What aren't you libertarian /r9k/?
>>26941100
>libertarian
You have to be 18+ to post on this website.
Because libertarians are crazy and want to abolish all forms of government intervention or help. They're one breath away from anarchists. Why don't you go join a militia and rant with them about how the man is holding you down?
>>26941100
its for niggers, cucks and political correct faggots
>>26941100
Because wealth polarization.
I'm Distributarian or Libertarian Socialist. I think people should be as free as possible and property should be redistributed as simply as possible (i.e. defund government programs and just give citizens money/auction property to people directly.)
Because I want the country to be homogeneous
>>26941100
Because all of us are noncompetitive so it makes sense for us to be against competition
>>26941137
Curious, would you say that government programs are more effective than charity organizations?
Statists are stupid, 'lolfreedom' is stupid, seculars are stupid.
>>26941788
Yes, because they have a guarantee of safety. Charity organizations are contingent on the generosity of others, and I wouldn't went to bet my life on the open-handedness of a libertarian, for instance.
>replacing state tyranny with corporate tyranny
ayy
>>26941677
You know that's an anarchist picture right? It represents labour defeating capital. The cat is a symbol of unionism and strikes.
>>26941100
But I am
>>26941898
>implying corporate tyranny exists without cronyism
>>26941846
Sowell called welfare the biggest scam in the history of civilization when he calculated that for every $5 paid into it the poor people get $1.
>>26941100
Cause I'm not edgy, selfish underage faggot.
But I am. I was kinda a stormtard in 2009 but since then I made sense of myself.
I want anons and their tranny gfs to be able to defend their drugs with machineguns.
>>26942788
So your solution would be to do away with it? By all means, let the sick and disabled die. Let's just selfishly go about our business, and endorse government in the form of megacorporations completely unregulated by anyone.
>>26941100
Dropped out halfway through my MLS degree
>>26941100
Anarcho-Syndicalist/Libertarian Socialist here.
I have a lot of respect for the basic mental atmosphere of most Libertarians, insomuch as they don't like authoritarians and don't like being fucked with. I like the idea of ('the') people owning guns (not an American), and I have sympathy for the Bundy stuff.
I think a lot of people on the left (I mean the Red/Black left, not the SJW liberals) are stupid to dismiss libertarians. If progressive revolution comes to America, it will be when the Sanders crowd and the Don't Treadders realise they share most of the same values.
Even Tea Party marchers with signs like 'Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare' are expressing a solid anti-neoliberal politics, even if confused and clouded over.
I am concerned about the Silicon Valley hijacking of Libertarianism, and the economism of parts of the movement. For me, the equation of freedom with economic freedom/freedom to own is not so much 'wrong' as just shortsighted. I don't see a lot of freedom getting around the world today, and I don't see the Billionaire-ridden parts of it as particularly great for freedom.
because toll roads fucking suck.
>>26943072
You have a lot, a LOT of reading to do. First of all, just because the government ceases to provide a certain service (which grants them an instant monopoly over it), it doesn't mean a private company won't step up and provide it instead. In eastern europe, garbage collection for instance is done by the local government workers with government-owned garbage trucks. Nobody else does it because even if they were allowed to, who would pay them when they are already forced to pay taxes for garbage collection and thereby forced to use the government for that service? But that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be anyone to pick up and manage the garbage should the government cease to do that. Western and Nordic countries often have private firms that do garbage collection.
As for the welfare system you can very well argue that it won't be replaced by a private welfare system, but it will be replaced by private enterprise that will need workers and provide more opportunities for people to get involved and start earning for themselves. Welfare might save you at one point, but it won't rise you out of poverty.
Second of all, every private corporation is regulated by their clients. They rely on people paying for their services. If the clients think they are getting a shitty service, they move on to the next company that is in the same business and can do it better/cheaper. Even if such a competitor does not exist, the assholery of the first company opens the door for other companies to get in their business and steal their clients, so it's in the interest of the first company to try to provide a better/cheaper service even if they don't happen to have a competitor at the time. The only time a private company has means to fuck you is if it's protected themselves against other companies starting to compete with them, and this is done by friendships in washington and regulations that fit some of the bigger and more influential players so that they keep the whole cake.
Libertarianism has no way to account for the diminishing power of white people and diversification of cities and schools. The fact that it totally ignores it in favor of profits turns me off the idea completely.
Example: the concept of letting people do whatever they want unless it harms others seems fine until you realize that the powerful will have free reign to influence the public even more now that government regulation has been limited.
There's no national identity behind it and often focuses on economics over culture.
So while I agree with the Liberty parts in principle, the "powers that be" will have even more control.
