealistic scenario where it works. Of course, some question why anarchy is considered left wing if it's all about freedom, and there are left wing anarchists too. The answer is that anarchy in it's destruction of institutions gives marxists the perfect opportunity to install their system. The right wing anarchists promote an idea that can't work, any society that lacks leadership and self-preservation instincts just gets taken over by another.
So while I don't hate libertarians, the ideology promoted is either as foolish as marxism or gets co-opted when convenient to push self-destructive policies like no borders.
>>76145263
>some that generally just make everything about a person worse
It's ruins that person, their productivity and ability to make a living, drugs affect personal relationships with family and friends, and affects one's health. There are only three aspects of a person's life that can affect their well being: health, finances, and relationships. Drugs affect all three to some extent or another.
I'm on the fence about weed. Cigarettes are just as unhealthy and they're legal so I can see leaving the issue up to the states and allowing states to determine whether or not it's legal. The feds should have no more say.
>>76145446
>They never have,
Homeless people die every night and day on the streets of LA, DC, and NY among other cities in America. Trump was talking about those at the very bottom of the pile, the ones the average Joe tends to forget about.
>>76145522
I agree with you, drugs like meth should continue to be illegal, but I dont see weed as a very detrimental drug. And yes states should ultimately decide whats legal at what age.
>>76144687
>implying that there will be any competition in the absence of a strong central government
>implying that the oligarchs won't just divide things up among themselves when there is no one to keep them in check
Look, your magical competition fairy is just a figment of your imagination. You think that just because you yourself are naive and completely honest, everyone else is too. Sadly, it's a jungle out there, kid. That's why we put together a central government to protect us in the first place
>>76145263
>Yes the legally blind shit would infringe on the safety of other drivers so yes its retarded.
In a libertarian society the cost of insurance for a visually-impaired driver would be prohibitively expensive, as would be the legal liability following a crash. It's not necessary for the state to deny a license to this group, market forces would quickly achieve the same result without the implied threat of force present when the government is involved.
>>76145702
so your telling me you dont buy into competition between companies?
>>76145666
Interesting how these are the most democratic and welfare burdened cities in America.
>>76140925
We don't.
True libertarianism is absolutely based.
In fact as a contract is not limited by ideology it can be unbounded; even the most ludicrous nationalism is compatible with libertarianism that could make Hitler and Evola wet themselves in fear.
>>76140925
Libertarians are retards who can't in2economics
Federalism is literally the perfect setup but will never exist, just like libertarians will never be a thing
>>76142888
There is no open borders in libertarianism.
>>76144326
>Free Market somehow makes Trade Embargoes not a thing
Kill yourself
>>76145977
>There is no open borders in libertarianism.
Border controls are a state-imposed restriction on the free movement of goods, people, and labor.
Ultimately, politics are downstream of culture. As the culture degenerates, so will the politic outlook of the day. As much as many in the libertarian movement detest right wing evangelicals and Christians as a whole, the moral system of Christianity has been the backbone of western society for centuries. When people believe they must be decent, moral people to adhere to their faith, they're more likely to do so than the irreligious. First you allow gay marriage, then it will be polygamist marriage, and sooner or later, pederast marriages because "we're not hurting anybody".
>>76145826
Almost all major cities are leftist and democrat run in America. Liberals and minorities flock to the safe huddle of the city and the resources of the government. More self reliant people and those with the enough resources, live in the rural and suburban areas of towns. There are still plenty of poor people in the woods that are on welfare. Go to West Virginia or Arkansas or East Tennessee. White people in poverty are on govenment assistance too.
>>76144802
>gaining media attention
>10%
K..KEEP ME POSTED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_toYr_Hcdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgbFBlPOemE
>>76145812
You want two football teams to play a game without referees, and for them to judge the game themselves based on who is willing to sink to cheap shots first. You are asking for anarchy or another dark ages, is what you are doing.
Without a strong authority, things fall apart.
>>76146077
I'll say it again; there are no open borders in libertarianism.
You cannot simply walk onto peoples property/ covenants without permissions, how open those permissions are is up to the contract but the idea that "open borders" exist in a contractual society is nonsence, "borders" are statist nonsense and are generally piss poor at stopping any human filth from crossing.
>>76145071
>The same could be said in reverse. The government is de facto the strongest player in the field,
By force and aggression.
>of which libertarians are jealous because it is government that controls the market.
No jealousy and unlike ancaps libertarians accept that the government will control the market. There's few other mechanisms that ensure an equal and fair playing field.
>Perhaps we already have a free market, libertarians are simply dissatisfied
With big bank bailouts? With cuts to big business tax but not small business? When the left side progressively adds more government programs that require more finances?
But I digress, this isn't even close to the real evidence that this is not a free market.
Affirmative action isn't just tolerated by western governments, it's promoted when it should be penalised for the practice that it is: redistribution of opportunities in the name of equality of outcome instead of fair competition for equal opportunities. It's the practice of ensuring a white man needs much higher standards (if at all) than a woman of colour to achieve the same position, and it's only used against the younger generations, of whom 88% actively disagree with affirmative action (MTV 2014).
That's even at the best of situations, in reality if a position is marked as a diversity hire and no candidate is both strong enough and meets the current definition of diversity, no one is hired and the role is filled "internally." Because we all know there'll be hell to pay from the hag who decided it was a diversity hire if a white man finds his ways to a pathway leading to success.
And this is a free market? This is democratic? This incentivises strength? This somehow discredits strength?
No, this is socialism rotting capitalism from the insides and it's single handedly the most important issue facing the west.
>They believe they should be rewarded for strength they do not possess.
Indeed?
Keep the fear, your cowardice of me is all I have.
>>76145977
The vast majority of libertarians are for less border controls as they believe it infringes on the free market. What they fail to admit is that unwelcome people are considered invaders and should be removed.
>>76146284
>there are no open borders in libertarianism... SYKE! There totally are
>>76143814
heheheheheheheheheheheheh
>>76146250
He is. Turn on your television. He only needs 15% to to get into general debates.
You two-party shills are the worst
>>76146053
Lol, who would want to sell you a nuke? That's suicide for the person manufacturing and selling them. Also assuming we just end up at some extreme hypothetical with no road leading there in the first place.
>>76146397
>All libertarians are ancaps
Keep attacking that straw man
>>76146334
Not an argument. I've clearly shown how this is not the case, by locking your door every night in your nigger infested shithole you simply affirm my position.
>>76146284
>You cannot simply walk onto peoples property/ covenants without permissions, how open those permissions are is up to the contract but the idea that "open borders" exist in a contractual society is nonsence, "borders" are statist nonsense and are generally piss poor at stopping any human filth from crossing.
Semantics aside, libertarianism = more brown filth in my and your country. I know you don't give a shit about that but over here we liked it better when it was whiter.
(Speaking of, I have family from all corners of the British Isles so I'd appreciate it if you didn't cuck up my ancestral homelands with your diversity and tolerance bullshit.)
>>76146251
>that first video
>libertarians are so fucking devoid of human compassion that they have to provide staged examples of it in pictures to even convince themselves of it.
>>76146458
AnCaps and Lolberts are used interchangably by the founders of AnCap who stole the term libertarian from lefties.
A proper distinction is anarchists and minarchists. But minarchists would simply be lolberts who don't take their ideology to its full conclusions.
>>76144412
>, but pragmatically no
Even pragmatically, do you want the best laborers in our markets or do you want to protectionism to drive down demand for goods and services that laborers need and we still don't have the best labor force.
>>76146462
You act like the government and police will disappear. Peoples safety will still be protected.
>>76146656
>who stole the term libertarian from lefties
You do know that lefties stole the term liberal first, right?
>But minarchists would simply be lolberts who don't take their ideology to its full conclusions.
Minarchists don't follow the NAP, so try harder
>>76146587
> Semantics aside, libertarianism = more brown filth in my and your country.
I don't see how that's the case, at the absolute>>76146587
worst you'll get more brown hordes in half the country, all you have to do then is wait until they collapse and justify some roman republic style "defensive war".
>>76144489
>people think libertarian is the same thing as an-cap
Every time.
