What's the most libertarian country?
http://www.rkursem.com/poll/view.php?id=6fe8d46bb5c6951a1
And why is libertarianism the best political philosophy ever?
>What's the most libertarian country?
Switzerland, but it's not the ultimate libertarian society.
>And why is libertarianism the best political philosophy ever?
Because it's the only logical and ethical political philosophy.
why does ancap ball have homer simpson hair?
>>79859506
>thinking corporations are more just & fair than a government
>being past the age of 16
pick one
>libertarian sees hole in road
>libertarian commits suicide
>>79860241
>libertarianism is the only logical philosophy
more Reddit than Reddit
>>79860485
You can pick a corporation to pay for the service. The government forces you to use its own.
>>79860504
>pay company to fix my private road
>problem fixed
>>79860542
Not an argument.
>>79859506
Trianglepore
>>79859506
>The most libertarian country
America
>>79860743
>America
>>79860504
If Google maintains a free internet high way. Then why can't other private companies do the same real high ways. The company would get paid by putting advertisements on the side of road (or above)
>>79860939
>what are hundreds of tribes waging war non-stop in Somalia to make a new """"""democratic""""" government
>>79860797
It is, retard. The dominant ideology isn't measured by the economy, it's measured by what the majority of the poulace takes as implicit. Indivdualism and freedom have been implicit in America.
>>79861204
>what is a power vacuum
>>79860939
Post the one pic with both that and the one for liberals saying how they should go to north korea.
>>79861406
Not a libertarian society.
>>79860610
>not thinking monopolies exist, especially when there's no governmental regulation
>past the age of 16
again choose one
>>79862482
all news channels owned by one company, all candy companies owned by one company. all casinos owned by one company. all collages owned by one company
>>79862482
>doesn't know the difference between government monopoly and natural/excellence monopoly
>>79859506
Somalia: It barely even has a government.
>>79861100
They might, but it'd cost a lot more. Also, you'd have to pay to use the road.
>>79860939
>>79863036
>Somalia
Kek. I didn't even see that pic when i made my post.
Get out.
>>79860241
Switzerland is absolutely not libertarian.
>>79863219
Do you pay to use google?
Maybe you can pay if you want to use an "ad free lane" but in the end the road is being paid for by advertisements of other companies trying to get their word out
›pig farmer moves in right next libertards dream house he built permanently fowls the air
Mmmmuh statism
>>79862791
And they all fucking suck. Even candy isn't as great as it was once.
>>79862948
Why would anyone listen to a concave-headed socialist jungle monkey on anything?
>>79863479
What about monopolies then? Without government regulations, there would be nothing to stop road companies from merging and jacking up the prices.
>>79862791
And look at what it's done too those industries. Quality has dropped, and prices have skyrocketed.
>>79863479
Thats honestly the most autistic thing ive heard kek. Will we have to watch a 30 second advertisement before we join the road. LOL
>>79863485
>libertard hires private army to intimidate pig farmer
>pig farmer hires another private army to intimidate libertard
>civil war
>one of the armies defeats the other
>that army establishes totalitarian dictatorship
>as a display of power, they burn down the house and slaughter all the pigs
>their faces when
>>79863479
And that analogy is stupid. You cant click on an ad and pay by card while you speed down the highway.
>>79863711
then more people would buy tiny helicopters and/or jet packs cause fuck you roads.
>>79863914
more like billboards and shit
>>79863882
They stay on top because no other new company can get past the government bullshit that has stacked up over the decades. So people have also started to seek alternative media's like info wars or the young turks.
>>79863460
>I can't tell the difference between "most libertarian" and "being libertarian"
Dumb idiot
>>79863914
You have to be pretty stupid to think that, and it's not like road don't feature advertisements right now. You would know if you weren't a neet.
>>79863519
Because the government thinks they should be healthier
>>79864122
>civil war
>implying it's not cheaper to argue in a civilized way to settle the dispute
Idiot
>as a display of power, they burn down the house and slaughter all the pigs
It would be far more useful to sell those instead, or even better, use them yourself.
Idiot x2
>>79864122
This. The worst thing next to anarchy is government, but without it, we'd be ruled by warrior gangs.
>>79864122
B-but people will magically respect NAP!1111
was hong kong
not sure if it still is
>>79859506
Peru
MIght as well be no goverment when it comes to business regulations and our taxation is so low that only the IGV keep us a float.
>>79861370
>A country can be a communist dictatorship but still be libertarian if the people believe they're free.
>>79864277
>then more people would buy tiny helicopters and/or jet packs cause fuck you roads
I don't want to have to buy a heicopter just so i can afford to get to work.
>>79864277
>They stay on top because no other new company can get past the government bullshit that has stacked up over the decades.
This is problematic. I see your point: government regulations do make it more difficult o enter into some areas of industry, especially if said regulations are written by corporate lobbyists.
>>79864438
>arguing in a civilized way to settle the dispute
How naive are you? Have you ever stepped outside?
>use them yourself
I was making a point, guess it went over your head.
>>79860939
How does a libertarian society prevent degeneracy? In a libertarian society, how do you prevent corporations from selling heroin to children, or prevent fathers from using their underage daughters as prostitutes? How do they stop the free market and free people from doing immoral acts that are normally controlled by government regulation and laws?
>>79864438
But most ''libertarian'' country is Somalia.
>i-it's cheaper to argue in a civilized way
No, technically, cheapest way is to kill him. It's neither resource nor time-consuming.
Anyway, no one cares about your autism, or to explain you how people act. Interact a bit with people and you'll find out.
History passes it's judgment, united and somewhat collectivist societies thrive, anarchic societies get eaten.
>>79864277
Yo bro i cant fly or anything but my dads a billionaire in bitcoins. Fancy selling me a small jet so i can get to work on time? Dont worry im a good gta pilot desu senpai. And btw fuck regulations and standards we're free from that old shit
>>79864908
>most ''libertarian'' country is Somalia.
no it isn't.
>>79860504
I'm a libertarian, not a stateless an-cap Ahmed
>>79864806
>This is problematic. I see your point: government regulations do make it more difficult o enter into some areas of industry, especially if said regulations are written by corporate lobbyists.
yea that really one of my biggest complaints about government.
Also meth should be legal.
>>79864886
>How does a libertarian society prevent degeneracy?
Should be controlled by the family not the government
>>79864971
Without government regulation, it would be cheap as fuck, because all it is, is a big ass fan with a tiny ass fan.
>>79863219
>Also, you'd have to pay to use the road.
I would also have to pay for product X if the government stopped taxing me to pay for product X. That does not necessarily mean it's desirable for the government to provide product X. We could just as easily apply this logic to everything -- why should I have to pay for food when the government can provide it for me?
Note also that on the market I have the option to use alternatives to product X or to use product X less instead of paying. For roads, in this case, I have options in telecommuting, mass transit, delivery, and so on.
>>79865102
But it is. Government has very little power, they have no way to enforce laws, thus regulations are minimal. So private enterprise rules.
Yeah, they're dumb blacks, but it wouldn't play out much better in white societies either.
What libertarians basically want is all the commodities of modern civilized society, but no regulations or expenses. That's not how it works, sorry.
>>79865121
>I'm a libertarian
>not an-cap
It's a difference between Stage III and Stage IV lung cancer.
>>79865437
>I'm a libertarian
>not an-cap
>It's a difference between Stage III and Stage IV lung cancer.