>>26943300
A business has an owner (or owners/shareholders), which implies property rights.
How do you enforce property rights without a government? In the end you'd get private armies and that's just mobs, organised along the principle of self-interest, i.e., whoever pays best.
So you've just invented gangs, organised without any culture or identity beyond money, as pointed out by >>26943339
I happen to favour ideals of class over 'nation' as such, but I am definitely a believer in people's-community (Volksgemeinschaft) theory, I just don't think traditional nationalism is viable because I think capitalism has eroded it too far now.
>>26941100
I am libertarian to be quite honest with you
>>26943397
I am pragmatic and have never called for abolishment of the government and I don't think many libertarians do.
It's all about what you get from someone at what price, and if we get a governing body making sure that everyone's private property rights are respected as well as possible, it doesn't make sense to diminish the government further than that one point where it actually makes things easier for each and every one of us. To that I would add international technical and other standardization, certification authority and similar. These are all the things where government is undoubtedly useful as a hub of exchanging mutual interests between people, and not instruments of redistribution, regulation and central planning of economy and culture.
>>26943300
I'm not in a state of mind to write three paragraphs right now, but I still disagree with you. Libertarians want people to die. They won't take care of of sick and injured. It's essentially a meritocracy that leaves the less fortunate to suffer and die. They want to do away with the government programs that help people, even if they are prone to exploit. Screw your movement, and everything you believe. Seriously.
>>26943500
How do you feel about syndicalism? (As-such, ignoring ideological hyphenations like anarcho-)
>>26943518
>Libertarians want people to die
youre a fucking retard
>>26943523
Not familiar with it enough. I have heard some points from people who label themselves as syndicalists, but never went into any research on it.
>>26943518
Would you personally take care of the sick and injured (or pay for it) should the welfare system be abolished?
>>26943525
Not him, but I'll rephrase him (with whom I agree) in a less hyperbolic manner:
Libertarians are more devoted to aggregate market machinations in the longterm than in individual welfare in the short-term. Libertarians, as good rational actors, are indifferent to the welfare of the 'losers' of the system of capitalism.
>>26943547
Well, not all of them because I'm not that rich, but hell yes. I help people out all the time, volunteer my time for social projects, whatever.
I believe we're stronger together. But I fear that we've got prevalent social logic under neoliberalism that stops most people from giving a fuck.
Encourages it, even, until they fall on hard times and nobody is there to help them (fuck you, I got mine, I worked hard).
>>26943300
>relies on their clients
and shareholders. and the fact of the matter is neither of those groups give a shit about long term impact of their actions. you can thumb your nose up at environmental efforts all you want but that doesn't change the fact that infrastructure for clean running water, proper diet and an environment that isn't choked with xenoestrogens and various stupifying chemicals, in and of itself doesn't profit anybody short-term, which is all industries care about.
the thing about monopolies is they don't just own the company. they own the means of production. when a railroad company owns all the steel mills and the lumber yards trying to compete by opening one of your own is idealistic, at best. they control the entire infrastructure. you argue that the regulatory system is insufficient, and propose that we remove ALL means of regulation. it's absurd.
>>26943300
>>26943680
Also when all the companies are actually owned by the same bigger trusts and stuff.
But old mate's about to tell us that that's not "real capitalism" and is a result of government intervention. Just wait.
>>26943680
>and shareholders
Shareholders are the ones who get their profits from the company, and not the other way around. And the company gets it's profits from clients. So it's in the best interest of shareholders for the company to perform as good as possible which is achieved either by giving the clients more of what they want at a lesser price than the next company, or finding a way to force everyone else off your market.
>>26943731
>So it's in the best interest of shareholders for the company to perform as good as possible
IN THE SHORT TERM (i.e. quarterly) to drive up the share price, not in the long term for society (of which shareholders ought to be part but with increasing inequality they are ceasing to be in any meaningful way). Nobody owns big-ticket shares for the dividends, and all the big New Economy companies don't even pay dividends.
>>26941100
Who /National-Socialist/ here?
>>26941100
WHY AREN'T YOU A [positive connotation noun]?
WE HAVE TO GET ALL THESE [negative connotation noun]S IN THE GAS CHAMBER
>>26943731
>the company to perform as good as possible
I love how randians think "THE COMPANY" is a living thing with morals and desires.
It's a bunch of one per-centers, waiting for their bonuses and golden handshake payouts.
They get their bonuses and payouts, even if "the company" goes to shit.