It's like you people don't even realize that america was originally a libertarian nation
>>76140925
Let's look at it this way
The candidates for president and vp for the Libertarian Party think that gun control is a necessity or "needs a conversation".
Statism in "freedom's" clothing.
>>76145495
nice, appreciated.
>>76146091
>>76146053
Firstly, libertarian isn't an-cap
Secondly what is it with germans and hating on freedom? Every time there's a libertarian or ancap thread a german is spamming. I think I finnaly understand why you all always seem to pick the leader who take away all your rights and fuck you over as much as possible
>>76146802
>I don't see how that's the case, at the absolute worst you'll get more brown hordes in half the country, all you have to do then is wait until they collapse and justify some roman republic style "defensive war".
Problem is that the brown hordes can vote.
And as fun as the latter might be a society with stable security at the national level is preferable to one that requires collapse followed by violent wars every few years just to purge the filth who we immediately let back in.
>>76147022
>>76147102
He can't provide a good argument without contradicting himself, so he resorts straw-mans and ad hominem
>>76140925
Because too much free market also allows shit like companies attaining a monopoly and then using that monopoly to restrict the very rights Libertarians seek to protect.
Too much regulation makes the government a dick, but too little makes the private sector dicks.
>>76147200
>Free market also allows shit like companies attaining a monopoly
Completely wrong. Competition, by definition, naturally prevents monopolies from forming. Regulations always had the side affect of benefiting a minority while discouraging competitors.
Your centrist response is taken straight out of a public school textbook. You've been indoctrinated well
>>76146803
Does that mean we get to enslave the niggers again and rape their women if we decide to gang up and do it?
>>76147375
Can you further explain how competition will prevent a monopoly
>>76140925
Because the capital "L" Libertarians are confused people who think they can reduce poverty by cutting all social programs and welfare in a capitalist system.
confusion and general autism in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
>>76147117
You clearly do not understand how a contractual society works, a covenant is not a state. If , say, the North of England broke away in referendum (the final act of democracy) /revolution and the covenant specifically states "no browns" then that's it, the end. It's not a constitution, it can't be ammended. If someone was to "let them" they'd be punished. Sure it would never be 100% illegals free but its better than now.
>>76147200
this situation was created by the GOVERNMENT, dumbass
>>76147102
Yes fritz, that man is acting like an idiot. And I, much like you (I assume), disapprove. But you know what? He has the right to to be an idiot. He has the right to get up on that stage and make a fool of himself (assuming he has the permission of the stages owner). He has the right to, on national TV, embaress himself and ensure his entire family cuts all ties with him and changes their name.
He has the right. And nobody can deny him that right. Because if you deny that right, then it's no longer a right, it's no longer something that can never be taken away. It's a privilege, and one that comes from the government. And if you do that, then you give the government the power to take away your speech, your property, even your life, because the government doesn't agree with you. Just like the recent EU hatespeech law. And history has shown time and time again that if you give that to the government, it WILL use it to opress use and seize all the power it can. You can look to your own countries history to see that, don't even need to look to the last century, it's happening right now.
So while he may be an idiot, He has the God-given right to be an idiot. He has to accept the consequences of being an idiot, but if he does, then let him be an utter buffoon. Everything everyone does is viewed as idiotic by at least one other person.
And moreover not an argument.
>>76147375
And monopolies, by definition, do not face competition. Purely economic barriers to entry will naturally limit new competition while existing competitors will naturally seek to merge to increase control over the market.
Libertarianism is a great ideology, but so is communism. The universe is not so kind.
>>76147195
I have already explained why it is, you just gave non-arguments in response.
Libertarian = AnCap
""""""Libertarians"""""""" = minarchists = inconsistent libertarians
>>76147424
No. And moreover, the vast majority of the founders didn't like slavery, but didn't want to address it because it would cause to many problems, and up until the invention of the cotton gin slavery was both not veiwed as a positive good, and was on the way out.
Now shipping the niggers (not the black people, the niggers) back to Africa like Lincoln wanted, there's something worth considering
>>76147533
What if I wanted my yard to break away into the Republic of Yardistan and I disallowed browns? If my Yardistani daughter let in a brown person could I punish her with a beating if it is in the covenant?
>>76146286
Perhaps you will understand if you start to look at the government not as some kind of extra-judiciary body, but instead as a very powerful corporation with many employees and a lot of resources.
I don't agree with the government's policies, but they have won control of the free market and may do with as they please. This is what a free market looks like, the government just is the strongest player. If anything, your dissatisfaction with the state of things should tell you why your ideals re: free markets are malformed, since this is what happens when you have a total free market. One party wins, and that's the end. We've all already lost.
>By force and aggression.
And by what other metric will you judge strength? You may not agree with their methodology, but the government is already enforcing the NAP, whether you like it or not.
>>76147800
But arent monopolies usually created by government intervention? Because if a government is corrupt and politicians are bought then they can use the might of the government to form monopolies which is how it usually happens.
>>76147200
TFW my lemonade stand on a street corner in downtown gets shut down by bureaucrats because they think I'm trying to poison everyone unless I've purchased a $500 business permit from the municipality.
>>76147492
Consumers decide the fate of companies/corporations by doing business with them. Competition forces businesses to provide better service than their competitiors so they can continue trading with consumers.
If a company becomes too large, generally competitors will come along and offer similar products for cheaper prices and better quality. This happened to K-Mart in the 70's, and it's happening to Wal-Mart and McDonalds now.
The government sometimes creates regulations to benefit corporations, because those corps hire lobbyists to make deals with politicians. These regulations discourage other businesses from forming which naturally creates a monopoly
>>76147655
>sperg out into a wall of text over your "freedom to be a degenerate"
>>76140925
I thought someone would have posted this pic already
>>76145885
Hoppe is based as fuck
>>76146401
>He only needs 15% to to get into general debates.
yeah he will totally sweep the entire election defeating Hillary. Trump might as well quit now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections
However Traitorous Cuck Libertarians might actually push chances of Totalitarian Clinton presidency where she bans guns, appoints 3 or 4 Liberal Supreme court Judges, gives amnesty to all illegals, dissolves the border start more Wars in Middle east and basically make America a 3rd world like Brazil simply in her first 4 year term.
>>76146266
The football team who played unfair would lose fans (customers) and therefore revenue and eventually go out of business.
Also, referees can exist without government.
>>76140925
I don't trust people to make as good decisions for the betterment of society as I do with slightly more educated people. Of course we would need to remove corporations for influencing politics, but hey, we've been trying to do that for 100+ years.
>>76140925
I don't vote based on party lines, I vote based on the current most important issue. Right now it's immigration and stopping the muslim hordes. Trump gets my vote hands down.
If cancerous shitskins weren't a thing I would be libertarian, I'm all for small government, it's just that right now we need a firm foreign policy.
basically a libertarian society would only work with average to smart good natured people
Because the free market is not God, and authority is not the devil. Libertarians are children who never realised you can't always have what you want.
>>76147800
>while existing competitors will naturally seek to merge to increase control over the market
This is irrelevant. Companies can only stay in business as long as consumers are willing to trade with them. If these apparent companies you're talking about merge, they'll only stay relevant if they can provide good products for a cheap cost. If not, they'll be eaten by competitors. The law of demand cannot be escaped
Governments and lobbying are the only force that allow companies like that to stay afloat.
>>76148039
What do you like about Hoppe?
>>76147903
As a covenant would only be formed by some sort of democraric seccession or war before abolishing the state I doubt you as a single property owner could do so, I don't know what legal divisions you have in the US but I assume the smallest covenant you could have is city or county. The most practicle solution would howeve to have national referendums and a splitting of the (national) state. Or in your case state secession.
Given enough time and money you could techincally buy out the other property owners and yes, at that point you could indeed punish your daughter for bringing in a dindu.
However you're both more likely to have died of old age before you can do that. Maybe your posterity could.
>>76148138
How much financial incentive would corporations have to bribe politicians if the politicians had little to no power.
Proportional to the amount of power for sale perhaps?
