What are /r9k/'s thoughts on libertarianism? It seems like individualism is the only rational and logical choice of ideology.
>>28865347
Meh, is there a term for a moderate libertarian?
Like I agree with Libertarians that individual freedom and capitalism are generally the best choices but I do agree with democrats that you have to regulate some stuff obviously like food safety, workplace safety, etc and I do agree with Republicans that border laws and basic law and order is a must.
It's a fucking meme ideology that will never be truly accepted by society. No wonder why, since it practically only benefits rich people and is largely unpopular among working class populations except for a few social issues.
Definitely one of the worst ideologies for a robot.
>>28865347
National Socialism is the only way to go
>>28866158
>let's string together a bunch of popular buzzwords to draw as many conservatives and on-the-fence lefties to our party as we can
>national socialist german workers' party
Literal meme ideology.
Minarchism is the best ideology.
A small, minimal state in charge of the most basic shit like army, police and courts. The rest is left to the private sector. Voluntary taxation, no handouts.
bump for yellow snek
>>28865399
bump because I'm also looking for a term for this kind of political ideology.
>>28865347
>the only rational and logical choice
>>28865347
I like it
I understand why people don't want to be overtaxed, but social conservatism is just a mash up of religious mythology, racial paranoia, and hypocrisy. I also hate how social conservatives throw fiscal cons into their in group to make it seem like they aren't a bunch of retards who think every earthquake happens because gay people kiss
>>28865347
It's retarded as fuck. The modern system is dependent on the interworkability of all its part.
Only stupid AMERITARDs like it.
>>28865399
Minarchism
>>28865399
I am one. The freer the market the freer the people.
>>28867487
Fuck off NEET. You're literally just a nigger riding off your country's welfare programs who's only problem is that now other people want to freeload too
I like anyone who fights for the constitution
>>28865582
What's the best for robot then?
>>28867722
Libertarianism is just social darwinism which means leeches and useless pieces of shit will get eliminated
I suppose the typical robot wouldn't like that, so your answer might be some form of social democracy
Remember when some Captains of Industry tried to claim some shitty reef as their own Galt's Gulch?
Remember how they got BTFO by the Tongan army after a week? GG Libertarian Ubermensch
>>28867722
Probably some sort of state-provided service that helps match people for relationships/dating.
>>28867969
>confusing libertarianism with anarchism
Not very bright, are you?
>>28867618
Too often those guys end up being the living embodiment of an Onion headline - "Area Man passionate defender of what he imagines the Constitution to be" - and are ridiculously rigid strict-constructionists who fail to take into account the fact that it was designed to be a living document.
Also, fuck objectivism.
>>28865347
Whata word twisting lefty jew. GTFO!
>>28866187
A meme ideology which got Germany out of it's war torn state after WW1.
>>28867999
Cry some more
>The Republic of Minerva was a micronation consisting of the Minerva Reefs. It was one of the few modern attempts at creating a sovereign micronation on the reclaimed land of an artificial island in 1972. The architect was Las Vegas real estate millionaire and political activist Michael Oliver, who went on to other similar attempts in the following decade. Lithuanian-born Oliver formed a syndicate, the Ocean Life Research Foundation, which allegedly had some $100,000,000 for the project and had offices in New York and London. They anticipated a libertarian society with "no taxation, welfare, subsidies, or any form of economic interventionism."
>>28865399
Neoliberalism
>>28865347
lol nice spooks op
retarded ideology only suitable for the bourgeois. if you make less than 6 figures a year and call yourself a libertarian you are a retard plain and simple.
the only acceptable ideology for the masses in this world today is democratic socialism. if you support anything else it should be because it benefits you economically. if you're poor and support free market unregulated capitalism you are a cuck.
A functioning society cannot exist under this type of government.
On the other hand, the inevitable abundance of drugs might make it worthwhile
All the libertarians I have met IRL are either ugly losers or literal autists who would get fucked over if libertarianism were actually enacted. I'll never understand it.
>>28865347
I SEE THIS FUCKING THREAD EVERY OTHER FUCKING DAY. ARE YOU THE SAME GUY IF SO JUST FUCKING SCREEN SHOT ONE FUCKING THREAD I'M TIRED OF THIS BULLSHIT FUCKING DIE
>>28868244
>democratic socialist
>calling other people cucks
you like it when your girlfriend and Jamal hang out don't you
>>28868553
>HURRRR cultural marxism and the economic and governmental system described as democratic socialism are the same thing
>HURRR i'm a 2 digit IQ mongoloid who spouts trump memes, makes less than 50k a year, and still considers himself a far right staunch defender of unregulated free market capitalism
>HURRRR i call other people cucks when i myself am the biggest cuck of all
t. you
Unfortunately I suspect people are too retarded for liberertarianism to function outside of small homogeneous communities.
>>28868244
Commiecuck kill yourself.