Work for a living and you will soon see this
>>26943713
can we just skip to the bit were we don't need no cops and army, cos private citizens with GUNZ is the greatest force in the world
>>26943783
Kamerad, why do you believe that Rasse is the authentic category of Volkische unity? Why not embrace a more united, less contingent Volksgemeinschaft as the unified solidarity grouping of all productive and rational menschen?
The socialist element of NSDAP power -- i.e., the SA -- got sold out in favour of capitalism in the Night of the Long Knives.
I'm the anarchosyndicalist from above, and I have some serious sympathy for Syndicalism (even the pro-fascist kind in Italy and Spain). The reason I am an anarchist is that historically we've seen the working-class elements of "national organicist" movements get rolled over in favour of the rich. You can't have national unity when you're pissing on the workers.
>>26941100
I march on the right side of history.
>>26943713
Yup, that's what I'm gonna say, but don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Most, if not all monopolies are formed only through government regulation and other forms of market "violence". Standard Oil, Deutche Telekom, Comcast, all made possible by government rules and laws. Check them out.
Without regulations and barriers for entry, the markets are exposed to virtually unlimited potential competitors that are ready to jump in whenever the clients of the existing players are unsatisfied and willing to jump ship to an another service provider. How do you suppose you can perpetually buy out every company that ever enters your market? If you are a company that is doing very well by providing a better service than the next company, you may see a value of buying out your weaker competitor for some reason, which is not a big deal for their consumers since your service is better, but in order to actually buy out someone who gives a better service and thereby attracts more clients than yourself, even if possible won't help you as it will cost huge amounts of money, and if you shell out that kind of cash to have them out of your way and sell your overpriced shit, that opens the door for the next company to take advantage of that and steal your business (again). There is no possibility that a company that does poorly and attracts little clients will be able to perpetually buy out every competitor that comes in. UNLESS they can build that barrier of entry and keep competitors out which requires government action. Without it, the best and most profitable thing to do is to try to offer a better service themselves at which point the consumer is undeniably winning.
>>26943770
So in the long term, shareholders want to lose money? It doesn't matter who owns the stock at which point of time, every shareholder and board member ever will only care for the company to work better and produce more profits.
>>26943847
What the fuck would it need morals and desires for? It's purpose is to provide a service for money and in turn make money for it's workers and owners. It's as simple as that.
>>26943908
So how does a company gain access to common resources like water, airwaves, and land, without a government?
Assuming you're a minarchist, not an all-out anarchist (that's not an insult, I like anarchists) as discussed above -- How does such a government, faced with having limited stuff to give away/sell access to, make unbiased 'free market' decisions that don't end in monopoly?
>>26943933
Most shareholders want to make money by selling shares after making small marginal gains.
The big fortunes today are being made by high-speed trading -- buying and then selling days, hours, maybe milliseconds later, not sitting on shares for fifty years and letting the sweet dividends roll in.
And after they've sold, they're not shareholders anymore and they don't give a fuck what happens to the share value.
Libertarian fascism or nothing at all.
>>26943908
>monopolies are formed only through government regulation and other forms of market "violence".
I will agree that the super rich can use money to corrupt/influence government to protect their business.
But how will Libertarianism stop that?
Removing laws, oversight and regulation doesn't seem like it will stop corruption.
>remove barrier for entry
How will that break up an existing monopoly?
eg, Linux is free, but Windows is still dominant
>>26943908
>i'll just hammer out a wall of text that he won't bother to respond to, that'll win the argument
once again, competition with an industry is impossibIe when you don't have the resources to make a product. "the next company" can only exist in theory by using the resources that the competing monopoly CONTROLS.
>>26943948
>So how does a company gain access to common resources like water, airwaves, and land,
They buy it from whomever is willing to sell it to them. Or the people who own such resources may decide to utilize on that and create a venture themselves.
>>26943976
Even if that is the case I doubt long term shareholders would look kindly to that, and even if these quick buyers and sellers are buying a significant enough percentage of the company to do damage to it in the long run, it still doesn't matter to the average joe, even if he uses their services. If they fail, an another competitor will take their place.
>>26944094
Who owns ALL THE LAND IN THE COUNTRY (BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT SELLS IT OFF)?
Who owns THE AIRWAVES? (As used for radio and Wifi)
Who owns THE LAKES and RIVERS?
>>26944094
> I doubt
If only there was a way to study the actual mechanics of modern markets...
> I will ignore market reality because my Econ 102 fantasy is much easier to conceptualise
survivaI of the fittest applies well to modern society
>>26944061
>But how will Libertarianism stop that?
Removing laws, oversight and regulation doesn't seem like it will stop corruption.