>>76148091
You cuckservatives are hopeless. GJ takes votes equally away from both Trump and Hillary.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/30/polls-show-gary-johnson-not-hurt-trump/
You two-party shills need to try harder
>>76147851
>Libertarian = AnCap
Wrong.
Libertarians believe hobbes was right, an-caps believe Rousseau was right.
>>76148039
But if people being degenerates doesn't hurt or effect anyone why the fuck care? Let them be degenerate, just cause they are doesn't mean you or the country they live in is.
>>76148180
What a terrible argument
>>76148336
Everything
>>76148527
Should I read a few of his books? Sounds like an interesting fellow.
>>76148023
Still not an argument.
Also, are you criticizing my way of life? Don't ypu know that's hate speech fritz?
Looks like it's off to the enrichment camps with you. Have fun taking Muhammad's dick up your ass while merkel allows tyrone and the other other African's to rape your women.
This is the future you choose. But, hey, you didn't need those rights, did you? After all, you're speaking out against them ITT.
>>76148618
Definitely. Though you should make sure to read the foundational stuff like "The Law" first.
>>76148618
Read Bastiat and Hayek. Also look up Milton Friedman:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
>>76148618
Yeah pick up the Economics and Ethics of Private Property
>>76148517
It's not an argument, it's an insult.
Fuck you.
>>76148709
>>76148733
Ill definitely look into them, thanks for the recommendations.
>>76147914
Unlike a corporation, you don't need to buy your vote, in fact in my country voting is mandatory and lobbying is seen as a problem. I know America isn't very democratic, would you really want it to be considering all the single issue voters? This public accountability strictly separates it from a corporation.
>metric will judge strength?
By strength I meant attractiveness as a worker or ability to turn profit efficiently as a business. With that in mind, many small businesses are stronger than massive corporations.
>free markets are malformed
Then it's not a free market, why tell me it is?
Is there a reason you ignored my main points and reasons for arguing that our current state is not a free market and instead is a form of corporate socialism? Or rather "lemon socialism." Affirmative action itself is all the evidence needed, it's strictly redistribution to perceived disadvantaged minorities which, at least in my country, have had all the same opportunities as white men.
>enforcing the NAP
Affirmative action is a form of aggression itself against white men. How is the government enforcing non aggression again? Again, this isn't just permissioned, it's encouraged.
I'll keep posting until you agree that affirmative action is the only issue in our system that needs addressing. Big bank bailouts are bad and all, but in the end preventing bankruptcy of a few rich people's accounts doesn't effect my ability to start using the skills I was trained for.
We need to start looking at governance and how it effects the young and the poor, the startups instead of the firmly developed.
>>76147914
This. The government is just a very large company that owns a country. Laws are just corporate policy.
Yes, they have a near monopoly on use of violence, but companies are free to use violence to protect their property, and the US government is the owner of all US land.
What's funny about libertarians is that just like the 99% people they make fun of, they are decrying the unequal circumstances of power and money the US government has.
>>76148401
only one "shilling" your no-name Johnson is you. I m here to laugh at your delusions of him winning the general election against Hillary. Come back when he gets 15 to even get accepted into the debates. We know how successful, popular and massively funded his predecessor was ;^)
>>76147533
Again, the problem is stability. If someone or some group breaks the covenant, there is no magic reset button, I'm still stuck at a given physical location with real assets located at a given physical location.
You see this problem with any HOA, if you have a rule that says, no yippy dogs, and your neighbor gets a yippy dog, it doesn't matter if he broke the rule or not, you're still living next to a yippy dog. Your HOA might stick him with fines, put a lien on his property, whatever, but you have no means to evict him from his property. Let's say the HOA disincorporates, now you're still left with a yippy dog next door, and now you have no recourse.
I would think living on an island nation would highlight the importance of a state apparatus in this matter. If you have a brown person problem, if they, for example, like to groom your daughters for sexual slavery, it's a lot easier to prevent that from happening when you have natural borders and a national policy preventing immigration than if you're relying on a widespread contract or contracts preventing immigration that any party can choose to leave at any time. If your neighbors decide they don't have a problem with their daughters being groomed and they decide to form a new covenant that allows brown people onto their property, it just got a lot harder for you to defend your daughters.
>>76147914
>enforcing the NAP
>by initiating violence
wew
>government won control over the free market
Guess what, that means it's no longer a free market.
>>76148892
>I'll keep posting until you agree that affirmative action is the only issue in our system that needs addressing.
You'll be posting for a long time, bud.
Libertarians can be cool, but having a platform of doing nothing doesn't really rile up a group of voters as much as MUH CHANGE
Libertarians ignore everything that has happened to the global economic system since 1970. They are an obsolete ideology
>>76148013
Monopolies are created when corporations have enough capital to dominate 80% or more of the market output. They then use that to influence the government.
>>76148013
>If a company becomes too large, generally competitors will come along and offer similar products for cheaper prices and better quality.
Those businesses that enjoy the benefits of large economies of scale, will always look to set up artificial barriers to market entry.
>>76148117
brilliant
>>76148336
He is a realist. He isn't against traditional monarchies or republics, he simply argues that he believes that theoretically libertarianism is a superior ideology - theoretically.
>also hates fags
>racialist
>anti-democratic
>>76148461
>But if people being degenerates doesn't hurt or effect anyone why the fuck care?
That's the problem, that selfish sense of thinking is immoral, it does effect other people. It effects the individuals family, friends and community.
>>76149351
What a shitty argument. If that man died on his property, it's his business to get rid of his corpse. Ofc crybaby millennials want the gubment to do everything for them
>>76149258
The first step is forming a gathering.
But whatever, why do you believe that? Do you agree with affirmative action? Do you believe it'll never end? I'd love to hear your point of view.
>>76149227
Unfortunate necessity
The idea is aggression is used as little as possible and only ever as a last resort.
>>76149306
Truth. The party definitely needs better PR guys. Need to sell the whole "less taxes, more freedom, a return to the founder's design" and make a huge point out of change, the change of "getting rid of government bloat, because only you know whats best for you".
But hey, if they make it to the debates this year, that will be huge. Wish we had chosen a better canidate
>>76149351
Why isn't the private corporation who owns that path maintaining their property? That was a stipulation of the contract you signed with them, right? And were the bears party to that contract or did you fail to defend your private property from trespassers?
another one for you lolberts to pick apart.
>>76149387
>Monopolies are created when corporations have enough capital to dominate 80% or more of the market output. They then use that to influence the government.
You don't need 80% influence to buy lobbyists and write legislation. Look at UPS
>Those businesses that enjoy the benefits of large economies of scale, will always look to set up artificial barriers to market entry.
Give one example. Businesses CAN ONLY exist as long as they're able to conduct trade. These hypotheticals that you centrists provide don't exist in reality
>>76142888
OPEN FUCKING BORDERS doesn't exist in a libertarian society, r-tard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE
>>76149163
>If someone or some group breaks the covenant, there is no magic reset button, I'm still stuck at a given physical location with real assets located at a given physical location.
If someone breaks the covenant they are physically removed.
>You see this problem with any HOA, if you have a rule that says, no yippy dogs, and your neighbor gets a yippy dog, it doesn't matter if he broke the rule or not, you're still living next to a yippy dog. Your HOA might stick him with fines, put a lien on his property, whatever, but you have no means to evict him from his property.
Yes you do, a contract is a contract. You are probably thinking of contract law in a statist society between legal entities within that state. I am talking of natural persons, property and a covenant. If it states "no yappy dogs or death" then death it is. Period.
>Let's say the HOA disincorporates, now you're still left with a yippy dog next door, and now you have no recourse.
See above.
>I would think living on an island nation would highlight the importance of a state apparatus in this matter. If you have a brown person problem, if they, for example, like to groom your daughters for sexual slavery, it's a lot easier to prevent that from happening when you have natural borders and a national policy preventing immigration than if you're relying on a widespread contract or contracts preventing immigration
Why?
>that any party can choose to leave at any time.
No they can't. Only if terms allow for it.
>If your neighbors decide they don't have a problem with their daughters being groomed and they decide to form a new covenant
Why would you enter into a covenant that allows more secession?
>that allows brown people onto their property, it just got a lot harder for you to defend your daughters.