>>28868836
>socialism is communism
next is the picture of the fake Khrushchev quote talking about how socialism is how communism is going to take over the west, right?
>>28868330
>mfw I'm a libertarian who went from poor to rich
>feelsgoodman
>commies jealous of my social mobility swag.
>>28868836
That's not an argument stop throwing around ad hominems
Individualism is completely rational. I fully support personal freedoms
But american "libertarianism"(gadsen flag/capitalist minarchism) is a crude and authoritarian piece of shit ideology
>>28868166
/thread
originalcomment1234
>>28868918
do you know what authoritarian means
It doesn't mean "I have to work for money and am therefor a slave"
>>28868890
So you want to have a legitimate argument, alright let's do it, I'll let you have the first word.
>>28867999
Libertarian used to mean anarchist socialism(the only kind of anarchism)
>>28865347
Do you have any fucking idea what robots are? White niggers who dont go outside. Libertarianism is suicide for robots
>>28867999
libertarianism meant left wing anarchism orginally until the term was hijacked
>>28868957
explain two things:
1. how socialism is communism without arguing that it is a stepping stone or shares common traits with communism
2. how socialism is a bad form of government for everyone but the rich without resorting to "gibs me dat" tier arguments, racial arguments, or any sort of popular /pol/ method of destroying the credibility of the poster without actually addressing the argument
i'll wait.
>>28868942
Libertarianism as is being discussed in this thread effectively creates a confederation of oppressive autocracies in which the workers are left to completely obey their new overlords
>>28868037
That comic is like the ultimate strawman
>>28869029
>socialism
>form of government
please continue demonstrating how smart you are when it comes to political issues
>>28865347
I believe in total personal freedom, at the cost of anything including economic and social stability
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
T. 35 year old who founded a country which was great even before the overwhelming government centrism started
>>28869055
Theres multiple forms of socialism some support an organised form of government other don't like libertarian socialism
>>28869055
>offers to have a "legitimate argument"
>immediately goes back to ad hominem
well at least you tried.
protip: socialism includes things like democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, etc
>>28869033
what is the purpose of mining gold in a non-capitalist world?
>>28869102
Yeah my goal was to point out that socialism isnt a form of government
It's a mode of production
>>28869103
>>28869122
Gold is necessary to create certain goods
>>28869033
fuckin preach anon. libertarian socialism is the only kind of libertarianism
>>28869122
what the fuck?
gold has inherent value because of its applications.
>>28869012
>White
Everything else was correct.
I always thought this made sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Now of course it's easy to say "the middle ground sounds nice" and I know it's not that simple and easy to do. But as a long term goal it seems viable. The United States has a mixed economy but it's flawed in a lot of ways.
>>28869140
>Yeah my goal was to point out that socialism isnt a form of government
But that's wrong, and you're only saying that because you're incapable of addressing those questions.
>>28869193
What questions?
Socialism is workers controlling the means of production and nothing else
Socialist can be a way to describe a government or country but it isnt a government itself
even if Wikipedia says otherwise
>>28869248
The ones you ignored after saying you wanted a legitimate argument because you have some issue accepting that socialism can be described as a form of government.
Go ahead, try to answer them this time: >>28869029
>>28869292
That wasnt me but OK
1. Socialism is the mode of production of communism, which is a stage of society
2. I dont understand the question can you please reword it
>>28869034
kek. yeah I'm sure you're a unique little snowflake libertarian aren't you, anon.
>>28869330
>That wasnt me but OK
Then I don't want your opinion.
Especially not after you continue to deny socialism is a form of government.
>>28869029
> how socialism is communism without arguing that it is a stepping stone or shares common traits with communism
I don't believe that communism and socialism are the same.
>how socialism is a bad form of government for everyone but the rich without resorting to "gibs me dat" tier arguments, racial arguments, or any sort of popular /pol/ method of destroying the credibility of the poster without actually addressing the argument
Don't worry, I'm not /pol/ trash, I use actual arguments.
Socialism is a poor form of government because of a few things:
1.Because of socialized healthcare, waiting lines are far, far longer causing more death because people had to wait excessively long for proper treatment.
2.The government can get corrupted and services can get mismanaged (as they inevitably do as people are shitty) wasting valuable taxpayer revenue.
3.Rapid medical advancement is harder under socialism because it's health system relies on taxpayer cash instead of profitable companies. (seriously, as much as I trash the 'murican healthcare system for being a corrupt govt subsidiary dicksucking business, the amount of medicine related patents and advancement it pounds out is a lot more than the socialized healthcare countries).
4. It decreases everybody's spending power as the govt programs must be upheld via high ass taxes so every good there is far more expensive. (even with a high ass min wage, spending power is still low)
5.The whole "sucks for everyone but the rich" argument proves why socialism is bad, it relies on the rich for funding but simultaneously fucks them in the ass, thus they'll move to other countries and the country will be left in the dust.