With less governmental authority, there is less to corrupt and more diverted to the market where it is traded in a mutually beneficial manner.
>How will that break up an existing monopoly?
eg, Linux is free, but Windows is still dominant
It won't affect Microsoft one bit. Microsoft is dominant because everyone wants Windows and doesn't want to have anything to do with Linux. For however I and other people may find Windows to be horrible, most people seem to like it and companies still want to use it.
>>26944092
>I'll just skip reading the argument and call him a dumbass
Way to go, junior. That's gonna win the argument for sure.
>once again, competition with an industry is impossibIe when you don't have the resources to make a product. "the next company" can only exist in theory by using the resources that the competing monopoly CONTROLS.
Does Comcast control all the fibre optic cables in the US and can nobody else purchase any? That would be a good argument if it was an oil monopoly in a land that only has one single oil well, but even if it's the only oil well in the world, it still isn't an energy monopoly because there are alternative sources of energy that become more or less viable depending on the price and availability of the oil that the worldwide monopolist produces. If they become a jerk about it and price it out of the ballpark, people will just move on to alternatives that give them a better run for the money.
>>26944128
>Who owns ALL THE LAND IN THE COUNTRY (BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT SELLS IT OFF)?
implying
>the holy government was created by God before any mankind and was assigned the task to distribute ownership
>Who owns THE AIRWAVES? (As used for radio and Wifi)
Nobody. Historically these were resources nearly impossible and pointless to own and defend, so there is no point discussing who owns it. The same is with extra-terrestrial bodies - nobody cares who they belong to right now since we have no use for them, but if they become valuable, there will be fighting over them. As for radio waves, that's why people just agreed to go with standards that allow them to adjust their frequencies to whatever they agreed to in order not to mess with each other's. It's hell of a lot simpler and more efficient than actually trading with fucking air space just because of waves you can't really avoid spreading past a certain border because of how they propagate.
>If only there was a way to study the actual mechanics of modern markets...
Have you even read my last point? Even if huge corporations with shared ownership are inherently unsustainable, who gives a fuck? If they fuck up and their services become shitty, you move to the next guy.
>>26941100
cause 99% of individual people are mindless retards that cant function without an authoritative figure
Because everything that you describe as freedom, when boiled down to reality, always turns out to be horrible and oppressive unless you happen to be extraordinarily wealthy.
>>26944267
You said you were a minarchist, i.e. still believed in some government (and my apologies if I have my posters mixed up). If the government didn't initially sell off the land, then you're just back to gangs taking whatever they can take (and "buy Coke or we'll shoot your wife").
As for airwaves, I agree with your notion of consensus agreement, as I am an anti-State and anticapitalist anarcho-syndicalist. The syndicates of workers would make these decisions for me, but I am happy here as long as the decision is being made by consensus.
But how can you ensure this is a meaningful and enforced agreement? Today it is done by the government, and without a democratic body (with the power of enforcement once the decision is made) you end up with a system where one cunt can just fuck everyone's shit up with a big transmitter.
Finally, if we have property rights enforced by a minimal government AT ALL, we'll end up in a situation where short-term market performance is pursued at the expense of longterm sustainability. So we'll get lots of profits for everyone, the corporation will provide services effectively using short-term profitable means. Then one day we all choke from the smog and our waterways are undrinkable, because nobody thought fifty years out.
I agree that a longtermist capitalism would solve a lot of these problems, but as it is we don't have a longterm capitalism, and we'll never have one (because even our limited market today has settled on short-term profit as the ultimate measuring-stick).
A seriously long-term capitalism actually looks like royalty and nobility, "I must maintain my shire so that I can pass it on to my son, the Earl of Bumfuckshire".
And, finally, to quote the Commie Manifesto on this point, we will never able under capitalism to return to nobility, for it is unprofitable, and:
(cont.)
>>26944267
>Even if huge corporations with shared ownership are inherently unsustainable, who gives a fuck?
The people who work their? The families relying on that employee to provide for them? The public infrastructure paid for by the employee's tax? The citizens who need the company's product/service? Who indeed?
>If they fuck up and their services become shitty, you move to the next guy.
But what of the turmoil a big company's failure brings? The ripple effect that affects smaller/other firms down the line? What does libertarianism do when economic collapse becomes a looming threat?
>>26944353
>[Capitalists] cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
I am an anarcho-syndicalist but I have read lots of Traditionalist stuff on my way here, and I happen to agree -- but the fight against capitalism prevents our return to the past, so we must be revolutionary and retreat to the future.
>>26944361
>
I am an anarcho-syndicalist but I have read lots of Traditionalist stuff on my way here, and I happen to agree -- but the fight against capitalism prevents our return to the past, so we must be revolutionary and retreat to the future.