See above. Also get a gun.
>>76149121
You Trump supporters are scared. Every day I see anti-Johnson threads because you're terrified that he might be taking votes away form you.
I can't imagine how autistic somehow has to be to actually support the US's two-party system. You people really need to be gassed
>>76149649
I swear you libertards are worse than regular liberals. People have historically lived in communities based on ethnic and cultural homogeneity in which they cultivated bonds based on mutual trust. Nobody wants to live in a fucking jewish wet dream based on thousands of contracts between each and every person and entity. It's soulless and wrong.
>>76148892
I know that "our" market certainly doesn't feel free, but that's because we essentially operate in a market of the government's creation - since the actual free market is dominated by the winner of the game, the government. You can attempt to compete against it economically, but really, only other governments are powerful enough entities to do that. The founding fathers gathered the resources to break away from the hegemony of the British crown and enter the free market themselves, where they created the corporation that is our government.
Think of the actual free market as a huge void that can only be pierced by entities as powerful as governments. Only revolution can create a new government and thereby take control of a sector of the free market, you can't legislate your way into it.
I don't like affirmative action, i don't like lobbying, i don't like (most) socialistic policies. But the government sets the rules and we are obliged to play by them. You're just asking them to give you power when they have no reason to do so - you're already trapped within the microcosmic economy they've created for us. They play in the free market, we don't. So either join them or find a different government so you can attempt to compete against them.
>>free markets are malformed
I meant that your ideas are malformed, since you are dissatisfied with the state of things but can't see that it is the free market - dominated by singular entities, which is the natural course of global free markets - that has led to the current woes of the average person.
Free markets eventually lead to a consolidation of wealth among a few powerful players, who then control everyone else. They enforce their version of a NAP to keep this going, since disrupting the status quo by attempting to leave it is a form of aggression. Their aggression is "justified" to stop the "aggression" of those who would challenge the status quo. That is the evolution of the NAP.
>>76149794
trump is a third way dipshit. he's just not the third way you autistic spergs wanted.
>>76148401
>GJ takes votes equally away from both Trump and Hillary.
Which is bad for libertarians because Clinton has more votes than Trump. So if Gay Johnson takes away equal amounts of votes, Clinton will still have more votes than Trump.
Trump is the better candidate for libertarians, in fact one with the most libertarian positions since a long time (pull put troops internationally, shall not be infringed, tax cuts etc.).
So what libertarians should do is rally behind him to do anything to not get Clinton elected. Because Clinton will be the end of the USA and probably freedom in general, she will start wars and get people killed and grab guns.
All this Gay Johnson fuckery is just typical blind ideologicalism that libertarians always do, and it is always coming back to bite them in the ass.
I'm a libertarian myself but the party in the US is absolutely retarded and full of idiots. They will never get anything done if they can not even grasp most basic realpolitik and be pragmatic for one second.
If Johnson had any respect for liberty or the US, he would endorse Trump immediately and rally the libertarian party behind Trump. But he is a covert leftist so he will hand the election to Hillary and one of the last bastion of freedom in this world will die, die under the boots of SJWs, leftist supreme court judges and the NWO.
>>76149920
> People have historically lived in communities based on ethnic and cultural homogeneity in which they cultivated bonds based on mutual trust.
I'm extremely ethnonationalist and would make evolacl cry. There is nothing more in demand that who to live with you braindead retard.
>Nobody wants to live in a fucking jewish wet dream based on thousands of contracts between each and every person and entity. It's soulless and wrong.
See above, and why would there be thoisands of contracts? A covenant is one agreement between X number of people. There is no further secession. The end.
>>76149920
>Nobody wants to live in a fucking jewish wet dream based on thousands of contracts between each and every person and entity
That dream of yours exists today. How the fuck else would businesses around the world conduct trade at every moment? They all have mutual agreements. See:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE
The only difference here is that there would be less restrictions from a centralized entity
>>76149351
Cleaning up crime scenes is a good niche business. Probably wouldn't be too hard to pay someone to dispose of the random bodies that seem to appear in this guy's yard.
>>76150140
Evola*
>>76142888
libertarianism isn't anarchism. its about getting the state out of personal lives and the free market. the state only exists to protect national sovereignty (military) and rule of law which includes maintaining strong borders. the incentives for mass immigration are also significantly reduced when there's no welfare state. notice in europe how migrants move through eastern europe to get to the west, they do this because eastern europe has no welfare state but the west does.
>>76150079
>trump is a third way dipshit
So a moderate centrist that supported both Bush and Clinton and pushes the status-quo is a third option? Oy Vey!
>>76143956
differences between libertarianism and alt right?
>>76142888
selective citizenship and Constitutional restricted government, so minorities can never ask for welfare.
>>76149577
>airline gets reputation for increasing number of crashes
>falls into economic obscurity if not insurance nightmare for negligence lawsuits
>>76150296
Trump is a protectionist nationalist.
>>76150297
Alt-right are low-IQ manchildren that take this image board literally and unironically support a meme-candidate.
Libertarians follow a hundreds of years old philosophy rather than a single person praised on this board and memes
>>76150422
How many people must die before they get that reputation? At some level you libertarians must see how autistic your ideas are? Trump, a former reality TV star, is getting about 45% of the vote, while Ron Paul got at most 10% or so at his peak. Nobody wants this retarded bullshit.
>>76150424
>isolationist with 0 grasp on economics
He's exactly what the status-quo wants. Why else does every single media outlet constantly shill for him?
>>76150250
you summed it up pretty well i think, good job
>>76150424
I haven't seen trump do anything other then tell people what he thinks will get him elected.
>>76149626
>You don't need 80% influence to buy lobbyists and write legislation. Look at UPS
I never said that they needed 80% or more. I was explaining to you that monopolies aren't always created as a result of government intervention, sometimes they are created naturally. I agree that most of the time they are created by governments, but in a free market, what's going to stop corporation domination besides 'muh competition'? Perfect competition can only exist if goods and services are homogeneous and there is no product differentiation.
>Businesses CAN ONLY exist as long as they're able to conduct trade
That's not true. They exist because they dominate market output, and become price makers instead of price takers.
>Give one example
De Beers Diamonds
>Monopolies in Australia
Australia Post (dominates mail)
Alcoa (aluminum)
BHP Billiton (steel)
>>76149577
>>76149920
>>76150079
>>76150424
>>76150555
This anon knows what's up
>>76150463
>implying Libertarians aren't the memes
>>76150463
>Libertarians follow a hundreds of years old philosophy
This is what Libertarians actually believe
>>76150558
>implying isolationism is bad
Do you have any idea how globalization works and how exactly GDP growth relates to quality of life? I know exactly what you are trying to imply and it's bullshit.
>media shill for him
They are shilling against him. He's just smart enough to manipulate that in his favor in the midst of a favorable political climate
>>76150748
the joke is you think he is an isolationist but the company he runs is multinational.
>>76150555
Are you implying that people don't die in government regulated markets?
It's literally the exact same thing:
>accident happens, people die
>oh no! We need to regulate thing
>repeat
Where is the difference between a government regulating work hours for aircraft mechanics, and a company doing that to reduce risk?
>>76150748
>They are shilling against him. He's just smart enough to manipulate that in his favor in the midst of a favorable political climate
LOL. There is no difference, he's painted as "anti-establishment" because retards like you eat that shit it up, and media is good media. Any of media is good media.
>Do you have any idea how globalization works and how exactly GDP growth relates to quality of life
Yes, immigration has proven to increase GDP and market activity. Immigrating to the US was virtually nonexistent prior to 1914, would you have held strict border policy back then? Of course not.
Libertarianism is based off of Objectivism
I disagree with the core point of Objectivism
Therefore I disagree with the motives behind libertarianism and libertarianism itself.
>>76150733
>Perfect competition can only exist if goods and services are homogeneous and there is no product differentiation.
Nigga that is literally the antithesis to competition.
Competition forces people to constantly improve their products and to innovate new ones or they will go out of business.
>>76151095
Immigrating to the US was virtually nonexistent prior to 1492
Indians are probably regretting not having a stricter border policy right about now
>>76151249
>Nigga that is literally the antithesis to competition.