6.It constricts people into being middle class. If you look at a lot of socialist rhetoric now a days, it often revolves under the "RESTORE TEH MIDDLE CLASS BRO" argument despite the fact that the middle class is shrinking due to people getting rich instead of poor. You?
>>28865347
I like libertarianism because it pisses off /pol/. There are actually people who have the nerve to hate black people AND collect food stamps. Libertarianism does more harm to neets than to niggers so it's good
>>28869363
Because it's not
Is capitalism a form of goverment in your opinion? Feudalism?
protip: it's not
>>28869399
>Because of socialized healthcare, waiting lines are far, far longer causing more death because people had to wait excessively long for proper treatment.
Explain how this is worse than not having insurance because you simply can't afford it, or having to see shitty doctors that can't treat you because your insurance doesn't cover the good doctors.
>The government can get corrupted and services can get mismanaged (as they inevitably do as people are shitty) wasting valuable taxpayer revenue.
No government is immune to this. Right now we have it in the form of political favors and lobbying.
>Rapid medical advancement is harder under socialism because it's health system relies on taxpayer cash instead of profitable companies.
I don't know that it's fair to say this considering I've worked in medical research and they are very dependent on government grants.
>It decreases everybody's spending power as the govt programs must be upheld via high ass taxes so every good there is far more expensive. (even with a high ass min wage, spending power is still low)
So it becomes more like Australia, which isn't at all unlivable?
>The whole "sucks for everyone but the rich" argument proves why socialism is bad, it relies on the rich for funding but simultaneously fucks them in the ass, thus they'll move to other countries and the country will be left in the dust.
This is the one I don't really have an answer for besides authoritarian type "don't let them leave" responses.
>It constricts people into being middle class.
I don't see the issue with this. There's nothing wrong with being middle class. Everyone being middle class is certainly much better than most people being lower class with little social mobility.
>despite the fact that the middle class is shrinking due to people getting rich instead of poor.
I don't agree at all.
>>28869517
I'm done responding to you. I posted multiple sources and you are ignoring them. Believe what you want.
>>28869538
>wikipedia
>online dictionaries
>i posted multiple sources
>>28869554
>my opinion is worth more than these other opinions
>>28865347
I mean, I'm a Social Libertarian, but I know /r9k/ hates lefties.
>>28869567
maybe you should read a book you fucking nigger :^)
>>28869343
I just said the comic was a strawman. I never said I was this special unique libertarian. I don't even identify as one. The comic is strawmaning because it lacks even a single layer of nuance.
>It's almost like political alignment can have depth and not be black and white
>>28869583
I think have a manager/boss helps streamline decisions regarding schedules, shifts, setting up a place, decisions to sell or pull a certain product, advertising, ensure employees aren't stealing profits under the table etc.
However I do think the United States needs certain things like single-payer healthcare as a basic right, maybe tuition-free college too. Not sure exactly how I feel on that one. So in those ways I'm socialist.
>>28869538
>Explain how this is worse than not having insurance because you simply can't afford it, or having to see shitty doctors that can't treat you because your insurance doesn't cover the good doctors.
You're misunderstanding here, what you gotta realize is that free marketing healthcare would drive costs down through competitions and quacks would go broke from people saying that they suck dick.
>No government is immune to this. Right now we have it in the form of political favors and lobbying.
Yes but if government is constricted into having very little power, their corruption is less devastating.
>So it becomes more like Australia, which isn't at all unlivable?
Look it may not be unlivable but it sucks for the people and economy.
>This is the one I don't really have an answer for besides authoritarian type "don't let them leave" responses.
This is the biggest flaw, as a man who knows several higher ups in business, I can say that they always find a way to snake around authority so the "don't let em' leave" policy doesn't work, and even if it did only existing companies will keep on trudging while new companies won't form, stagnating economic growth and causing monopolies from the lack of competition, once again raising prices, decreasing innovation and fucking the average fellow up the ass.
>I don't see the issue with this. There's nothing wrong with being middle class. Everyone being middle class is certainly much better than most people being lower class with little social mobility.
Ok but the vast majority of your nation's tax revenue comes from the rich, if the rich are that ridiculously small, you'll be forced to tax the middle and poor harder, screwing them over even more.
>I don't agree at all.