Same thing with socialism and communism
>>79864844
>How naive are you? Have you ever stepped outside?
Going into a civil war is costly, your company would bankrupt if you went on a civil war. No need to call me naive, since this assumes an egoistical scenario.
>I was making a point, guess it went over your head.
A shit point
>>79864908
>No, technically, cheapest way is to kill him.
Except you are fighting with another armed private army. It's not cheap to kill an army.
>Anyway, no one cares about your autism, or to explain you how people act. Interact a bit with people and you'll find out.
Thanks, I do, but this assumes an egoistical scenario. It can only go better than this.
>History passes it's judgment, united and somewhat collectivist societies thrive, anarchic societies get eaten.
A libertarian society can be united and collectivist as well through mutually benefiting trade.
>>79864886
By making your own libertarian society with impossed laws regarding degeneracy, as long as the land for that society is privately owned, just like you won't tell a gay couple into your house or whatever.
>how do you prevent corporations from selling heroin to children, or prevent fathers from using their underage daughters as prostitutes?
No idea, but libertarian is not anarchism, you know?
>How do they stop the free market and free people from doing immoral acts that are normally controlled by government regulation and laws?
Immoral acts because you say so or because they harm people? Because if it's the later, it can be regulated through private firms.
>>79865437
>But it is.
no, it isn't.
> they have no way to enforce laws
that is not libertarian in the slightest you moron.
>>79865561
Depends what kind of socialism.
Soviet style, yeah.
>>79865600
>It's not cheap to kill an army.
In real life I doubt a pig farmer would have an army.
And people aren't rational. Majority of population anywhere is dumb or average in intelligence. Even if you don't account for that, intelligence alone means nothing. Many intelligent people can be quite dumb.
>A libertarian society can be united and collectivist as well through mutually benefiting trade.
No such examples in history, sorry.
Besides, that's how nations originally came to be. People somewhere joined together to fight others or to trade.
You just wanna repeat the process that already occurred.
I have no reason to support that bullshit. Jewish ideologies have traction over there because you're all mutts with no real national identities or history (Chilean, what the fuck is that), so you feel no attachment to your compatriots.
Over here, we do, we have centuries of common history, culture, success, hardships.
So basically, I'm telling you to go fuck yourself, and fuck up your country if you want, I don't care.
>>79859506
Estonia or Switzerland. Hong Kong is very economically free too.
t. classical liberal
>>79866230
>In real life I doubt a pig farmer would have an army.
Yeah, that's something I don't know how to answer
>And people aren't rational.
Firms are.
>Majority of population anywhere is dumb or average in intelligence. Even if you don't account for that, intelligence alone means nothing. Many intelligent people can be quite dumb.
Doesn't matter, because they can't do something that's not profitable or they go bankrupt.
>No such examples in history, sorry.
Should be that way, because everybody is interested in trading with everybody.
>I have no reason to support that bullshit. Jewish ideologies have traction over there because you're all mutts with no real national identities or history (Chilean, what the fuck is that), so you feel no attachment to your compatriots.
You can keep patriotism with libertarianism, you know?
>So basically, I'm telling you to go fuck yourself, and fuck up your country if you want, I don't care.
Literally the only reason my country isn't fucked up is because of having a libertarian approach to economics.
>>79864886
>How does a libertarian society prevent degeneracy?
First ask yourself how degeneracy is thriving today. You have degenerates on welfare. You have degenerates going to college to learn more about degeneracy on government scholarships or government backed loans. You have the government fining private property owners if they refuse to cater to degenerates. When degenerates must actually rely on themselves and their family -- and even more importantly rely on their children to support them in their old age -- they tend to mellow out real quick.
In a privately owned society, the local infrastructure, housing, and food suppliers are free to discriminate as they wish. Given a sizable amount of like-minded people, nearly any degenerate practice can be de-facto outlawed on the local scale. This applies to immigration concerns as well.
Finally, a purely libertarian legal system would not necessarily produce libertarian results -- though it would tend towards pure libertarianism. Even if selling drugs to children is allowed under libertarian theory (which is a vague point that scholars do not agree on), no one will come to the drug sellers aid if he gets the shit beaten out of him because of it, leaving the drug seller to protect his own rights in addition to being shunned socially and commercially as I explained in the previous paragraph. This clearly only applies to anarchist libertarianism, but it can be approximated by legislation being on as local a level as feasible; the age at which you may purchase drugs could be decided on a county by county basis instead of federally.
>>79863612
Why would anyone listen to a literal containment island for prisoners?
>>79865600
>company would go bankrupt
Not the company that wins. They'd do just fine.
>>79866785
>Not the company that wins. They'd do just fine.
Only if the country wins with no causalities, but that wouldn't be possible since the other army would be able to defend itself. It's inefficient to get into a war.
>>79860504
>What are jetpacks?
>>79866785
>Not the company that wins.
When was the last time a country actually made money on a war instead of going deeper into debt?
>>79860542
>Libertarian
Pick one. They've been swayed from libertarianism since their hollywood overlords began making fun of it 7-8 yeard ago.
>>79866703
>Firms are.
Firms are entities narrowly focused on profit. And owned and led by humans, who make mistakes.
Firms have no ideological, cultural, ethnic, geographical or any other background that nation/state does. Firms can't replace state.
They don't inspire people, to put it that way. No one can be loyal to a firm. No one will die for a firm.
>or they go bankrupt.
And when they go bankrupt, they'll resort to other means. No one goes to slaughter like sheep. Forget that idea.
>Should be that way
And I wish communism existed. But it doesn't. It probably won't. Life is like that, it's about picking lesser evils mostly.
>You can keep patriotism with libertarianism, you know?
In theory. In practice, individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive.
I myself, I don't support either, I support golden mean.
>is because of having a libertarian approach to economics
Not really, you had that in early 80's and it flopped, then you adopted more conventional ideas. You really started progressing in 90's.
I'm sorry for being rude earlier, but seriously, just think about it, why are these ideas so prevalent in America?
Why is libertarian thought almost dead in Europe and Asia?
You know I'm right.
Mfw my country is literally idiocracy, southern hemisphere edition.
>>79866733
>how degeneracy is thriving today
Demand and supply.
When you remove all restraints from people, they become degenerate. People are like that. Most are, like I said, average or below average in mental capacity.
Don't think I'm a misanthrope, far from it, but I have to use this analogy: if you let a dog eat all he wants, he'll get too fat and die.
>>79860504
>statist sees hole in road
>statist calls a government agency to permit him to commit suicide
Economically is Dubai. Overall I would say Lichestein.
>>79860939
https://youtu.be/8kqlD4ffzgk
https://youtu.be/sw45cpBQW9c
https://youtu.be/nvusnyga9CA
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3382523/Somalia-housing-boom-Mogadishu-emerges-ashes-war.html
http://www.cfr.org/somalia/better-off-stateless-somalia-before-after-government-collapse/p10120
Educate yourself before you spout bullshit. Somalia is doing better than many countries in Africa and even has the most developed telecommunications network in Africa. Capitalism works!
>>79867398
>When you remove all restraints from people, they become degenerate.
So you agree with me then, that the government promotes degeneracy by removing the restraints of nature and the right of disassociation, with the only cure being libertarianism.
>>79866955
>it's inefficient to get into a war
How? What does this mean? It's their job to protect the pig farmer, and he's being intimidated. All they would need is a tennis match of retaliatory violence with the libertard's private army. Shit would escalate; rivalries would form. Eventually tensions get so high that a full-on war would break out. Remember that the winner takes all the marbles, too, so it can be very economically rewarding.