Wrong.
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Perfect_competition.html
>they will go out of business.
Meaning less competition, and certain firms will dominate others.
>>76140925
Because you're autists. The market doesn't care about my species, therefore I don't give a flying shit about it. It can burn in hell. I refuse to listen to evil retards who think we should be ruled by the whims of the masses, rather than what is best for my species and my planet.
>>76150733
>That's not true. They exist because they dominate market output, and become price makers instead of price takers.
That's not how capitalism works. Depending on the elasticity of the good/service, dominance of the market is irrelevant if the business can't conduct trade. You can't escape the law of demand
>Australia Post (dominates mail)
Government-owned
>Alcoa
Completely supported by many governments around the world, including jamaica and Guinea.
>De Beers
Another company in bed with countless governments
>>76151273
Completely irrelevant. I'm talking about immigration between 1776 and 1914.
>>76151533
>Meaning less competition, and certain firms will dominate others.
You have no idea how the market economy works. Marketshare isn't static
>>76151533
Why are you linking some bullshit theoretical model?
Just think for yourself what would cause more competition:
A market regulated by government so that there can only be 'the beer', or where you need expensive licensing to start a brewery?
Or a free market where anyone can make beer how they see fit?
And just because one competitor goes out of business does not mean there will be less competition afterwards. Besides, competition is not the result but the means to achieve the result of having an ever changing variety of products available.
>>76151580
Kys fascist cuck.
>>76151580
> I refuse to listen to evil retards who think we should be ruled by the whims of the masses
>I prefer to listen to almighty bureaucrats that obviously know the best way to run my life and the economy
Definition of a cuckservative
>>76150424
No, he's not. That's just a show for the dumb goyim like you. Trump is a fucking billionaire. Of course he's an internationalist. He makes more money that way.
>>76152048
Isolationism is commonly referring to military policies, not trade.
>>76151801
Ah, even more ironic then. Lets look at 1821, when Mexico opened up its immigration laws.
>Hoping that more settlers would reduce the near-constant Comanche raids, Mexican Texas liberalized its immigration policies to permit immigrants from outside Mexico and Spain. Under the Mexican immigration system, large swathes of land were allotted to empresarios, who recruited settlers from the United States, Europe, and the Mexican interior.
>By 1834, the population had grown to about 37,800 people, with only 7,800 of Mexican descent.
>Many immigrants openly flouted Mexican law, especially the prohibition against slavery. Combined with United States' attempts to purchase Texas, Mexican authorities decided in 1830 to prohibit continued immigration from the United States.
Unfortunately, by then it was too late for poor Mexico, and in 1835 the Texas Revolution broke out - when American and European immigrants decided to steal the land ceded to them by the Mexicans.
Whoopsie! Darn that immigration!
>>76151732
>You can't escape the law of demand
There are exceptions to the law of demand such as non-price factors.
>Government-owned
>Completely supported by many governments around the world, including jamaica and Guinea.
>Another company in bed with countless governments
Again, I'm not arguing that corporations aren't in bed with governments. I'm simply stating that capitalism can be used against the interests of the people. (((They))) use capitalism to obtain wealth, only to employ non-capitalistic practices against competitors. It's inevitable.
>>76152192
Jesus christ you loving moving that goalpost. Do you have assburgers by chance?
>>76152231
>only to employ non-capitalistic practices against competitors.
Which they can only do because government has the power to regulate markets. They would not (could not) be in bed with government if government wasn't such a (powerful) whore.
Every time in every thread... like running in circles.
>>76143730
No they're not. Think of it like private property. People can only come in with our permission.
>>76146284
And whos going to stop them? The government? Oh wait.
Dumb fucking britbong.
>>76152328
Do you? I don't deny that immigration CAN have benefits, but you'd have to be a credulous fool to think that there are no possible downsides - please learn from the Native Americans and the Mexicans so we don't repeat their mistakes. Immigration isn't just a magic GDP-increasing button that you can keep pressing
>>76152437
Libertarians are not Ancap.
>>76152437
>the government is the only entity that can do thing
No
>>76151919
Shit non-argument, corporations will do anything to maintain power.
>>76152014
>Why are you linking some bullshit theoretical model?
Because your economic theories can only exist in "bullshit theoretical models".
Also
>implying I'm a socialist
I'm third position dude. An philosopher king or benevolent dictator is needed to oversee the economy and stop firms from placing artificial barriers to market entry.
>>76152412
>Every time in every thread... like running in circles.
Ironic.
Capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism.
>>76152668
*>implying I'm Marxist socialist
>>76152014
>Kys fascist cuck.
Get fucked kike
>>76152668
>Shit non-argument, corporations will do anything to maintain power.
You can only maintain power in a free market by convincing customers to do business with you. There is no way around this without government interference
You centrists literally have no original opinion, you've been indoctrinated perfectly. Please, for once, do some independent thinking outside of lurking satirical image boards
>>76152847
Nice ad hominems and ironic statements
See >>76148039 since your stuck on stage 2, followed by >>76152847
>>76152847
>implying the government isn't a corporation that will do anything to maintain power, and doesn't actively convince "customers" (read: business and civilians) to "conduct business" with it
governments are everything libertarians obsess about, they are perfect rational actors competing in a free market
you
just
jelly
>>76152985
meant to say followed by >>76152842
>>76152985
Sorry, I'm not convinced by satirical memes like you. Give me a real argument rather than posting made-up economics and irrelevant examples
>>76140925
I fundamentally disagree with the NAP. Denying yourself the ability to initiate violence effectively means that the other guy always gets the first hit. If, for example, you know a certain group of people is going to cause problems in the future, you should be able to deal with them violently before they become a bigger problem.
>>76153068
>governments are everything libertarians obsess about, they are perfect rational actors competing in a free market
This is a joke, right?
Governments don't produce anything. They only steal from the population and distribute it throughout (while wasting 50% of the money they steal in the process)
Please, form an original opinion for once
>>76143730
You're literally retarded
>>76140925
>why do some of you hate Libertarians?
>Libertarians
You mean the idiot who want the benefits of society without following the rules set by society or who want to unilaterally opt out of paying into the system adopted by society?
>>76153196
No point. I think I'm right, you think you're right. I just hope you come to outgrow your idealism, straw-manning and ironic statements.
>>76153478
Let's see, so "outgrowing idealism" means becoming indoctrinated and completely supporting the status-quo...
This is beyond ironic
>>76152842
Kek
I'm more aryan than you will ever be.
>>76143444
5 words
Hired militia to enforce contracts
>>76153275
Nope, you may not like it, but governments facilitate the production of literally everything. All creative thought, all industry, all production is accomplished under the auspices of government. The problem is you view governments as some kind of monolithic middlemen without realizing that they are quite literally the sublimation of the libertarian dream. Governments and nations are the gestalt consciousness of the people that participate in them, and their production is inextricable from what is produced by those people.
Don't like our current government? There are plenty of other rational actors (governments) in the Free Market that you can align yourself with, but they probably won't satisfy you either. In which case you realize that libertarianism is flawed and the free market is inherently oppressive. We're living in the free market right now, enjoy yourself my friend.
>>76140925
Why do you want the government out of your live, are you hiding something?
They're degeneracy enablers, plain and simple.
>>76153657
>means becoming indoctrinated and completely supporting the status-quo
Again with the straw-man. I didn't realise my country or the rest of the west was Nationalist Socialist.
>>76153658
Don't hate fascism then kid.
>>76140925
Ron Paul is a hero and it feels weird to go from volunteering for RP to volunteering for Trump but that's just the state of America and Trump is what we need at this moment in time to save America.
>>76153664
you mean the police and court system?
>>76153478
wait so fascism isn't idealism? huh
>>76149794
I would of voted for McAfee but not this faggot.
>be east asian libertarian
>even americans make fun of libertarianism
>>76153664
6 words
Hired militia to shoot your militia
>>76153734
>but governments facilitate the production of literally everything
Oh really? Am I being facilitated when I walk to the grocery store and purchase milk? What about when I have plumber fix the plumbing in my house?