You can't deny reality: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2015/12/2015-12-09_middle-class_FINAL-report.pdf
https://www.aei.org/publication/yes-americas-middle-class-has-been-disappearing-into-higher-income-groups
>>28865399
Consequential libertarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism
>>28867722
Liberatrina/free markets are better for everyone
robots are robots because of the state fucking up our society (Propping up single moms,welfare, state schools)
It increases the value of your money, and just doesn't force you to do what you dont want too. Everything is just done efficiently and you choose what you do, with a big state everything is inefficient and they fuck up society to maintain a voter base (a dependent class)
Libertarianism is focused on just doing things as effeicently as posisble And allowing for spontaneous organization which allows incentives to motivate people to improve
>>28868244
>Justifying theft because it makes me feel good as a person
I can't wait for literally everything to be done inefficiently and have LITERALLY no incentive for improving except for the states indocrination about how much we need to be controlled
If you want a bigger gov you want a big strong man to control you because yo uhave no will yourself, you are a cuck
>>28869583
>Removing profit from the equation
Why would any person start a business if profit were not a thing? Oh yeah, let me just take this massive risk so I can make the same money I am making now.
Literally a meme ideology that most people grow out of before finishing puberty.
>>28870092
Not only that profit is what motivates efficiency, competition and improving
>>28869583
So you steal the property of the capitalist because you want it, and decide to run the buisness by a bunch of unedcuated workers.
What is the incentive for effeciency, What is the incentive for improving? What is the incentive for doing a better job? How do you know how much the work is actually worth, just magically deciding?
>>28870115
They only "grow out of it" becuase they are people with no backbone who go to college and can't handle not being well liked so they sacrifice logic for having a social life and get rid of their principals and morality because you are now punished if you disagree with the dogma
>>28870092
There is no risk if profit isnt an issue
>>28870151
The property isnt his as far as i'm concerned
The incentive for efficiency is that inefficiency is a pain in the ass
i doubt you could call today's capitalist wold efficient.
Worth is measured by labor
>>28870151
>Worth is measured by labor
Out of all of marx's writing, this idea stands out as the silliest. How the hell does labor make something valuable? It makes no damn sense.
>>28870203
>The property isnt his as far as i'm concerned
What determines someones what is someones personal property in your mind?
Is my body my property?
Is a house I built myself my property?
Would my wheelchair by my property?
>The incentive for efficiency is that inefficiency is a pain in the ass
But the only thing lowering the price is cost of production, so the workers actually get paid more if production is more expensive. The only tangible incentive is actually for them to be inefficient so they get paid more for less work (in capitalism this would be undercut by competition)
>i doubt you could call today's capitalist wold efficient.
Yes because of the state creating arbitrary measures for the free market to fit into, and whenever they do it damages that market and competition. The solution however is less state power, not more. (and unless you are a lefty anarchist, you just want to create a monopoly controlling everything instead of different companies competing, as the government would be a monopoly)
>Worth is measured by labor
I would say worht is measured by contribution of desired things to soceity?
Am i valuable because I break down peoples houses (or the states houses in your world) No because no one wants that, labor in itself is not valuable at all.
>>28870279
If i dismantel your car and give the parts away for other stuff I am a high value person, go fuck yourself that is labor.
>>28870044
>robots are robots because of the state fucking up our society (Propping up single moms,welfare, state schools)
How exactly does Libertarian help the disabled here (if your response is GET FUCKED MENTALLY ILL FAGGOTS LMAO then just don't reply) survive? Why would the disabled, who are collecting welfare right now in order to survive, want to endorse a system that would actively make it harder for them to survive simply because they cannot work through no fault of their own?
>>28865347
All these people arguing with OP. It's like telling a kid why the sky is blue, they won't understand and it won't change.
>>28870316
Nowadays there is no need for families to be maintained so they have very little hope of relying on them, while in the free market thats not incentivized so better parents lead to better young and a possiblity for supporitng them
If that isn't the case there are charities now and there will be more then as people will have excess income that isn't stolen by the state.
A private company could also exist that would train them to find a way to make a living (with computers much easier then in the past) for a portion of their future wages as well.
Regardless, I dont think just because some people aren't doing well gives me the right to threaten or initiate violence against people that don't want to help.
What your saying is hey donate to this charity and guess what if you don't I am throwing you in jail and destroying your life and if you defend yourself I will shoot you.
How is that justifiable in your mind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
> want to endorse a system that would actively make it harder for them to survive simply
I think you think less of them then they are, in that system they have no incentive to improve or attempt to contribute to society, while in a free society.
Weflare is done very ineffeciently and just havign free market charities choosing how to spend the money or direct donations from churches/social circles would be far more effective economically for the person
>>28870401
>WHAT U EXPECT ME TO USE LOGIC AND REASON LMAO
>>28870292
Property in which production occurs shouldnt be held in the hands of individuals
Worth is measured by useful labor, that was a mistake on my end. "socially necessary labor" as it's called.>>28870279
>>28870488
>Property in which production occurs shouldnt be held in the hands of individuals
Female bodies produce babies, should those be held publicly?
>Worth is measured by useful labor
How do you determine the usefulness? In free markets you determine it by people voluntarily choosing to purchase it in exchange for some good they have. This gives the person providing the service incentive to make more of this, and the additional money allows him to improve the way of creating it or the thing in itself to lower prices to be more competitive and to better it for the consumer
>>28870447
This entire post was a strawman and basically saying "well I guess charities and private companies will take over the role of disability income and we will rehabilitate them so they don't need to be disabled" which just reeks of a complete lack of understanding regarding these people and their situations.