This is how criminal organizations operate.
>>79867009
Not everything that is won is monetized. Who cares about debt when you can have the power to kill any collectors?
How do you think gang wars happen?
>>79867009
They probably did before the industrial revolution, but not anymore.
>>79867226
>Firms are entities narrowly focused on profit. And owned and led by humans, who make mistakes.
Yeah, because they are focused on profit, getting into a war is going to waste their money for both parties.
>And when they go bankrupt, they'll resort to other means.
Like? They would have no money, if they go steal or kill they get punished on the instant for not being able to defend themselves.
>And I wish communism existed. But it doesn't. It probably won't. Life is like that, it's about picking lesser evils mostly.
Except this assumes a worst case scenario that's desirable for everybody while communism assumes good will and optimism with has been flawed as demonstrated by history.
>individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive.
Not trough trade. There is literally no reason to not be part of collectivist trade to satisfy your individual needs.
>Not really, you had that in early 80's and it flopped, then you adopted more conventional ideas.
It flopped for everybody in latinamerica, not just Chile, so it had nothing to do with our economic model.
>You really started progressing in 90's.
Yeah, and our economic model stayed just the same. Not even left leaning parties dared to go against El Ladrillo.
>I'm sorry for being rude earlier, but seriously, just think about it, why are these ideas so prevalent in America?
You tell me.
>Why is libertarian thought almost dead in Europe and Asia?
It's not. The nordic countries follow a pseudo-libertarian model with a lot of taxes and welfare, but stay with the unregulated and privatized markets. Literally all the good asian countries were libertarian regarding economics.
>You know I'm right.
I would have no problem admitting this, but I can't see that yet.
>>79867314
True. You guys fucked up really bad somehow.
>>79867484
https://youtu.be/YFCFRskdUvU
Who says humans need government to build roads and parks? Who says they need regulations and zoning and licensing to keep them safe? Look at how mogadishu has been transformed since 1991.
Just read the fucking wikipedia page on the economy of somalia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia
Industry is booming.
>>79867802
Government doesn't do that. Private entities that control it do.
Bussiness interests. Enjoy neoliberalism Randroid. It will destroy you.
>>79867990
>Who cares about debt when you can have the power to kill any collectors?
The state
>>79868206
The state is the one with the debt
>>79868069
I blame the CABA guys and the LGBT
>>79867990
>How do you think gang wars happen?
Because
a) the people who practice criminal activities are criminals and thus less likely to go about things in an intelligent or peaceful way.
b) peaceful resolution of gang conflicts is for the most part illegal. They obviously cannot publicly air their grievances and unbiased third parties in the criminal underworld are rare.
Maybe you should think for a few seconds before making an analogy next time.
>>79868287
>The state is the one with the debt
I'm all for liberty,but freedom can't defend itself.
>>79868167
Even more:
https://youtu.be/Kwk0c-oBcfI
Who says limited government and unbridled capitalism is evil?
>>79868177
>Government doesn't do that. Private entities that control it do.
Yes, corporations and the rich have petitioned the government to tax them heavily to pay for welfare and social security. Business owners practically begged to have their rights stolen from them.
Are you an idiot?
>>79867484
No idea about Somalia, but Mauritius is doing the best out of africa because of their freer market.
>>79867990
>How? What does this mean? It's their job to protect the pig farmer, and he's being intimidated.
First the firms would negotiate on who is right or wrong. No need to get straight into violence.
>Remember that the winner takes all the marbles, too, so it can be very economically rewarding.
It really isn't. You lose more than you win, especially considering firms who don't engage in violence get higher profits, making your own violent firm go bankrupt because it can't keep up with the competition.
>>79868177
>Enjoy neoliberalism Randroid. It will destroy you.
That was the opposite of what happened in my country. It made us grow on every aspect, surpassing even Argentina and Brazil on an individual basis.
>>79868358
I don't know much about your government, but I think you went to shit far earlier than anything LGBT. It was probably Peronism, but I can't be sure.
>>79868516
Give me a libertarian government whose task is only to defend it's people, and I will move there immediately.
>>79868672
That's not what I mean
What i'm saying is freedom can't defend itself from outside influence,subversion and so on.
Bezmenov explains it well here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
>>79868069
>going to waste their money
You're basically implying corporations make no mistakes. Dude, they're led by people. They're organizations, like state. Only far weaker in almost every aspect, and focused solely on profit.
Focusing solely on profit can cause problems. Something that's profitable can cause problems.
Replacing your native population is profitable as we see today. However, it's not really sustainable.
>they get punished
When you have nothing to lose, that's not inhibiting you.
>worst case scenario
It doesn't. It assumes everyone will just mind their own business, respect the rules, and will act rationally. It's almost utopian, kinda like communism.
>Not through trade
I'm afraid I don't understand you.
>It flopped for everybody
No true communism etc.
>our economic model stayed the same
Compared to early 80's? It didn't.
>You tell me
I told you. You don't have real national identities. You don't have real cultures.
You simply don't understand.
>The nordic countries
Yeah and look what's happening in Sweden.
>b-but welfare is the reason immigrants come
Not really.
>>79868623
Somalia is doing marvelously. They've recently been able to form a government and have even elected a president. Hopefully they hold on to the free market capitalism somalis have used to bring themselves out of poverty and don't let corruption and big government take over. Only time will tell but for now the future looks bright for the libertarian country.
>>79868623
true, Peron was a bowl of crap, but the problem started in 1880 with Julio Argentino Roca who was an anglophiliac and flooded the country with slavshit and anarchist who fled italy
>>79868359
>people who practice criminal activities are criminals and thus less likely to go about things in an intelligent or peaceful way
We're talking about humans here. Human beings. Not exactly known for resolving conflicts in a peaceful manner.
Humans don't magically become more civil because their government shrunk. Why wouldn't they do these things in a libertarian society?
>peaceful resolution of gang conflicts is illegal
What? Why would they need to publicly air their grievances to resolve them? Just settle them behind closed doors. Unbiased third parties are rare because they can be paid off by the more powerful conflicting party, nothing to do with government interference.
Wouldn't a libertarian society just allow these people to perform atrocities in plain sight?
>just wipe away the government and all the murderers, thieves, and power-hungry monsters suddenly become dainty Smurfs
>>79868499
read the thread
>but but muh roads
Look at how somalia, a country with no government, has been able to build new roads with solar powered street lamps. Even here in the US I haven't seen that before. I think it exists here but I haven't seen it at least.
>>79868672
A government who tries only to defend it's people would have no pay whatsoever from it, and it would eventually sell itself to the wealthiest people, defending their interest more than other's.
The idea of pure libertarianism working is just as ridiculous as pure communism. I still wonder why is libertarianism such a huge fashion here in Chile lately.
>>79868962
>You're basically implying corporations make no mistakes.
And you're similarly implying that governments make less? Of course corporations make mistakes, of course some conflicts might occur that could have been avoided. The key difference is that corporations are punished for those mistakes. The blood-thirsty defense company is going to lose more money or charge higher prices for its services, if not be outright obliterated. You are worrying over an outlier.
>>79868617
No, because neoliberalism hasn't prevailed completely.
But look at other effects of it. They won in key struggles.
Look what NAFTA caused.
Look at your declining white population. White kids are already minority.