I'm a far leftie, and I think I am on your team, but I have no idea what you just said.
>>26944379
Not that guy but as I understood it capitalism makes retreating into traditionalism a losing gambit. So whatever eclipses it once it becomes unbearable demands movement towards new radical waters of thought.
>>26944379
Peasant-production wasn't such a bad way to live in some ways (as an economic system, aside from having no hygiene and that at the time). Patriarchal systems at least meant the lord had to look after his land and his serfs, so that they were healthy enough to produce new crops and new serfs to till the soil.
But capitalist has fucked that up. A lot of traditionalists want to return to that view, and I sympathise with their small-village, kind-master, village-common idyll. It is quaint and cute and sounds nice.
But capitalism has fucked that up (see Manifesto quote), and we can't go back even if we wanted to. So our only option is to keep fighting and build a new world within the shell of the old.
Socialist utopia, to me, looks like working two hours a week at the hyper-automated Costco warehouse (which takes goods from the automated Costco farm via the automated Costco factory, and spending all your other time (as Marx put it) fishing and writing poetry.
The alternative idea, of everyone working twelve hours a day at an organic fairtrade hempseed bakery, is much worse.
>>26944424
Sometimes I just feel like humans are the problem.
Generally, I align more to the left. I get what socialists/anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists, etc want, and I feel like I would be on board with that.
But then I imagine that world. Like, imagine if everyone only had to work ten hours a week and spent all their spare time doing art or playing Warcraft or fishing or whatever.
And I haven't been able to convince myself it's a better world. It seems less stressful, but sometimes humans thrive under stress.
I've lost the whole notion of utopia, and now basically still lean left simply because I don't like hierarchy and dont like power being able to be held in the hands of a small few.
>>26944204
>fiber optic cables
so in your ideal world everybody can lay down fiber optic cables. you'll have eighty different companies competing, digging up the same stretches of highway constantly. not only will you have garden-variety fuck ups from all the extra mileage, there will be incentive to lower the quality of the competition. anyone could hire a 13 year old miscreant to go play in the dirt, unless you start hiring enforcers to break a guys knees when his shovel spade clips the wrong stretch of dirt, and implementing better technology to pinpoint the time, place and cause of the malfunctions. maybe people start going deep underground, excavating deep underground, displacing earth and fucking up the ecosystem all over the country.
this is just one industry, and ignoring monopolization of resources.
>>26944504
I have the same issue, mate (comrade).
For myself, I see a continuation of being stressed, but for GOOD REASONS this time. I see a lot of humans unable to enjoy total laziness, and a spontaneous movement will spring up which still cares about a lot of things,
I see myself working hard over my poetry and music. I see myself working hard to write software (for I am a computer scientist/programmer by education) which increases productivity.
I see myself working hard to plan and execute the fight remnant fascist movements (for I am a military man by trade, in my youth).
Socialism, or even the perfect localist anarcho-syndicalism, will not make life perfect. But it will allow us to focus our energies into solving better problems. And through changing our material conditions we can change the mindsets of future generations, and remove the evils (like theft and resentment) born out of deprivation.
In short, I see socialism as an opportunity to waste our time doing better bullshit. If we're to be total nihilists about it, of course, nothing is worthwhile.
But for any man or woman who feels otherwise, I bid you rally to our common standard and build a better world in the shell of the old.
>>26944357
>The people who work their? The families relying on that employee to provide for them? The public infrastructure paid for by the employee's tax? The citizens who need the company's product/service? Who indeed?
Everything you listed implies that a company is irreplaceable and that people should be tied to their service providers, workplaces, etc.
>The citizens who need the company's product/service?
This means there is still a demand for these services even though the company went belly-up, therefore...
>The people who work their?
...an another provider is bound to appear and employ the approximately same amount of workers for that field, so they can feed their families...
>The families relying on that employee to provide for them?
>>26944598
This leaves people with weeks/months between jobs, i.e., starvation.
>>26944900
If you don't have any savings for a rainy day, what the fuck are you doing?
>>26945018
Being a worker?
How do you save income when you're living paycheck to paycheck like 40% of Americans?
>>26944584
And now you just proved yourself wrong. Romania is exactly in that particular boat where laying down any cables is usually done over telephone line poles and rooftops and has almost no regulation. Pic related is how an average telephone pole looks like.