Do you think charities really help all that much right now? They don't. They are only able to give out $100 MAYBE one time a year to a person. Most rental assistance charities are able to help you if and only if you have a source of income and won't be depending on them again. You are telling these people, who are already getting handouts that actually work, to support a system that very likely cause their homelessness and ultimately starving to death because at least then they wouldn't be taking your money in the form of taxes.
The government already has these vocational rehabilitation programs you're talking about, and they don't "steal" (since you love to use this word) your future wages. I am disabled and just got a letter in the mail with my "ticket to work" and a bunch of information on these programs. Of course I can't use it because I have yet to encounter a medication that is effective for my illness, and because I have to deal with shitty, bottom of the barrel medicaid doctors that hardly know what they're doing, but the program is there.
Libertarianism would also see the abolishment of medicaid and all other public healthcare, so you can simply forget about me or many others EVER getting better because you would be taking away the only possibility of that happening.
Basically you are saying "well idk lol i guess maybe charities would do it WOO FREE MARKET but you'll probably starve to death sorry disabled guys but the welfare state needs purging."
There is absolutely no incentive for a disabled person to ever support libertarianism. There will never be any reason for them to, because it is the antithesis to their survival.
>>28870447
>Regardless, I dont think just because some people aren't doing well gives me the right to threaten or initiate violence against people that don't want to help.
>What your saying is hey donate to this charity and guess what if you don't I am throwing you in jail and destroying your life and if you defend yourself I will shoot you.
>How is that justifiable in your mind?
You are taking the moral highground when you know that you are condemning these people that depend on welfare to survive. It's laughable.
The fact of the matter is that no government should be amoral like you are describing. People do not deserve to starve to death in the streets because they just happened to be unlucky enough to develop a debilitating mental illness.
>>28870586
>Do you think charities really help all that much right now? They don't
If the mob is stealing money from you saying it's helping X you aren't likely to send additional money to X
> they don't "steal" (since you love to use this word) your future wages.
If it is voluntary it isn't theft
>Libertarianism would also see the abolishment of medicaid and all other public healthcare, so you can simply forget about me or many others EVER getting better because you would be taking away the only possibility of that happening.
You are trying to say the systems we have now will = the systems we have in an libertarian soceity minus wellfare which is absurd.
The services which government provides will be done by private businesses, and people won't be threatened to do it.
You are literally saying I WANT TO STEAL PEOPLES MONEY, IF YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE ME YOUR MONEY YOU SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL OR SHOT
your disgusting you should starve
>>28870608
Your parents failed you and the government is incentivizing the failure of parents
however
that doesn't justify shooting people who disagree with you
that is insane and sociopathic
>>28870537
Not that kind of production, obviously
The worth is decided by the workers
>>28870654
So you are now creating arbitrary differences between production?
Why is that kind of production different?
Why should those types of production be treated differently?
>The worth is decided by the workers
How?
>>28870688
The production i'm speaking of is economic production, you dolt.
The workers decide what work is done, most likely democratically.
Conservatives are bigots, Liberals are too lenient, so Libertarianism all the way, baby.
>>28870651
>If the mob is stealing money from you saying it's helping X you aren't likely to send additional money to X
>If it is voluntary it isn't theft
>The services which government provides will be done by private businesses, and people won't be threatened to do it.
You are the kind of guy who sits here and says "THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK HARD OR IMPROVE IN A COMMUNIST STATE BECAUSE THERE IS NO VALUE ON LABOR AND NOTHING TO DETERMINE THE VALUE PEOPLE WILL NOT GIVE UP THEIR MONEY FOR FREE COMMUNISM IS A JOKE" right? Tell me why charities and private companies will take the role of the welfare state after it is abolished. Tell me why a company, whose sole reason for existence is to make money, will give disabled people money to survive when they get nothing back? Will they do it with the promise of the disabled person giving them a portion of their future wages, for the rest of their life, if they ever get better? Would they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, which you clearly do not think people will do because of how much you hate taxation and giving to people who produce nothing, or will they just say "lol fuck 'em!"?
Explain to me your plan to ensure my survival should I wake up tomorrow to live in your Libertarian state. Currently I receive about $1200 per month in disability income and receive free insurance through the government. Ensure me that I will receive at least this much should your Libertarian state come to pass.
>You are literally saying I WANT TO STEAL PEOPLES MONEY, IF YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE ME YOUR MONEY YOU SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL OR SHOT
No, I'm saying disabled people should not support Libertarianism like you said they should because it will cause them to starve to death and become homeless.
>Your parents failed you and the government is incentivizing the failure of parents
Sure, if you call bad genetics "failing" me. It's not like they were in control during crossover.