That's what capitalism of this sort is. Nothing matters but profit. And immigration is profitable. Loose morals are profitable. Consumerism is profitable.
As I said, enjoy it. You deserve it for being dumb.
>>79868623
It made you grow economically, and as I said, in 90's.
But economic growth isn't anything. You're really blind are you?
Sweden is doing pretty well economically. However, their native population is being replaced, literally.
System based on eternal increase in profit is simply not sustainable. It's bullshit, just like communism.
>>79868886
If I understand you, what you're saying is that you can't defend people without breaking their freedoms?
>>79869439
I'm not, but governments are electable, usually. And by default they work in interest of society, they aren't aiming for just profit.
You're ignoring all positive effects that state provides and you focus on negatives only.
That's pretty fucking dumb.
>corporations are punished for those mistakes
Some are, some aren't. Just like states.
>>79869234
>read the thread
Most debt is owned by banks,not the state
>>79868962
>You're basically implying corporations make no mistakes. Dude, they're led by people. They're organizations, like state. Only far weaker in almost every aspect, and focused solely on profit.
Yeah, and corporations who make such big mistakes as using violence to resolve a conflict will go bankrupt in a short time. It's not sustainable.
>When you have nothing to lose, that's not inhibiting you.
Yeah, but what can you do if you have no money because you just went bankrupt?
>It doesn't. It assumes everyone will just mind their own business, respect the rules, and will act rationally. It's almost utopian, kinda like communism.
It assumes people are going to be egoistic and selfish and get the most profit they can. I showed you how "not respecting the rules" is unprofitable, so there is no need to assume it's going to be an utopia. You company would stop existing if you behave that way.
>I'm afraid I don't understand you.
Trade unites people, because it's a win-win scenario for both the buyer and the seller.
>Compared to early 80's? It didn't.
Yes, it did. They have been operating the same way for decades.
>I told you. You don't have real national identities. You don't have real cultures.
>You simply don't understand.
I can understand that, but it's not like it matters to me.
>Yeah and look what's happening in Sweden.
Yeah, because of their socialist, not libertarian policies.
>Not really.
How come not?
>>79868980
Sounds interesting. Will try to keep an eye on them now.
>>79869132
What exactly went wrong with that? I can't see it.
>>79869368
>I still wonder why is libertarianism such a huge fashion here in Chile lately.
Because it's what stopped us from becoming a shithole.
>>79868623
>the firms would negotiate on who is right or wrong
That's not what they're being paid to do. They're being paid to protect their customers, not be babysitters.
>firms who don't engage in violence get higher profits
Not necessarily. The victorious army gets all the capital and customers from the losers. They also get the reputation points from winning a war.
As for competition with other firms, that just makes matters worse. Other armies have incentive to become involved, which only widens the scale of the conflict.
>>79869830
Not the debt we're talking about.
>but but everyone in somalia is poor anon!!
These may the upper class in Somalia but they aren't that far off from middle class even here in the United states.
It's interesting to note that Somali financial transactions are almost all digital. Because most Somalis use the US dollar, the central bank of Somalia has had to compete for users, creating a market for currency. As a result you have the central bank trying to catch up to pace and lower inflation in order to create a stable currency. Competition works!
>>79863460
>muh joos
kill yourself
>>79869617
People will break their freedoms themselves.
See American Uni students wanting to take down the 1st and 2nd amendment,American politicians wanting to limit freedom,overrating hate crimes,banning guns and so on,all of this is the result of Soviet subversion during the cold war,everything is happening just as Bezmenov said it would.
You won't have a free country for long if you don't have a "strong system" to defend it.
>>79869368
That's a straw man if I ever heard one, I have never seen a libertarian who believes the government has no rightful duty and that you can't tax people so the government can fulfill it's duty.
Every major libertarian I saw, defends at least that the government should tax people so it can have a police force. The problem isn't taxation, the problem is over-extension of government, like when a government taxes just so the successful people become slaves of the unsuccessful people.
>>79869617
Depends what kind of freedoms.
Absolute freedom will lead to absolute slavery.
It's all nice and dandy we're discussing this shit here, but let's be serious, these extremist ideas would flop hard in real life.
As I already said, majority of population anywhere is made up of dumb or average people.
Those people need rigid moral guides to adhere to.
Capitalism already killed religion. Now it aims to kill the state, the nation, the law, the family.
Ironically, communism aims for same things.
Why? They're materialist ideas.
Without religion, without patriotism, without strong state, without civic virtue and morals, without law and family, any society is sliding towards decline. History taught us that many times.
The more inhibitors are removed, the quicker does decline come.
>>79869234
>Not exactly known for resolving conflicts in a peaceful manner.
That's quite a pessimistic world view or something very telling about your character if your first response to being slighted is to murder the other man. In reality, corporations take each other to private courts all the time rather than go to government courts -- which, expensive as they are, are definitely cheaper than warfare.
>Why would they need to publicly air their grievances to resolve them? Just settle them behind closed doors.
> Why would they need to publicly air their grievances to resolve them?
I am not saying that all conflicts are resolved publicly, but you must be thick if you cannot see why having the public know about the conflict and it's resolution makes it more likely that the losing side actually agrees to the verdict.
>Unbiased third parties are rare because they can be paid off by the more powerful conflicting party
This statement is completely separated from reality. Private arbitration firms can and do exist -- it does not pay to be bribed by the powerful company if it means no companies from then onwards will come to you for arbitration. Yes, you can hide it, but if your rulings are obviously biased then the result is the same.
Won't respond to the rest as I never actually said that.
>>79870044
Thing is, democracies are inherently against minorities, which makes poor and middle class people be able to steal from the rich as they please. Can this be fixed? No, because even though democracy has problems, there is no alternative that does not have even greater problems. Does this mean it's hopeless? No, in a democracy, you can try convince people to think about minorities' rights.
>>79870016
Gang debt? Most state have more power than any gang would ever wish to be,and they still own debt
>>79869545
>It made you grow economically, and as I said, in 90's.
From 1975 onwards, except for the "lost south american decade" (for just two years, then we went back to 6% anually)
http://www.multpl.com/chile-real-gdp-per-capita
>But economic growth isn't anything. You're really blind are you?
I never said it wasn't, but we are leading in latinoamerica over almost any possible index thanks to our economic model. From corruption and crimes to GDP per capita and poverty. The only "bad" thing about our country compared to other lat ones is income inequality, which isn't even that bad considering we are the ones with higher social mobility. We are making both the rich and the poor richer.
>Sweden is doing pretty well economically. However, their native population is being replaced, literally.
Yeah, and that's not because of their economic system.
>System based on eternal increase in profit is simply not sustainable. It's bullshit, just like communism.
It definitely is. Communism is the opposite btw.
>>79870180
I never said there should not be law, and I never said we should take the law lightly, in fact, I think it should be enforced more strongly, but that doesn't happen, because most taxes go for social causes, which I claim are IMMORAL. No matter how you spin the dice, taking money from successful people for the health/nutrition/welfare of others is wrong, and I don't want those things to be part of the duty of the government to enforce, instead, if you want something done, either do it, or try to convince rich people, don't fucking steal it.
>>79869982
>That's not what they're being paid to do. They're being paid to protect their customers, not be babysitters.
Yeah, so? If your costumer is wrong, he's wrong, and will pay the consequences.
>The victorious army gets all the capital and customers from the losers. They also get the reputation points from winning a war.
Except, you know, human labor. Why? Because you killed them and they killed you.