The government isn't necessary for any of these things. All it does is tax me, the grocer, and the plumber, discouraging all of us from conducting further trade.
>some kind of monolithic middlemen without realizing that they are quite literally the sublimation of the libertarian dream
Jesus christ, that's a hefty amount verbal diarrhea. How much time did you spend on www.thesaurus.com?
It's hilarious how you wrote so much while hardly saying anything
>>76153823
As opposed to our current governments?
Why do statists always attribute things to libertarianism despite these things allready happening?
>>76153984
I know, sad isn't it?
>>76153734
>There are plenty of other rational actors (governments) in the Free Market that you can align yourself with
Not really.
It is very hard to just 'align' yourself legally. Otherwise my flag would be american already.
>>76153824
>Nationalist Socialist
>Calling anyone else an idealist
So you've been indoctrinated by neo-/pol/'s memes, even better!
These a grown men, ladies and gentlemen
Libertarianism means that you get NO social safety net, you get NO eugenics programs, people can smoke all the meth they want and if you try to stop them YOU go to jail for interfering with their private property.
Also, Libertarianism does support open borders mostly. Yes there are some exceptions, but they are few and far in between.
Liberty fags will say that they are A-FUCKING-OK with Somalians populating Sweden as long as they can't access welfare or vote. That should show you where their loyalties lie.
>>76153951
>wait so fascism isn't idealism? huh
No system is imperfect, but it's more realistic than the others.
>>76154043
>As opposed to our current governments?
I can name a former government of yours which didn't enable degeneracy.
>>76154177
He says, she says.
>>76153824
>Don't hate fascism then
Why should I not hate people violently forcing their ideas on me?
>>76154026
The problem again is that your vision is too small. You literally don't understand what the Free Market actually is, or how it allows you, the grocery store, the milk, the plumber, and your house to exist. Since you're so focused on the microcosm - on your immediate surroundings - you are blind to the roads the government maintains, the laws that keep order, the firefighters, police, and EMS who keep you safe.
>But private organizations could do those things instead!
The government IS a private organization. It has all the power. It has all the resources. That's why it maintains the roads, and the safety infrastructure, and dumps money into every other social programme that you hate. It doesn't do everything, certainly, but it shoulders most of the burden and it wields a commensurate amount of power. If the globalists had their way, the government would do EVERYTHING and have ALL the power.
For some reason you believe some kind of vague coalition of private citizens will exist in a libertarian polity and do everything a government already does - without realizing that the government IS that coalition of private citizens.
We're already living in a libertarian paradise. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but hey, it's what you wanted, right?
>>76154043
Libertardians would literally make drugs legal you stupid kraut
>>76153208
To add to this, libertarianism also assumes that everyone is equal and so should get equal rights. This is based on feelings, not fact.
>>76154212
Yea and those meth smokers will go to jail when they have to steal because they cant hold a job, because they too are inferring on the safety of others and thats a big no .
>>76154258
Take a break from this board, kiddo. I'm assuming the majority of your political beliefs were formed in the last few months since /pol/'s obsession with natsoc nonsense
This is a satirical board, first and foremost. Only the knuckle-dragging fools take this shit literally
>>76154212
That old fallacy again...
Just because we don't want government to do thing, does not mean we don't want thing done at all.
>>76154258
Why do you care about degeneracy this much? Do you really want to gas everyone who doesn't conform to your ideals?
>>76154402
>This is a satirical board, first and foremost. Only the knuckle-dragging fools take this shit literally
You keep repeating this over and over again, it makes it seem like you're only trying to convince yourself. Are you that afraid of the truth, anon?
>>76154375
wow they will go to jail when they have to steal for meth...wow i never thought of it that way
i guess that solves every thing, all drugs should be legal
you could be the next murray rothstein
>>76154526
Yea, theyll break the law and go to jail if meth was to be legal. Not seeing whats so crazy about that
>>76154526
And then again im not for every drug being legal.
>>76154331
>you are blind to the roads the government maintains, the laws that keep order, the firefighters, police, and EMS who keep you safe
>muh roads
This shit has been dismantled over and over. Actors in a free market don't need government-built infrastructure to conduct trade.
>The government IS a private organization
No, it isn't. It collects money by force. There is no trade or production involved. Every single example of a government-run program has a private counterpart that provides goods/services cheaper and more efficiently(see FedEx, private schooling, Uber, etc).
>realizing that the government IS that coalition of private citizens
This is completely wrong. Ordinary citizens have almost no influence on the majority of signed legislation. We couldn't possibly be MORE unattached from the process. The only people that make decisions are the politicians and lobbyists.
>We're already living in a libertarian paradise
Not quite. The United Sates was much closer to libertarianism a hundred years ago than it is now. You know, that time that lead to the industrial revolution?
>>76154314
Because your going to go extinct unless you listen to them.
>>76154402
ebin troll :-DDD
>>76154473
>Why do you care about degeneracy this much?
It decays a healthy society. Why don't you care enough?
>>76154615
Who pays for the jail? Who got stolen from? Those people got fucked, just so Cletus could have the """"freedom"""" to smoke meth.
>>76154473
Oh, really? Care to show me that you can implement a policy of only high quality people having children voluntarily?
People say "i would support x but it would have to be voluntarily funded" but give no evidence that it could or would be done
>>76154510
>Are you that afraid of the truth, anon?
And what truth is that? Is there a secret contained in one of these memes? Is it sad knowing that you've been completely figured out?
>>76154752
Why do you act like all government and law and the institutions that enforce law would just vanish? i dont follow.
>>76154724
>It collects money by force
Why does it collect money? Because it is required to conduct certain functions by the Constitution and requires money to meet those requirements?
Or is your issue with "by force?" We tried voluntary donations with the Articles of Confederation and that worked like shit.
>>76154724
>It collects money by force.
No one is forcing you to pay taxes. However, if you refuse to pay taxes, you are violating the NAP because you are aggressively sabotaging social order and therefore reducing everyone's quality of life. Thus your aggression must be met with aggression. Sound autistic? That's because it is. But that's libertarianism for you.
>Every single example of a government-run program has a private counterpart that provides goods/services cheaper and more efficiently(see FedEx, private schooling, Uber, etc).
Kudos to them, the government is still a more powerful and influential entity.
>This is completely wrong
So our entirely civilian government is beamed down from Mars? Where are we importing these non-humans from and how are they getting elected by other non-humans into positions where they can rule us?
Yeah, the average person is totally divorced from any kind of say in government. But the government is quite literally composed of private citizens, and they are all actors in the free market.
>>76154857
You have to break the law to go to jail, right?
If you make the law "don't smoke meth", Cletus goes to jail before anyone else is harmed. If you remove that, and only leave "don't steal", someone has to get fucked before you arrest Cletus, even though he wasn't fit for society in the first place.
>>76154822
oof, projecting real hard there breh
>>76155033
The again, I said im not for making every drug legal.
>>76152653
Well done retort cuck. Because youre boreders havent been infintrated by hundreds of shit skin rapists.
>>76155087
Sweet backpedal, but this applies as a general principle too. Turns out a lot of things are banned because they lead to worse crimes if not caught early. Going 10mph over the speed limit isn't harming anyone, but if we removed speed limits and just waited for people to commit bigger crimes (vehicular manslaughter) a whole lot more people would die.
>>76155236
Said it earlier aswell not my fault you didnt read it, okay though. >>76154701
>>76154992
>No one is forcing you to pay taxes
Oh really, do I have a choice? What happens if I don't pay my taxes?
>Kudos to them, the government is still a more powerful and influential entity.
No shit, an entity reliant on force with a monopoly on armed forces is bound to be powerful.
>But the government is quite literally composed of private citizens
Again, this is wrong. Considering that only that the majority are represented and the minority have no way to opt out, this is hardly working in the interest of its citizens. And again, including that ordinary citizens are completely unattached to government policy and legislation, assuming it's a representation is completely naive. You've been indoctrinated quite well to believe this shit
>>76155295
So if you support "victimless" crimes, in what sense are you a libertarian? Opposing a welfare state but still preferring preventative laws just makes you a run-of-the-mill conservative.