>>28870703
Are people/wrokers not economic assets?
Please answer the questions I said in depth because from what I can tell your ideas would advocate for socializing women and impregnating based on what is democratically decided to be valuable (which is disgusting so I want to understand your ideas better because I don't think any rational person would hold that belief)
>>28870703
So minority interests aren't covered at all? You just have an authoritarian mob deciding what they want people to do, and anyone who disagrees voice is totally unheard
And do you think workers are the most knowledgeable and well thought out people? Economies are very complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE
Video demonstrating it
>>28870731
>Would they do it out of the kindness of their hearts
No they do it for profit, and if it is something people want they will pay them, and if they are capable fo training them to creating something economically valuable they have a huge amount of additional income from that.
>Ensure me that I will receive at least this much should your Libertarian state come to pass.
You won't you entitled prick you don't deserve it. Study programming online or do some task based work online. It will prevent more people from like you from existing actually incentive raising people properly
Why should a disabled person dislike the state? Because they have integrity and principal and don't want people to be violent on their behalf.
And also it's not just your genetics, it's you parents being awful, and society incentivizing you. The state likes to create a dependent class so it is more difficult for people to take their power away.
The state doesn't want to help you, it wants to keep you dependent on it so it can continue to use violence against innocent people.
You are pretty much a hostage talking about how awful freedom is.
Reasons why disabled people wouldn't be for the state-
>Principals
>Long term thinking
>Self Respect
>Disgust they are being used as hostages for some authoritarian sociopaths to expand their power
Not everything has to be what makes me more comfortable right now, the future exists as well as people other than you.
>>28865347
Pretty fedora
>>28870885
>>You won't you entitled prick you don't deserve it.
Stopped reading here. You have proved my point effectively.
Anyone who is not capable of improving will be purged in your libertarian paradise, and thus no one who collects welfare should ever support it.
Thanks. This is the response I was waiting for.
>>28865347
bunch of rich white kids who can afford a feudal system where you need to pay for every little service and who would probably be the ones to set up chains over sidewalks, charging people to move the chain
>>28870954
Not an argument ;)
I knew that was your point and I covered it.
>>28870821
I really doubt that you actually believe that i'm advocating that
the production of goods and the provision of services
Better?
The workers can handle making a pencil lol
they're the ones making it anyway
>>28870963
Your argument depended on a strawman where I said something along the lines of
>people should give money to the poor and disabled or they should be shot and killed and the money forcibly taken
Which is not what I said at all. You are just incapable of providing a system that works for disabled people. Libertarianism prevents it from happening.
>No they do it for profit, and if it is something people want they will pay them, and if they are capable fo training them to creating something economically valuable they have a huge amount of additional income from that.
There is no economic incentive to give disabled people who cannot work any money. They wouldn't do this. No one does this now even though many disabled people cannot collect it and the system is inadequate.
Just admit that you want people who cannot "improve" enough to work in your libertarian paradise to suffer and eventually die. That's all I want to hear from you.
ur only a libertarian because ur loneyl and have no gf/friends lol
>>28871020
I WILL FUCK YOUR MOM WITH MY SHITPOST COCK YOU FUCKKNG GSY FAGGOT PYSSY XFDFDDFFDDDDDDCDEASSAAD
EAT A BRICK OF DRIED CUM
>>28870956
>implying the taxes you already pay aren't equivalent to these predicted chains you speak of
Your just terrified of a world without dem programs aren't you?
>>28870970
>The workers can handle making a pencil lol
It's not making a penicl it's making and harvesting all the elements of a pencil effecenitnly and that requires hundreds of thousands of people, yet you think somehow just a majority of people will figure out the past way to do it rather then people actually knowledgeable about it.
>I really doubt that you actually believe that i'm advocating that
Your logic indicates you are, so i am trying to get you to expand your logic and actually think about your beliefs
>>28871002
Anything that doesn't require force/shooting people can be done in a libertarian society.
It would be charity initially, however It's absurd to think there is nothing economically valuable they could contribute.
I dont want anyone to die that is kind of my point. Your dependency and lack of will is a creation of the state not something that the state takes care of. However you are advocating for using violence against people you disagree with, not good.
The state incentives awful social and family structures which promote and exacerbate mental illness, and I think it's sad to see people wasting away. But none of that justifies shooting people who don't want to help them. People will have excess income in a free market and will also be around more like minded people since immigrants aren't being artificially supported. This means a big increase for charity.
>>28871080
you realize that even the libertarian superhero Ayn Rand used those horrible things your taxes pay for like roads, hospitals, sidewalks, the police, etc, right?
and you realize that she collected social security and medicare when she got older, and spent the later half of her life fighting for more benefits for people, right?
libertarianism is an ideology you grow out of even if you're a crazy bitch who calls for the extermination of the poor.