>They also get the reputation points from winning a war.
I don't think their reputation would go up for killing their adversaries.
>As for competition with other firms, that just makes matters worse. Other armies have incentive to become involved, which only widens the scale of the conflict.
It's more profitable to ignore them and solve other conflicts on your own instead.
>>79870025
Nice
>>79869944
>using violence to resolve conflict
It is sustainable, it is useful in short run, and life teaches us so much. You're willingly ignoring reality. Violence is a quick problem solver. Though it often creates far more problems in the long run. But foresight is a rare quality.
>but what can you do if you have no money
Violence.
>and get the most profit they can
Exactly, and in pursuit of that profit, they will ignore many problems that are awaiting down the road.
>You company would stop existing if you behave that way.
Over indefinite period of time. However, time exists you know, at least in our perception.
I understand how you people think. Free market will fix it. Probably. But while it fixes it, many will die, many things will be lost, and so on. And that's in best case scenario.
>Trade unites people
But what unites people best is fucking over other group of people. Sad but true.
>Yes, it did.
No, it didn't, and a quick glance at Wikipedia article would tell you the same.
>but it's not like it matters to me.
Exactly, those things are foreign to you, because you're mutts with no culture. No offense intended.
You're the world neoliberals are trying to create. And in their path, are our old nations, our history, our religion, our culture.
I'm afraid they'll break their teeth though.
>Yeah, because of their socialist, not libertarian policies.
Nope, nope.
Ask any immigrant here who went to Sweden. They mention welfare, but no one really goes there for just welfare. They go there because their work is well paid. They go there because life there is better, state is more ordered, and so on.
Even if you removed welfare they'd still have shitload of immigration.
And rich don't care about welfare, it's just spare cash for them. They profit far more from workforce, and there are political interests too (immigrants will vote for those who brought them over).
It's a complex subject, but it's fucking their nation over. Swedes are dying off.
>>79870180
>>79870619
This is why I'm a libertarian, not for some materialist nonsense, or some childish hippie idea. I'm not against religion, I'm not against patriotism, and I'm not against a government.
>but Somalia is a violent shithole anon!!!
While Somalia is very violent still, the attacks are isolated not nearly as widespread as before. In fact, it is traditional Somali law that keeps people from committing violence acts.
From.wiki:
"Xeer is the polycentriclegal systemofSomalia. Under this system,eldersserve as judges and help mediate cases using precedents. It is an example of how customary lawworks within astateless societyand closely resembles the natural lawprinciple. Several scholars have noted that even though Xeer may be centuries old, it has the potential to serve as the legal system of a modern, well-functioning economy."
>>79869944
>>79868623
>>79868069
>All these assumptions of ideal scenarios.
Nobody plays by the rules.
Remind me why people don't use private courts to solve disputes?
>>79869294
So are you moving to Somalia or staying on your non libertarian US?
Probably USA. Hong Kong gets an honorable mention.
>>79871317
They do. In Somalia. Every here in the US. Most cases don't go to trial and end in arbitration, which is a private court of sorts that is much quicker than US government provided courts.
>>79870039
(((You)))
>>79870416
>From 1975 onwards
Yes, but not at same rate.
>over almost any possible index
Sorry to put it that way but being king of cripples is not really that fantastic.
>Yeah, and that's not because of their economic system.
Sure it is. Immigration is an economic question too. Free trade implies freedom to migrate and work somewhere else. Open borders in various degrees are inseparable from free trade.
>Communism is the opposite btw
Nope. Communism is a materialist ideology.
>>79870619
>No matter how you spin the dice, taking money from successful people for the health/nutrition/welfare of others is wrong
Why? Successful people became successful in a society. They're paying their dues to society.
>or try to convince rich people
What if they don't wanna be convinced?
Sorry, national interest is above personal interest. Especially when it comes to money.
Rich guy will survive with 5 million just as well as with 7 million.
I'm not an extremist man. Thus I hate extreme greed.
>>79870871
>It is sustainable, it is useful in short run, and life teaches us so much. You're willingly ignoring reality. Violence is a quick problem solver. Though it often creates far more problems in the long run. But foresight is a rare quality.
It would make sense if it was violence against an unarmed party, but it's not, because they would get into battle themselves, both losing human labor in the process. It's inefficient, and far less profitable (if profitable at all) than to negotiate instead.
>Violence
> hit some guy on the street, get arrested
Violence is over now.
>Exactly, and in pursuit of that profit, they will ignore many problems that are awaiting down the road.
Are they real problems if nobody is profiting from those being solved?
>Over indefinite period of time. However, time exists you know, at least in our perception.
Sure, I would be willing to wait until those companies end themselves for their pure stupidity, if they even dare on the first place. You don't just invest a whole ton of money just to lose it later for stupid reasons. You are more caring for it.
>I understand how you people think. Free market will fix it. Probably. But while it fixes it, many will die, many things will be lost, and so on. And that's in best case scenario.
That's worst case scenario, where people start to kill before realizing it's unprofitable.
>But what unites people best is fucking over other group of people. Sad but true.
???
Unless it's more profitable, it doesn't.
>No, it didn't, and a quick glance at Wikipedia article would tell you the same.
Go on. Tell me what they changed. They nationalized a few state owned companies to compete with some private owned ones, but other than that it remained the same.
cont.
>>79871317
>Remind me why people don't use private courts to solve disputes?
People do use private courts to solve civil matters everyday.
Libertarianism is a step in the right direction, but the economic policies they advocate are incompatible with the problems we face in the 21st century, especially post-2008. To think that people think that it provides the soundest economic explanation is wrong.
>>79871456
Why do you ask?
>Keeps the intelligent and productive rich
>The stupid and unproductive cannot get others to pay for their kids
>Politicians are cleaning toilets
In 3 generations of libertarianism mankind would be exploring the galaxy
>>79871539
See:
>>79871301
>>79870025
>>79867484
More specifically, read Peter Leeson's paper on somalia.
>>79871539
I think its the opposite. The economics are rock solid but some libertarians have grown absolutely soft on issues like gay marriage, immigration, states rights, etc.
>>79871526
>Civil Matters
Good luck with penal matters.
>>79871508
By your logic wars would never happen because there's a chance of losing them.
Dude, that's not how it works.
>hit some guy on the street
Yeah, if it was just about hitting someone...
>Are they real problems if nobody is profiting from those being solved?
Sometimes they appear and it's too late to solve them.
And those with power to solve them find it unprofitable. See, there's the problem.
>You are more caring for it.
Again, people are not as rational as you think they are.
>Sure, I would be willing to wait
Many wouldn't. Many wouldn't be able to wait.
>Unless it's more profitable, it doesn't.
Of course it's profitable. But violence is profitable. That's the point.
Even today, when connection is not so direct.
Look how Americans are behaving.
>They nationalized a few state owned companies to compete with some private owned ones
That's a huge change.
Would libertarians be comfortable if everyone owned a nuclear weapon?
>>79871793
https://youtu.be/WVneyQI_Yrc
Listen to this.
More specifically, how criminal law can be a form of civil law.
>>79869944
Well was more or less like this:
1880-1890 Oligarchy did a great progress turning Argentina into a great melting pot of european culture and protecting the national industry, but... then the anarcofags came.
1890-1910 Universities start acting like cuarters for marxist terrorists.
Personalist-interventionist goverment takes the wheel
1910-1930 First dictatorship tries to fix marxist problem,
Peron appears and makes a dictatorship killing the first one.