This of course means that it's shit easy to lay fibre optic and that's why Romania has over 300 ISPs with their own fibre optic infrastructure. The result is surely not the incentive to lower quality - with that much competition and a low barrier of entry, most of these companies are small and dynamic local ISPs who jump into small markets and fill out the need for quality internet connections. The result is that Romania even though it's a shitty country, has some of the cheapest and fastest internet connections in the world.
>>26945046
Dude, I earn less than $20k per year and even I have enough set aside after a year of working to last me at least a few months.
>>26945144
Have you got a family? Children? Let's say you're a single man and your mother gets cancer, or you get cancer -- how do you deal with that? How do you deal when your one year old daughter has a respiratory issue?
Or, if like me, both your parents get cancer and die within 14 months -- how do you deal with that? I was lucky, and earning a fair bit of dough.
I sure hope you're good at pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, comrade.
>>26945179
read
>>26944598
Libertarians only care about the super rich.
They have a complete lack of empathy for workers.
They are the classic "embarrassed millionaires"
Because I form my own opinions and don't need a political party to do it for me.
>There are people who don't think a libertarian society would be the best one possible
For fuck's sake I wouldn't last two days in libertarian society but you can't argue against it.
>>26945203
As I said, >>26943601
>Not him, but I'll rephrase him (with whom I agree) in a less hyperbolic manner:
>Libertarians are more devoted to aggregate market machinations in the longterm than in individual welfare in the short-term. Libertarians, as good rational actors, are indifferent to the welfare of the 'losers' of the system of capitalism.
You won't find many who know the bottom of capitalism better than I do, I hope.
>>26943891
>Mussolini
Havin' a good laugh m8
>>26945144
>earn less than $20k per year
LOOOOL keep sucking that 1% dick, you're bound to be let into the club any day soon...
>>26945218
But muh free market
I know it can work because it has never been tried before.
Free market free market free market re3eeeeeeeeeeee
>right-wing libertarians claim to defend liberty and freedom
>defend capitalism
>defend private property
>defend inequality
>>26945246
Go get in line commie, they're distributing your daily slice of bread.
>>26945253
>defend capitalism
>defend private property
>defend inequality
Are you implying these three elements are bad? Or are you denying they are the very fondation of our society?
>>26945253
But without BIG GUBAMENT we'll all own GUNZ and ain't no one gonna fuck with me when I wave muh AR-15 around
>>26945288
He is implying that liberty does not co-exist with private property.
At least because private property needs cops to enforce it.
At most because private property is bullshit -- look at modern inequality and tell me that we're free-er today than we were in 1970.
>>26945179
You don't live above your means. If you can't support a family and aren't sure you can do it in the long run, don't start one. Even so, there's always a job available, it's just a matter of how badly you need it. You might be forced to pick one out of your original field of expertise, but still.
If you are a fucking idiot and gamble everything away for nothing, you can beg on a street or go fuck yourself.
>>26945245
>he thinks the large government hurts the 1% and increases equality and not the other way around
I'm a software developer and my actual pay is almost double that and will go up with time and experience, but is being halved by taxes and defunct and overpriced health and pension insurance. After like 5 years if I move out of the country and keep advancing I will no doubt have 3 times as much.
>>26945320
How sure do you want to be? Lots of people were very sure in 1929 and 2008. They had homes, investments, and property.
Then the system went boom, they had two or three or five kids, and all of a sudden they can't support them.
LOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SURER
LOL LET THEM STARVE FUCKING PARASITES
Am I right?
>>26945320
>I'm a software developer
>20K a year
According to the free market, you are a complete fucking failure
>TAXES!
yeah, sure, it's obama's fault no one is buying your shit
>>26941100
WELL MEMED, NIGGALO.
>>26945314
Yes, we're free-er today. Private property is fundamental to society. Just because richer people can rightfully afford more things doesn't mean you have to be so salty and try to abolish private property.
The difference between libertarians and republicans is a bloated military industrial complex.
If you are a republican jump off a bridge.
>>26945344
Yes, you're right. People deserve what they get.
I don't believe in any of its ideals and I think most people who do are idiots who would be worse off if they got there way.
Post more of these.
They crack me up.
>>26945399
Elaborate on these "idiots".
PWEASE NO STEPPY
>>26945397
Well, this is a fine attitude, but you'd better hope you're never subordinate to me or anyone who thinks like me, on this or the other side of the revolution. You (and your family) will get what you deserve.
>>26945383
> Implying anywhere in the Anglosphere is freer in 2016 than they were in 1970-79.
One of my favourites.
>>26943222
How's the 5th grade going?
>>26945415
Yes! Someone has to have a huge folder.
>>26945426
Disregard that. I'm an idiot and I have no idea what I'm talking about.