>>28871109
>It's not making a penicl it's making and harvesting all the elements of a pencil effecenitnly and that requires hundreds of thousands of people, yet you think somehow just a majority of people will figure out the past way to do it rather then people actually knowledgeable about it.
I dont see what you think the problem is
The workers can have all of the resources that capitalists have at their disposal.
>>28871109
>Anything that doesn't require force/shooting people can be done in a libertarian society.
Okay, so tell me how it would be done. Tell me why the FREE MARKET would give people money for no reason other than kindness or for moral reasons.
>It would be charity initially, however It's absurd to think there is nothing economically valuable they could contribute.
People who literally cannot pass an interview to work are going to contribute something to the economy besides spending?
>I dont want anyone to die that is kind of my point.
Are you sure? You might say that, but you're advocating a system that would lead to people dying.
>Your dependency and lack of will is a creation of the state not something that the state takes care of.
No it isn't. It is a result of disability that was out of my control. The state had nothing to do with it unless you consider not giving my mother enough money to raise me properly because she was also disabled a "creation of the state."
>However you are advocating for using violence against people you disagree with, not good.
I'm not, and I'm not going to keep repeating this. You know damn well that I am not advocating for this. I am only advocating for people who are disabled to not support a system that harms them.
>The state incentives awful social and family structures which promote and exacerbate mental illness
So how are you going to fix it? It's usually a result of poverty and lack of access to quality mental health professionals, as it was in my case. You don't want to give people more stuff for free, so how do you fix this without killing them?
>shooting people
Stop.
>big increase for charity
Where is the source for this? You are claiming that people with slightly higher incomes because taxes aren't taking any money will suddenly start donating massive amounts of money in large numbers to charities designed to help disabled and disenfranchised people survive because they can't on their own. People don't do that.
>>28871140
?
What
They have no incentive to get the best materials though, they are paid based on the cost of production so why would they bother to find the best suppliers or materials?
Are you going to have a democratic vote for which wood supplier to use every time there is a price change even so?
And you still have differentiated the means of adequately you say goods and services
how do you define goods and services?
Isn't she providing a service to a male or to the life itself? Or society by creating a worker?
>>28871226
Social pressure and to increase social well being, hopefully we can identify it genetically and prevent them from existing though.
>People who literally cannot pass an interview to work are going to contribute something to the economy besides spending?
Tons of work online/from home jobs that require 0 socializing or physical effort or knowledge even.
>you're advocating a system that would lead to people dying.
I'm advocating a system that people may possibly die in, you are advocating a society in which EVERYONE wiill be threatned with violence and shot if they dont agree with how to use their money.,
>give my mother
If your mom was a single mom that covers my point, they shouldnt exist and are hugely toxic for society and their kids are hugely fucked up. State supports them
> she was also disabled a "creation of the state."
Kek your telling me af ucked up disabled person couldnt raise another person well, lets give them more money!
>>28868071
and into its war torn state after WW2
> I am only advocating for people who are disabled to not support a system that harms them.
It does harm them in the long run as I've said before
and by advocating for the system you are advocating for you ARE advocating for the initiation of force against innocent people, without it a state wouldn't' function.
>So how are you going to fix it?
Don't subsidize single moms and bad decisions.
Right now we reward people who make bad decisions and punish people who make good ones, that will always have a negative effect on society.
Your mom should not have had you and she is an awful person for raising a kid when she shouldn't have just because she is selfish and has no foresight, and the state is responsible
>so how do you fix this without killing them?
I just dont let them use violence against others, and if people like them they will still be supported, and they won't continute to be created because we have nothing abritarily supporting them
>Where is the source for this? You are claiming that people with slightly higher incomes because taxes aren't taking any money
Payroll+ income tax takes about 30-40% of wages depending where you live and the government says they are helping you so ohter people have no incentive to donate to charity
Also economy overall doing better, people associating only with those they want will lead to better communities and when you have a more trusting community people donate more to charity. Generally they have more incentive too and more means too
>>28868851
socialism is literally communism-lite
>>28871078
its not a shttpost if it s true
>prevent them from existing
Can't tell if you're advocating for genetic modification to eliminate mental illness forever, or purging people who are likely to produce mentally ill children.
>Online work
So suddenly the online low-skill labor pool is flooded by many more than there are jobs available. The ones who get jobs get to survive, and the ones who don't, well they have to depend on people giving them money for no reason other than to let them survive.
There are not enough jobs on mechanical turk or low-skill programming jobs accommodating disabled people for this to work.
>People may possibly die in; you're telling people to give up money or die
I'm not advocating any such system. Are you forced at gunpoint to pay your taxes in the current system? I'm just advocating against your system.
So yes, you don't have a viable solution to this problem and people will die because they cannot work and there is no welfare.
>Single mother points
It's not like she was always single. We were well off until I was 10 and my father became an opiate addict and fucked off. She was capable of managing money and healthcare; she just didn't have much or the accessibility. She was physically disabled; not mentally.