1930-1970 Peronism and dictatorship one after another, the "Radicales" party tried to overtrow Perón and them they somehow dividedn ito two radical parties
1970-1990 Estela Martinez (Peron's widow) fucks up everyting and call the FFAA to fix shit again just to be crapped on by the marxists when Alfonsin makes his campaign shitting on our glorious saviors, Menem becomes pressident and "fix things up" by doing stupid liberalist bullshit and we end up with more debts than ever.
1990-2000 Menem is at it again and everyone realized too late his plans
He became pressident being mudslime instead of catholic (by law only catholics could be pressident till 1993) so he could change the constotution.
2001 hell on earth
2003 after many many many many (many) pressidential changes and unstable shit happening appears kirchner. Menem wins but he steps down cuz everyone would try to take his head if he became pressident again.
2003-2015 Starts some kind of mix known as "neoperonismo", "nepopulismo" or simply "kirchnerismo"
These guys try to solve most debt problems, they succeed, but also make a HUGE shitload of nonsensical laws because "muh feelings" and almost DESTROY our traditions and cultural heritage, they literally shat on the temple of christ UNTIL Bergoglio becomes Frank the pope, then everyone becomes "friends" with the church.
Nor the marxists, neither the catholics liked this bullshit.
And then... BOOM, "Cambiemos, Pobreza cero, seamos felices"
>>79871793
Which is why we have the government to enforce criminal law. Libertarians are not anarchists.
>>79865600
Humans do not always act rationally.
>>79871317
>But what about muh puppies
Satists are children
>>79870871
>Exactly, those things are foreign to you, because you're mutts with no culture. No offense intended.
It's not like we have anything to lose already then, do we?
>You're the world neoliberals are trying to create. And in their path, are our old nations, our history, our religion, our culture.
You can close your borders and keep trading in a libertarian society, you know? So none of that is lost.
>It's a complex subject, but it's fucking their nation over. Swedes are dying off.
Yeah, that's a good point. It's up to each country to choose if they want to close their borders or not, but that's not mutually exclusive with libertarianism.
>>79871317
I'm literally assuming a worst case scenario were people don't abide by the rules and it still works.
>Remind me why people don't use private courts to solve disputes?
They do, you fucking idiot.
>>79871494
>Yes, but not at same rate.
The growth between 1984 to 1990 to 1990 to 1996 was about the same.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:CHL:ARG:BRA&hl=en&dl=en
>Sorry to put it that way but being king of cripples is not really that fantastic.
It means our system has worked better than the alternatives. We already started low.
>Sure it is. Immigration is an economic question too. Free trade implies freedom to migrate and work somewhere else. Open borders in various degrees are inseparable from free trade.
No. You are free to discriminate when there is free trade.
>Nope. Communism is a materialist ideology.
State controlled business for the needs of the masses versus privately owned business for the needs of the individual. Opposites.
>>79872011
No because it's impossible to detonate it without violating someone's rights, specifically, their right to life. Moreover, by having it, you are technically posing a threat of violence to everyone in your vicinity, and a threat of violence as we both know is equivalent to violence under the law. as such you would be punished in a libertarian society.
>>79872011
Mini nukes yes. A bomb that can wipe out the whole country, no. There is no way you could ever use it.
>>79872057
TL;DR in Argentina...
EVERY DEMOCRATIC PRESSIDENT SINCE 1830 IS CRAP
>>79872249
The nuke doesn't kill people, I kill people by detonating the nuke.
Doesn't the same argument stand for guns?
After all if im responsible with my nuclear weapon, I don't pose a threat to somoene else rights.
>>79871494
Hate whoever you like, don't take their money, it's actually pretty basic. Is that money yours? No? Then don't touch it.
It doesn't matter how much you think a rich guy can survive with, that is only his business.
I think you can survive with less one euro, can I steal it from you? Or is it just the government who can? Am I not part of the "society" to whom you are apparently owing money?
I for one hate socialists, but I would never think to use the coercive power of the government to steal or kill them. The role of the government is to let people be themselves as long as they are not hurting others.
>What if they don't wanna be convinced?
Then that means that shit you wanted isn't going to happen, seriously, how entitled are you? Imagine other people were like you:
>want a playstation
>"hey anon, who has enough money, can you buy me a playstation?"
>"no"
will you:
>plan A did not work, better steal the fucking money
or
>plan A did not work, better work hard to get money to get a playstation
Hint, one is immoral.
>>79871773
>>79871706
Here's the thing. Libertarian economics (or political economy) depends heavily on a lot of assumptions that are simply not true. For example:
>homo economicus
>perfect competition
>perfect allocation of resources
>efficient end outcomes due to market processes
all of these assumptions are simply not true,or there have been a lot of cases where they don't apply thanks to the multi-faceted nature of the world. Neo-classical economics, on it's own, without supplements, doesn't work as efficiently anymore, not to the point where it justifies using it exclusively.
Austrian economics is even more problematic. Their business cycle theory is all over the place (and doesn't correspond to data collected) and they completely reject econometrics as a tool of analysis. From a methodological point of view libertarian economics is deeply flawed. Also, if you'd like to look at how well a libertarian system works/doesn't, Fukuyama discusses a case study of the railroad industry preceding the existence of Amtrak and why that failed so spectacularly as to warrant such significant government intervention. Anybody who so fervently advocates it based on the functioning of the federal government of the united states today forgets that what plagues the government more than anything else is the way in which it's roles are mandated by a dysfunctional congress.
>grown soft on issues like gay marriage, etc.
but, seeing as they evolved from classical liberalism, that is exactly the spirit/vein of action they were advocating.
>>79871693
>exploring the galaxy
do you not see how that's something that would specifically never happen under a libertarian system?
>>79872535
Your argument's logic is faulty because of what I already explained in the first: it is impossible to detonate it with harming someone, and thus it is impossible to be responsible with it. You can fire a gun without harming anyone. You cannot fire a nuclear bomb without harming anyone. Simple.
For more info:
https://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/
Cheers.
>>79872136
Yes, and you get punished for it, and if you are a firm, you go bankrupt for being an idiot.
>>79871904
>By your logic wars would never happen because there's a chance of losing them.
>Dude, that's not how it works.
Yeah, and wars are driven by patriotism, not for profit reasons.
>Yeah, if it was just about hitting someone..
Whatever. Shoot someone. You get arrested. The End.
>Sometimes they appear and it's too late to solve them.
For example?
>And those with power to solve them find it unprofitable. There is always charity btw. I'm not assuming it happens in this scenario, but it does in the real world. See the pages on philantropy on the top 10 wealthiest people in the world, for example.
>Again, people are not as rational as you think they are.
Sure, I'm not assuming they are, but their companies would disappear when they act without being rational.
>Many wouldn't. Many wouldn't be able to wait.
They are free to leave to another country.
>Of course it's profitable. But violence is profitable. That's the point.
In the case we are discussing, it's unprofitable, and even if it was profitable, it wouldn't be as profitable because the other companies are competitive and can get greater margins by not using violence.
>Look how Americans are behaving.
Yeah, because nobody is regulating it.
>That's a huge change.
Everything else stayed the same, and they still have to compete with private owned companies. It's almost the same, and the growth rates remained similar as well.
>>79872011
>>79872535
Good point.
>>79872816
Why not? there are planets made of diamonds $$$
>>79872816
>depends heavily on these following assumptions
Demonstrably untrue. source: Hong Kong, Monaco, Switzerland, South Korea pre 20th century USA. Even somalia although it is in the process of industrializing.