>>26945416
Software Developer who ears 20K a year who feels like he's qualified to tell the world how to fuction
>>26945432
I save everything I see on 4chan.
Data ain't cheap, yo. No point downloading something if I ain't gonna keep it.
>>26945426
Are you implying I deserve a worse treatment because I didn't throw away what I rightfully gained to join some edgy revolution? And you're arguing libertarians are unfare.
>>26945444
But, alas, this is the last one in my folder except the ones I saved from this thread.
>>26941677
This one is pretty lame and unfunny, so I didn't save it. You owe me 19kb motherfucker.
Most of the libertarians I know went to a public school and attend a university with government assistance.
>>26945430
24, BSc, earning $80k/yr (which is doing better than old mate $20k I think), have a girlfriend, and have weathered several family tragedies without going nuts.
My parents raised me on the dole while Dad got his degree at 40. I value socialism, I volunteer my time and help out the unfortunate. I think I am doing alright. I can always use some help and philosophical guidance.
>>26945440
Quite the opposite, libetarians just leave the world to sort it out itself.
>>26945469
And how is this rilevant?
>>26941100
>What aren't you libertarian
>What aren't you
>What aren't
>What
>>26945481
>libetarians just leave the world to sort it out itself.
History suggests that the world has sorted itself into governments. Time and time again.
>>26945499
proves they're full of shit
>>26945522
Libertarians support minimal government.
>>26945469
It's like.
Pre-history:
>Hey, me king now.
>Why tho?
>God says
Magna Carta
>Hey king, fuck you, we want more rights.
>Okay then I don't wanna die God changed his mind
John Milton and Thomas Hobbes
>Hobbes: Kings provide a pretty useful service cause nature is really fucking horrifying and it's better to work as a collective even if it is kinda bad, nature is usually worse
>Milton: Right but what if it's worse than nature? That means we kill the king right?
>Come at me bro!
>Alright
>Ouch I am dead
The Founding of America
>This is a great new land colonised at the expense of a lot of crown resources. Just more evidence that the crown is the bomb.
>No taxes.
>Okay we won't collect them.
>NO TAXES.
>What? It's really more trouble than it's worth to collect them, we're literally letting you get away with theft here you rich aristocratic bastards.
>HUEHURHURHUEHRURGARRBLE YOU COMMONERS SHOULD BE OUTRAGED PLEASE DIE FOR US RICH ARISTOCRATIC BASTARDS FOR THESE REASONS THAT AREN'T REALLY AN ISSUE BUT LET'S SAY THEY ARE.
>Why though?
>BECAUSE IT WILL GIVE YOU THE FREEDOM TO BE RICH?
>Hurrr I like money.
Neoconservatives
>God I hate poor people, why would anyone CHOOSE to be poor? Pretty fucking silly if you ask me.
>What? How can we get rich when the rulebook favours those that are already rich?
>Hmm, you're right. Tell you what, we'll cut taxes for the rich and that way they'll give you more money.
>Oka... Wait, what?
>TOO LATE!
Libertarians
>It is perfectly fair to disregard all rules except for the ones about property. The fact that I have more property is merely a coincidence, I support such reforms because I care about the poor so much.
>>26945499
This is the extent of the average Libertarians comprehension and language skills.
>>26945555
They're full of shit because they used all the means they had access to?
>>26945557
>>26944128
>>26944353
How about these ones, comrade?
>>26945574
>I hate coca-cola for making me fat!
>He says as he guzzles down a two liter bottle of coca-cola.
>>26945592
I did not made these posts, libertarians support minimal government because otherwise nobody would enforce private property.
>>26945606
It's not like they could chose to live in a different society as you could chose to drink some other thing.
>>26941100
I don't really care for what it stands for, but I really like this flag.
I think it would be perfect on a rusty 180sx just to annoy normies.
>>26945624
yeah, but how do you resolve past the 'minimal government' issues raised in those posts
>>26945646
No... I'm pretty sure you can chose not to take government assistance.
>>26945682
I forgot the [sic]
They can choose to be completely self-reliant. Nobody is stopping them from going off the grid and living with true freedom. It's just, as it turns out, government is desirable to these people they just refuse to admit it.
>>26945369
In my country this is an above average pay and the taxes take away almost 50% of the money I get from the company I work in you fucking faggot. Go ahead and tell me again it's not the fucking taxes moron.
>>26945574
Taking advantage of public infrastructure, and then turning around and saying such infrastructure should be abolished, does in fact make libertarians full of shit
>>26945682
So they would play an unfair game paired against those who take it.