>>76155389
>a monopoly on armed forces
I love how libertarians always talk about a "monopoly on force" like it's a bad thing. Monopolies stifle competition, right? So you're saying you'd prefer a competition of force? A free market of violence?
>>76154912
I'm just making an argument for free markets. I'm not an ancap, and I do believe that a national defense should be a function of government ( and consequently should be paid for by force)
Either way, a lottery system was tested during the AoC and it worked quite well.
>>76155413
I believe in personal freedoms, if it isnt hurting anyone then you should be free to do it, I also agree with free economics with very little or preferably no government interference, so id say im libertarian, but who knows.
>>76155216
Our borders were opened by our government tho :^)
>>76155521
>So you're saying you'd prefer a competition of force? A free market of violence?
Yes. Isn't that exactly how it works right now between countries?
>>76154752
That's exactly what happens today with the laws that makes meth illegal... well, unless it's prescribed by a doctor of psychiatrist.
So eliminating the drug laws simply frees up the cops to do theit jobs with shot that actually matters, the druggies get to fuck their lives up without us wasting tax dollars on a war on drugs that hasn't worked at all the last 40 years, and pothead legally get to be potheads, legal businesses for drugs sprout up, drugs and paraphernalia get taxed, fuck tons of new revenue is generated to help correct the US Nat'l debt problem.
Boom.
>>76155578
>if it isnt hurting anyone then you should be free to do it
Speeding doesn't hurt anyone.
>>76155578
And thats why I said some drugs and some things should be illegal because they harm peoples safety or rights.
>>76155389
>What happens if I don't pay my taxes?
You violate the NAP and then our libertarian society punishes you, in accordance with libertarian ideals.
>No shit, an entity reliant on force with a monopoly on armed forces is bound to be powerful.
Indeed, much like a wealthy multinational corporation can be considered powerful because it has a stranglehold over communications and information infrastructure. this is a libertarian world, the strongest entities get power and keep on getting power, to the exclusion of everyone else, except for those very few who happen to prove themselves exceptional (and who find an untapped niche of the free market).
>
Again, this is wrong. Considering that only that the majority are represented and the minority have no way to opt out, this is hardly working in the interest of its citizens. And again, including that ordinary citizens are completely unattached to government policy and legislation, assuming it's a representation is completely naive. You've been indoctrinated quite well to believe this shit
I'm not sure how many times I have to say "I don't like the government's policies" for you to understand that I'm not happy with it either. You're just too deluded to see that we're already living in the world that libertarians dream of. Powerful corporate entities controlling everything people do, lobbying, and oppressive social programs and market controls are only possible because a single powerful entity has beaten all the rest, claimed hegemony, and now makes all the rules. It defines the NAP and enforces it accordingly. What we're living in is libertarianism in its fully realized state, and it is awful
>>76152428
And who owns the collective property? The government. And that's when you start eroding libertarian principles piece by piece.
Libertarianism is naive in the modern global environment and too many kikes are exploiting it to push for rampant corporate globalism.
Simply look at the two largest mainstream ideologies and you can see why it isn't going to take hold anytime soon. Everyone wants the government to do something for them, even if they disagree on what.
The only thing that will fix the country today is a strong government that works in our interests for once instead of some world government masturbatory fantasy. We need to forcefully remove immigrants and put up barricades to further erosion of society. We need to forcefully break up the bloated international corporations that have come to rule our economy and hold it hostage. Letting them collapse, like libertarians claim to desire, will only usher in a worse depression than the Great one.
>>76140925
Coming from UE, Libertarianism is just another dictatorship. Fuck that shit, I don't want to leave UE just to end up into another shithole.
>>76140925
because that is racist and nigger need the government for dem programs
lets just have one open free world where people can do what they want
am i a communist or a libertarian?
>>76140925
libertarian philosophy cannot defend itself from organized/unorganized invasion. And people will coalesce toward a statist government eventually.
>>76155586
cuckservative capitalist government
>>76154792
Show me a statistic of high caliber citizens having children involuntarily
>>76155669
But speeding is dangerous, therefore there should be some restrictions on it.
>>76155669
>Speeding doesn't hurt anyone.
No, it doesn't. But if you cause a wreck, you'll face the consequences. It doesn't take a genius to apply this to drug use
>>76155624
Yes, and it's generally unpleasant. You want that to happen *within* your country? Tyrone and his crew "competing" with the local police force? The mexicans "competing" with the militias? Are you insane? What is the point of a country if it isn't more stable than anarchy?
>>76155624
So you're saying that you DO understand that this is already a libertarian world
>>76155521
>So you're saying you'd prefer a competition of force? A free market of violence?
Have you ever heard of the 2nd amendment? A competition of force was intended by the founders and it's one of the reasons your country isn't as cucked yet as the rest of us.
>>76147959
what the fuck kind of argument was that
>>76152437
>And whos going to stop them? The government?
The people will. We have plenty of guns, you know--especially in Texas.
>>76155657
Interesting point
>>76155757
Right, and in both cases waiting for the consequences causes more suffering than banning the initial action. That's like seeing a man angrily grab a knife, but only stopping him once he starts stabbing someone.
>>76155731
>libertarian philosophy cannot defend itself from organized/unorganized invasion. And people will coalesce toward a statist government eventually.
What you're talking about is an anarcho-capitalist society. Most libertarians support a government-funded national defense.
But if you want to make this argument against ancaps, I would respond with saying that people can choose to fund a large protection agency that would defend in those situations.
>>76155033
>If you make the law "don't smoke meth", Cletus goes to jail before anyone else is harmed
Except it never works like that. By the time this "Cletus" or "Tyrone" or "Julio" gets arrested for drug related crime, they've already stolen, mugged, committed multiple B&Es and generally ducked a lot of people over and probably committed assault multiple times during "tweak-outs"
>>76155909
There's a difference if you're witnessing obvious intent.
By your logic, all vehicle transportation should be banned since it is the #1 cause of death
>>76147959
> you are sued and put out of business because lemonade is actually trademarked, you see
I'll reply to your dumbass argument with one of my own
>>76143152
Open borders wouldn't be a bad thing if we got rid of all these welfare snd social programs. But open. Borders is an awful idea while we have those programs though.
>>76156016
Different populations need the law to intervene at different points. If America was 100% white, the law would probably only need to intervene when someone was being directly harmed. If we were 100% aboriginal, I'd sure as fuck want everyone riding a bus.
>>76155704
>You violate the NAP and then our libertarian society punishes you, in accordance with libertarian ideals.
>rob someone
>they fight back
>No! You are violating the NAP!
This is the base of your otherwise pretty elaborate argument, but this is where it falls apart. You have a point in your ongoing statements but you always open with this obvious fallacy and thus the rest becomes invalid.
>>76156204
The government isn't robbing you, your money is simply required for the good of the state. To resist this is aggression, and therefore a violation of the NAP.
Government's the strongest player. They get to define what aggression entails. What's stopping them, the.... NAP? Uh oh.
>>76156204
The NAP is retarded to begin with. To ban the initiation of violence is to castrate your society.
>>76156144
Imo consequences should only be faced if someone commits, or shows commitment, of aggression.
The whole "prevent a crime before it happens" is a very slippery slope. If you think you'll be dealing with dangerous people, hire protection
>>76156400
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
>>76156408
So are you for every single drug being legal?
>>76156408
It only looks like a slippery slope because our demographics have been shifting in the direction of needing more regulation. As the country gets browner, we'll need more laws to keep them from murdering each other (and more importantly, from murdering us).
>>76156460
tl;dw
>>76156496
Yes. The government shouldn't be in charge of protecting people from themselves. The reason crack and meth exist is due to prohibition of cocaine
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
>>76156586
Okay, fair point
>>76156583
Just watch it sometime. A completely free society based on NAP is concevable
>>76156318
>Tyrone isn't robbing you, your money is simply required for the good of his squad
The government does not adhere to the NAP, it is not a libertarian government. I also highly doubt that any politician currently in office in germany has even heard of libertarian ideas, let alone understands them.
Also, your argument would be feasible if government actually acted in the interest of the people, which it does not. I think we can all agree to that.