Libertarianism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology.
>>79872831
I can take it to the ocean and detonate the nuke to research the effects of radiation. No one is harmed
Who are you to say that I can't own a nuclear device?
So basically you are saying that a regulation body must exist with the power to prevent me from obtaining a nuke?
Doesn't that also apply for pollution, healthcare and education?
You know, things that can harm people if not controlled.
>>79872236
>It's not like we have anything to lose already then, do we?
Maybe, but we do.
>You can close your borders and keep trading in a libertarian society, you know? So none of that is lost.
You can but you never will. It's more profitable to drive the costs of labor down and to replace native population if birth rates are lower.
>It's up to each country to choose
No it's not. I suggest you get acquainted with geopolitics and what's going on in the world today.
Libertarians are just the more extremist type of neoliberals. Neoliberals who run the show in West now.
>The growth between 1984 to 1990 to 1990 to 1996 was about the same.
By 1984 Pinochet regime already abandoned earlier more extremist ideas.
>It means our system has worked better than the alternatives.
Doesn't really prove much on global scale. Libertarians try to present their system as something that will work everywhere.
>You are free to discriminate when there is free trade.
You are free to do many things on paper but in reality it doesn't work that way.
>State controlled business for the needs of the masses versus privately owned business for the needs of the individual. Opposites.
That's not my point, one is collectivist, other is individualist, but both are materialist.
>>79872570
>don't take their money
It's their money conditionally speaking. They didn't earn it in a vacuum.
>can I steal it from you?
Taxation is not theft. Theft is illegal. Taxation is legal.
>as long as they are not hurting others
Capitalist who is growing richer and richer while big part of population lives like shit, capitalist who funds parties that then proceed to open borders, replace native population, allow the destruction of culture, of morals, of nation in general, they will be corrected using coercive power.
You can get rich, I'm not against that. But everything has it's limits. Infinite greed is to be stamped out.
>imagine
Your analogies on personal level fail completely though.
>>79872816
I have never seen anybody assume those first 3 things you listed.
>>79859506
Libertarian (I used to be one) is very idealistic but falls apart due to lack of organization.
The other problem is that folks who live in violent areas usually want an authoritarian form of government to "keep them safe" from the violent people.
You can tell them over and over that the government big enough to give them everything they want is big enough to take it all away.
They are still scared of the violent people and will follow lock step with the first leader who promises tough discipline.
>>79873006
>South Korea
Protectionist as fuck, profited from it's position.
>Hong Kong
Peculiar, tiny case.
>Monaco
Even tinier and more peculiar case.
>Switzerland
Switzerland IS NOT libertarian.
>pre 20th century USA
America was an empty fucking continent, free of immediate dangers and full of resources.
Oh wow, it worked under those conditions. Epic.
You can't really use parasitic entities like Hong Kong or Monaco or even Switzerland which profit due to their peculiar position, or extreme cases like America.
Soviet Union went from ruined country to 2nd largest world economy in the span of 3 decades.
Wow, that means Soviet-style socialism works, right?
>>79873219
>radiation
You said it yourself. Moreover, if purchase or build it, it will have been on land, and thus posed a threat to others, thus making it an act of aggression and punishable. You're grasping at straws here m8. You can research this on your own if you were truly interested in an answer, but sadly I don't think you are.
>>79873219
>Who are you to say that I can't own a nuclear device?
>So basically you are saying that a regulation body must exist with the power to prevent me from obtaining a nuke?
Yes one of the perfectly legitimate functions of a government is to control international activity. Its kinda hard to have free trade and no wars if your just going to let your citizens fuck with other countries on their own accord.
>>79864886
The free market is magical and will ensure Christan values. Have faith!
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." - James B. Comey, FBI Director
This is criminal. He is saying that there is not equal treatment in this case.
>
>>79873190
>Says the person who lives in the most developed latin american country which is also the most economic free
You are like the children of baby boomer, enjoys the labour of your ancestors but is still a clueless, socialist child who wants the State to steal from others and feed you.
>>79873549
>no true scotsman fallacy everywhere
>ignoring Somalia
No point in arguing with yuuuuuu
>>79873226
>Taxation is not theft. Theft is illegal. Taxation is legal.
I hope you realize what you just did is a word game and does not change anything I said.
>Capitalist who is growing richer and richer while big part of population lives like shit
Would they live like shit if the rich man who is growing richer did not exist? Is he the cause? If yes, then he should get taxed, if not, then he shouldn't. If I am poor and get a child, then don't have food to give to the child, it's not the rich man's fault, yet you would probably take from that rich man to feed the child.
>capitalist who funds parties that then proceed to open borders, replace native population, allow the destruction of culture, of morals, of nation in general, they will be corrected using coercive power.
If a rich man is using his money to affect the government's laws, then he should get arrested, taxed, killed, or any measure you would see fit, but that is not the fault of capitalism, but rather that unlawful government.
Again, any situation where you can get actual bad being caused to others by the actions of a rich man, then I will concede that in that case, the government should do something, but in cases where someone helped others in exchange of wealth, then a cripple is born who can't do anything useful to gain money, that situation has nothing to do with the rich individual, and you should not steal from him to help the crippled person, you should either create a charity or contribute to one, or ask the rich man to give money.
>>79859506
>Portugal for their drug policy
HAHAHAHA
What are we even doing there? Socialist Constitution, Socialist government in a coalition with the Communist Party and the Leftist Bloc, huge public sector, ridiculous tax rates... You really think leftists decriminalizing the use of soft drugs (not even actually legal to use or sell, it just stopped being a criminal offense to use for practical reasons) puts us anywhere near the most libertarian list?
>>79873226
>Maybe, but we do.
Alright.
>You can but you never will. It's more profitable to drive the costs of labor down and to replace native population if birth rates are lower.
I wouldn't have to care, so good for me.
>No it's not. I suggest you get acquainted with geopolitics and what's going on in the world today.
Didn't Brexit let you close the borders to the immigrants or something?
>By 1984 Pinochet regime already abandoned earlier more extremist ideas.
[citation needed]
>Doesn't really prove much on global scale. Libertarians try to present their system as something that will work everywhere.
And it does. Worked for Africa with Mauritius, Asia for South Korea, North America for early USA, Switzerland for Europe, and of course, Chile for South America, etc
>You are free to do many things on paper but in reality it doesn't work that way.
You literally can, this isn't even an "on paper" thing. Don''t like muslims? Don't employ them.
>That's not my point, one is collectivist, other is individualist, but both are materialist.
Yeah, but that's not what you were arguing about earlier.
>>79873720
>The free market is magical
Absolutely
>>79872985
Initial capital
>>79873006
>demonstrably untrue
It's literally the core underpinning their philosophy, what are you disputing at this point?
>Hong Kong
Huge British empire (i.e. Leviathan) investment as a centre of mercantilism for 150 years
>monaco
Maintains government monopolies even on fucking tobacco
>switzerland
has a literal W E L F A R E S T A T E
>south Korea
Do you really not understand the extent of protectionism that went on there?
>pre 20th century USA
re-read the post, don't tl;dr it.
>>79873229
then that means you have literally no clue about what you're advocating economically and are quite literally talking out of your ass. Why do you think they think "free markets" should reign supreme?
Also: do libertarians understand that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A F̶R̶E̶E̶ ̶L̶U̶N̶C̶H̶ FREE MARKET?