>>26945649
fucking sociopathic roasties, i swear there are not many things that make me more mad than this
>>26945723
Those taxes pay for shit like roads and healthcare and schools.
If your government is messing with those things, you have a problem with your government, not with socialism (as -- see above -- your government is not providing them well, i.e., socialism is not in effect).
>>26943270
do they suck more than potholes
>>26945723
Well, the Free Market works on the principle of supply and demand. If your software only generates (under) 40K then there is no demand, the over-riding metric of a products' worth. Hence your product is worthless.
Also what 3rd world shithole is 40K something to boast about LOL
>>26945749
>So they would play an unfair game paired against those who take it.
What do you think libertarianism means?
Have a tf2 spray
>>26945777
>MUH ROADS
Goddamn you people never change and spew the same kind of self destructive shit for ages. I don't have kids and no goddamn use for a fucking school, the "free" healthcare is so great I have to pay additionally for a checkup because I would have to wait at least 2 hours for it in the fucking state hospital. I don't give a fuck. Let me pay for what I want and leave me alone.
>>26945837
It's great for an unexperienced programmer fresh out of college and with the amount of work I put in it's a blast.
But tell me about how socialism would give me a bigger paycheck and more wealth, please do.
>>26946146
If it weren't for the roads and schools and hospitals, you would have no customers to buy your software.
>>26941788
for disabled people charities may be better but you're beyond crazy if you think anyone will give to charities in order to finance your neetlife
>>26946189
this is the dumbest implication I have ever heard and most certainly a b8.
btw if you own a lagdroid normiephone, there's a very thin chance you are NOT using something I work on. Let's leave it at that. And please answer me this:
>But tell me about how socialism would give me a bigger paycheck and more wealth, please do.
>>26946232
Working class has more disposable income with public healthcare / education, instead of paying for private. More money to spend, more income for your oh so amazing app
>>26941100
because plebs need to be guided
>>26946297
But they have less because those services are not free.
>>26946403
In most countries the public subsidized option is cheaper than private for healthcare / education
>There are people in this thread who don't think that private property, the state, and capitalism are inherently violent
>Boyfriend is best friends with lots of sjws, they constantly bitch about gender in public
>Recently ask him if he cares about "gender stuff"
>Nope
>fuck yes
>talking about politics later
>He literally says "Hillary will take our guns" and hates all of the other candidates
I wanted to marry the absolute fuck out of him right then and there
>>26946593
Anarchism is not the same as Libertarianism.
Anarchism is "If I have the skills to steal it I deserve it."
Libertarianism is "I'm rich and want less taxes, and so do all you poor people, trust me."
>>26946951
I know Anarchism is not the same as 'Libertarianism', I'm an Anarchist myself.
Also, read this:
https://afed.org.uk/about/what-is-anarchism/
>>26941788
Many charities pay the directors a lot more than what goes towards the actual charity effort
it's a fucking scam
>>26946951
Anarchism simply means without government. I'm a libertarian because I realize that anarchism is a utopian ideal which would revolve primarily around people living a voulnteeristic lifestyle.
>>26946593
But anon, the state is inheriantly violent. Just try suggesting we take away their monopoly on force and see what happens.
>>26947226
I know that the state is inherently violent, I said that there are people who DON'T believe that in this thread, and then did >tfw
>>26947242
Then I disagree with you for different reasons. Why are private property and capitalism necessarily violent? It's just a voluntary exchange.
>>26947272
Private property and thus capitalism (capitalism necessitates the private ownership of the means of production by definition) require violence in order to be enforced, and are therefore inherently violent. Without the threat of violence (police, army), workers could seize the means of production if they wanted and there would be nothing to stop them.
>>26941100
Because neetbux...>Implying originality
I'm a REALLY REALLY moderate libertarian
Yes, statistfags are retards. Yes capitalism is the most effective and less violent of economic ideologies. But you have to be a retard to get rid of some government regulation. You generally want people to be drinking clear water.
>>26941677
>Not bothering other people is cuckholding
lol kill yourself faggot, libertarians don't want to enforce pc laws, they just don't want an autistic race war to happen dipshit.
>libertarians
>"i don't want to pay for your healthcare, but i do want you to pay for my police protection"
kek
>>26948634
really, clear water just like in flint michigan?
I'm sticking to my Poland Spring
almost no floride, and no 'safe' cleaning chemicals or organisms inside it
and if you think a piece of paper the government wrote up is the only thing single handedly giving poland spring the intensive to sell people clean water, then literally ayy lmao at you
>>26942788
>implying cronyism isn't inevitable in a capitalist system
But I am. Im tired of regulations and bullshit. Freedom is worth the risk.