The good of the state is not the good of the people, anymore. That's sad but it's the truth. And either way, a robbery is a robbery, even if you have good intentions.
A system grounded in a lawless act can not be lawful.
Of course real law is made by the guys with the most guns, which is where your argument is kinda true. But that does not make it right, or just, or something to be desired, and most of all this status is not libertarianism.
>>76156586
Drug laws aren't about protecting you from yourself, they're about protecting you from Tyrone. We can't ban black people outright, so we ban shit black people do (drugs).
>>76155740
Velocity/speed is not the cause of danger or death or accidents/collisions.
Being a shit driver or using a shit vehicle to maintain that speed is what leads to that shit.
For example:
In 2011 I traveled across the US twice (round trip ~3700 miles) in my car at 130mph for 80% of the trip, slowing to 80-100mph near major metropolitan areas (more cops)
I didn't even come remotely close to getting rekt or killing anyone even once the entire 26hrs of road time each way coast to coast.
I've traveled many times in excess of 150mph on public roadways, never once was I a danger to myself or others.
The risk comes in with distraction, alertness and situational awareness, and not being an idiot who doesn't signal or stay in the correct lane for your current travel (left lanes are for passing only God damnit)
So I can drive like this and not have a single accident, yet most accidents that fuck shit up are at or under the posted speed limit.
>>76156700
And at the same time, we have police wasting millions of tax dollars tracking down white "drug dealers" with a few grams of marijuana.
Black people will do shitty things with or without drugs. And if Colorado is any indication of the rest of the US - overall drug use will decrease
>>76156648
But why is it desirable? I'll give you an example. Some guy is saying stupid shit, he's right in your face, and he keeps talking. You tell him to stop, and he doesn't.
>libertarian option
"Well golly gee, I'm in a public space, he has a right to speak you know! I'll go home and sulk like a faggot, and let this other guy have social dominance!" (because don't forget, we're animals and that shit is important even if you don't like it)
>reasonable option
Punch him in the face.
The NAP turns every aggressive interaction into the adult equivalent of "I'm not touching you!" It completely goes against our instinct and our natural social behavior.
>>76155909
>What kind of knife is it?
>what is that man's body language communicating?
>what context is the knife being grabbed in relation to?
From there you deduce intent and act as appropriate.
If the mansame body language communicates no warnings or aggression and he is in his kitchen and had just pulled out some carrots, zucchini, and an onion from his refrigerator and placed the on the counter next to his cutting board, to react by disarming subduing and restraining him would be severely autistic... like... low functioning as my cousin's (by marriage) son, and he is never going to speak, feed himself, or manage his own bodily functions outside a diaper... ever
>>76156921
That's not exactly how it would work. In either case, you should ignore him. But if that isn't an option, you can defend yourself. Aggression isn't only defined as PHYSICAL aggression.
Private courts exist in an ancap society. You and the other party will agree upon a particular court to judge the situation.
Either way, I'm not complete ancap and would have a government court to decide on who's in the right
>>76156041
You cannot have sovereign nations while having open borders. Case in point look at the EU, then look at.china, S. Korea, Japan, Australia, N.Z., Canada, and pretty much any nation with established borders that are secured.
They may not have the strongest economy in the world but I guarantee no foreign influence dictates their laws or actions.
>>76157200
>In either case, you should ignore him.
Why? Why should I be forced to concede like a beta? The other man is in the wrong and is acting inappropriately. It is my social responsibility to initiate violence to correct his behavior.
>>76156691
The government is not Tyrone and his inconsequential gang. The government controls the entire market. It's not just taxation - the government can justify any action it takes under the NAP, because who will challenge it?
Luckily the government is not monolithic, it is comprised of people. And in Western countries at least, we have systems of law in place to address grievances and maintain order. Yes, these are things that government doesn't HAVE to have (just look at previous societies) but ours do, because such systems are in the interest of the people. What makes you think Libertarianism is about justice? These systems of law are socialistic in nature, helping people who be otherwise disadvantaged by those who violate the government-enforced NAP. The Magna Carta, the Napoleonic Code, the Constitution - these are all wonderful pieces of Social Justice litigation. They are what SJW should strive to emulate.
We can hem and haw about the government not doing what's best for the people. That's a matter of perspective. I don't like it, you don't like it, a lot of people don't like it. But a lot of them do. And a lot of those people who like it happen to comprise a large portion of said government. And they are following libertarian principles, trying to do what they believe is in their own best interests. They do this by making and changing the Law - which, when we get right down to it, IS the NAP. Therefore, those who manipulate the laws - staffers, politicians, lobbyists, voters - are those who decide what aggression means and what is valued in our society. It is completely freeform, and entirely libertarian in aspect.
Yes, there are a lot of controls and oppressive bullshit. That's because the system has been around for a long time and accumulated a lot of garbage. That doesn't change the fact that at it's core we began as a libertarian society, and we still are - this is just what libertarianism looks like after a few hundred years.
>>76157324
Because striking back is inappropriate and makes you seem too prideful and insecure.
But still, if he's in your face without consent, he's violating the NAP
>>76156502
No, well need more guns they can ethnically cleanse themselves for all I care, and if we have our firearms on our person, we can defend ourselves if we get targeted
>>76157479
Why does everything need to fit into the NAP? Can't you follow the NAP sometimes, and not follow it other times? Making everything absolute leaves you unable to adapt, and encumbers you with artificial regulations.
>>76157584
Everyone's definition of aggression is different, it's not absolute. That's why you would have a court system decide on whose in the wrong (if one party feel's the NAP is violated)
>>76157733
No, I'm saying can't there be exceptions where *actual aggression* is allowed?
>>76156921
I don't know about NAP but that point sounds retarded.
>screaming in your face
>as if they wouldn't get punched in the throat by any decent human being
Seriously, I just can't even
>let them keep on free speech
It's free speech when you aren't violating my personal space, so if you're in my face screaming, you get wopped, if you're several feet away, I don't give a fuck and probably won't even acknowledge your existence
>>76157796
I guess? It depends on the situation. If that dick is my face and I choose the beat his ass - he could forget about it and nothing would happen, just like how it is now.
There wouldn't really be any set-in-stone laws allowing some aggression in an ancap society. It completely depends on the individuals involved
>>76157422
You have a good point.
I would say that what you describe is not libertarianism, tho, but classic liberalism. The foundation of western society and what lead us to where we are, rich and powerful but now being compromised by accumulated garbage.
Libertarianism imo is an attempt to get rid of that garbage. A return to the principles that seem to be forgotten, or merely a reminder to them.
Such a principle, for example, would be the NAP. It is not something to be defined by government, as it has a perfectly natural definition. Yet, as you rightly say, government in a way sets up their own 'NAP', or basically laws.
Libertarianism is just a way to mitigate that, to preserve the freedom that is being eroded.
You are right that we live in a liberal world. It's just becoming increasingly less liberal, because various political factions have claimed the title liberal for themselves.
Libertarianism is just actual liberals trying to make the world more liberal again.
>>76158016
What's NAP?
>>76158016
it would be nice to live in a society that is unfettered by a lot of the bullshit we're now dealing with. I would like to believe in a simple "natural rule" that everyone obeys - and helps to enforce - but without a clear definition of what that is, inevitably there will be people who abuse that rule, who find loopholes or just flout it entirely while claiming that their definition of aggression is simply different from everyone else's. I just don't really have faith in the invisible hand as a corrective mechanism, and i fear that such a system would naturally evolve to consolidate power among a very small group of elite entities. That's basically what has already happened, and globalism would make the current situation even worse.
Some way to flush out the system, to reset it to some previous point, that would be nice. It would require major reform, which I imagine is the actual purpose of the libertarian party. The main thing i'm getting at is that a libertarian society has a limited lifespan - once power starts gravitating toward only a handful of entities, freedoms will begin to erode and bullshit will begin to accumulate. And the world will become increasingly less liberal, as you said.
Right now there is no reset button. The founding fathers had one, but they also had a continent and a flagging empire to overthrow. It's not quite the same now. Reform has to come from within, and with the sober understanding that whatever libertarian society is created is not going to be permanent - since we already know what it will eventually become.