>>79873907
This. Too many economically illiterate people taking what they have for granted. If it weren't for capitalism we would still be serfs or something. In fact most of its wouldn't even be alive since they're wouldn't be enough food to support us. Most of us would be living in poverty worse than in third world countries if it weren't for capitalism. Be grateful.
>>79874022
Holy shit homie but the strawmen down and actually read something. Here is some Sowell:
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
>>79874022
>literally the core underpinning of their philosophy
Not true. What you think libertarianism is is very different from what it actually is. Read liberalism by mises and you'll know what the philosophical foundations are. There's audiobooks of it for free online. Cheers.
>>79862482
>thinking government isn't a monopoly on violence
>past the IQ of 80
choose one.
>>79874208
They actually believe factories would work without bosses, but countries wouldn't work without politicians, its like they like more to have their stuff stolen than having a contract.
>>79873907
I didn't say anything about my views on economics. Good job making unfounded assertions, retard.
>>79874541
Hahaha exactly!
>>79874221
Oh wow, another repackaging of the Laffer curve or advocation for lower rates of taxation lauded as some form of divine scripture. wOw.
To be clear, I'm an economic pluralist, not a bleeding heart socialist. I care about the dismal science as a discipline, and this whole "this is right and everything else is wrong" is so detrimental to it it's laughable. I find it incredibly ironic that libertarians dogmatically defend their stances, when that's an almost authoritarian position to take on something.
I find it funny that you don't think homo economicus is a thing yet you still post articles. How is this possible? I'm cringing hard right now.
>>79874448
I've been an economics student for 2 and a half years, I know exactly what libertarian economic foundations are. Their economic methodology is based on those assumptions, or an approximation thereof. Denying that is like slapping every libertarian economist in the face. The beauty of choice is justified using homo economicus. The allocative efficiency of a market economy is based on the assumptions of profitability.
That and their business cycle theory has been disproven by data, collected by econometricians, who they disregard as heretical. Stop trying to condescend to me, it'll get you nowhere.
>>79873634
The problem is that this exact situation you are describing happens with environment and health.
Should companies handle pollutants?
Should companies handle viruses that can kill thousands?
Regulation is necessary
>>79874960
Saying "Libertarianism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology." says absolutely nothing about your thoughts on economics, although this ideology entire premise is based on trusting economic freedom above all else.
>>79875303
Libertarianism is not simply "economic freedom".
I consider myself a centrist, before you start making dumb assumptions. The fact that you immediately thing anyone who doesn't follow your fringe beliefs is from the other opposite shows how weak you ideology is.
>>79873977
>word game
Nope. Law clearly states taxation is legal.
>Would they live like shit if the rich man who is growing richer did not exist?
No, so I'm not saying steal all his wealth and kill him.
I'm saying, society allowed him to thrive in addition to his own talents, so he owes something to society.
Of course, it needs to be reasonable price. But if he isn't even willing to pay that reasonable price, there are ways to coerce him.
>but that is not the fault of capitalism
It is. Of specific breed of capitalism, the one we're discussing here.
>>79874014
>I wouldn't have to care, so good for me.
If society fails, you'll suffer too.
>Didn't Brexit let you close the borders to the immigrants or something?
No.
>[citation needed]
Do me a favor and read Wikipedia page. It's well cited.
>Worked for Africa with Mauritius
>South Korea
...
Just read what I wrote to other guy.
>Don''t like muslims? Don't employ them.
Yeah, if everyone was so moral and farsighted, it would work great.
However, we can see they are not.
>>79876092
>No, so I'm not saying steal all his wealth and kill him.
You misunderstood completely, I was asking if it is the fault of the rich man that the population lives like shit. Meaning, if the rich man did not exist, would the population start living great?
>>79876092
>Do me a favor and read Wikipedia page. It's well cited.
I did. Found nothing that contradicted the economic system I mentioned before. Maybe because there wasn't anything?
>Just read what I wrote to other guy
Yeah, they aren't pure libertarian countries, but they are close, and they worked. You didn't say anything about Mauritius btw
>>79875707
>I consider myself a centrist
>>79876873
You know it's libertarians the ones who are associated with fedoras and edginess, right?
Nice argument, by the way.
I'd argue Spain or Norway
>And why is libertarianism the best political philosophy ever?
Just lets you be free man. People on /pol/ go on about countries having sovereignty and shit but don't understand they're fighting against literal freedom
Literally Chile
>>79859506
Economically probably Hong Kong or Singapore.
Civil liberty wise? Switzerland maybe
>>79877247
>"Libertarian" politician
HUEHUE
>>79877486
I've always wondered, do Chileans consider themselves lucky not to have been born in literally any other country on the continent? If there's any proof that neoliberalism works, it's fucking Chile having several times the standard of living and GDP per capita of its neighbors
>>79860939
When Venezuelan socialist regime breaks and falls, are you going to immediately claim the country is economic free afterwards too? and that its "proof" economic freedom doesn't work?
Fucking shit eater...
>>79877859
I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.
>>79877861
>do Chileans consider themselves lucky not to have been born in literally any other country on the continent?
I definitely do. I try to see myself being in another south american country and I start regretting it.
>>79878198
The fatass you posted is a "libertarian politician" which is basically the same as a "rich communist", "male feminist", etc...
>>79877861
I do, when I compare the people, even the fucking poor people live better than the average Paraguayan.
Most don't though, they're retarded and ask for free stuff because they are too lazy to work. Also since we don't have social security they protest because they are irresponsible and can't manage their own money.
>>79878374
What a dumb argument. Libertarianism is a political ideology, being a libertarian is by its nature a political act.
>>79878587
The same way being an atheist is a "religious act", right?
>>79878702
Libertarianism is not a lack of political beliefs you dumbass. It makes claims about how society should work and what the role of the government is, which makes it a political ideology.
>>79878941
You know, there is no "should" in libertarianism. Libertarianism is just the natural conclusion after considering how things ARE and not how they SHOULD BE.
>>79879115
Of course there's you idiot. Libertarians make plenty of normative claims about what economic policies should be implemented, how the role of the government should be reduced, the NAP and so on.
You either don't understand your ideology or don't understand what makes a statement normative.
>>79879488
No, they show you how they think they would work, but you can't understand how everything is going to work like everywhere, that includes politicians, who make stupid arbitrary rules who not even them bother following most of the time, while stealing YOUR money. They know capitalism works, politics doesn't.
>>79879785
So, you don't understand your own ideology. Libertarianism isn't a descriptive theory of how society operates. Just read this very thread ffs.
>>79879785
>they know capitalism works, politics doesn't
lmao you can't be serious
for real dawg, unbridled capitalism doesn't work for shit
>>79880082
They are explaining how they think it would work, not how it should, I don't know exactly how a car works but I know it does, I don't argue about how the car SHOULD work.
>>79880167
Give me one single example.
>>79880553
the derivatives market that led to the 2008 crash was completely off the books and unregulated by any government organization in the US. Remember that meltdown?
Humans are not natural rational actors, if they were we would be seeing car commercials with only stats on the screen, can we be done with this lolbertarian meme
>>79881323
don't bother, the lolbertarians on here haven't even heard or believe in the idea that libertarianism is based on human rationality
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
Lolbertardians BTFO by based Salon. How do you idiots refute this?
>>79883689
Democracy
>>79873825
Underrated post.
>>79884451
/thread