>Welfare harms people
More than your system where they will literally die because there is no assistance, insurance, or work for them?
>>28871406
>>28871565
>>28871296
>Don't subsidize single mothers
Okay. I agree. Now how do you fix children of divorce? Children of parents with recessive genes for mental illness that did not know about them until the child became sick?
>If people like them they will be supported
Mental illness and disability is demonized in the united states. You know this. No one would willingly support these people. You are literally saying "the people will decide if these people need to be purged or not." That's no better than me ACTUALLY saying that I support a system where people are forced at gunpoint to support the poor (I don't support this though. I just don't support purging the weak.)
>30-40% of income
Maybe for the extremely wealthy. For the majority of people they pay nothing near that, and most people with excess wealth don't donate to churches anyway. They donate to special cause funds like Cure Cancer in Children or Help the Poor Africans Eat and such. Hardly anyone donates to programs to help the American poor. Most of those funds come from government grants. I know this from experience.
>Better economy means people will drop the stigma against the disabled and mentally ill and suddenly want to support them.
No it won't. It will increase consumer spending. It will have no effect on charities that aren't designed to give people tax breaks
>>28871586
>Okay. I agree. Now how do you fix children of divorce? Children of parents with recessive genes for mental illness that did not know about them until the child became sick?
If single mothers aren't subsidized hopefully divorce will go down, though the parents are responsible for the child , though if they have no family or anyhting then orphanages are actually generally better then being raised by a single mom so those would be focused, having good mental health treatment would be a part of those
>mentall illness is demonized
It's fashionable among some people, people would willingly support them and do. and not purged but I dont' advocated shooting people because I think they should help someone out, ostracization is advocated as form of pressure and having publicly available charities where people compete for how much they contribute so they look cool to their freinds and thigns like that aren't impossible.
It's not a purge it's just voluntary action, if someone doesn't want to help they won't. You are saying if they aren't forced too no one will though which is a bit absurd, even if it's just to look cool among their freinds so people think their nice people will contribute.
>Maybe for the extremely wealthy. For the majority of people they pay nothing near that
Payroll tax + income tax yes they do, this isn't accounting for all the lost money taking place thanks to government taking part in the economy
>They donate to special cause funds like Cure Cancer in Children or Help the Poor Africans Eat and such. Hardly anyone donates to programs to help the American poor.
Because right now the state claims to be supporting you, they have no incentive to help people that are supposedly already being covered by their money.
Most poeple who dot hat also support a welfare state to help people but that's just because they don't understand economics, tons of people including rich people vote for socilaist policies, and those people will donate to charity when there is no state.
>>28871732
>If single mothers aren't subsidized hopefully divorce will go down
No it won't lol.
>having good mental health treatment would be a part of those
But you don't want people to pay for this. You want them to donate to this. You think people are going to willingly donate money to allow these sick people to see competent doctors when the American public already rages about insurance and medical costs?
>people would willingly support them
Not enough unfortunately. Just like your proposal that once benefits are cut that these disabled people start working on mechanical turk. There won't be enough people to support all the disabled if it's all voluntary.
>publicly available charities where people compete for how much they contribute so they look cool to their freinds and thigns like that aren't impossible.
You aren't serious, are you? You think bleeding heart liberals are so numerous that this would be sufficient to replace the welfare state?
>It's not a purge it's just voluntary action, if someone doesn't want to help they won't.
So people will invariably die. There is no other way around it.
>You are saying if they aren't forced too no one will though which is a bit absurd, even if it's just to look cool among their freinds so people think their nice people will contribute.
No, I'm saying that not ENOUGH people will contribute ENOUGH money to support these people.
>and those people will donate to charity when there is no state.
For what reason? Rich people don't get rich by giving money away, and most rich people are conservative socially and fiscally. Both of these ideologies do NOT support handouts for any reason, even if the person is incapable of "bettering themselves" like is often thrown around.
So basically you're saying "well people will contribute what they can and the rest will die." That's not good enough, and if faced with the choice of "force people to give money at gunpoint" or "die" I would choose the former. As would all disabled people.
>>28869583
5% of something is better than 20% of nothing
>>28867429
Holy fucking shit dude what a fucking faggot
>>28865347
libertarianism, regardless of its merit, is supported strictly by the worst kind of american /k/ fuddlord "WE GOTS TO SCARE DA GUBMENT" scum
much like atheism, it's shit because the people who support it are shit.
After these anti-Trump protests- it's all about nigger knocking and leftie stomping now.
So fascism.
>>28871847
>No it won't lol.
Women initate most divorces and divorces shot up with the government starte dto subsidize single moms
It gives them an option to leave the relationship and make money of course its' goign to icnrease it
>when the American public already rages about insurance and medical costs?
That's because the govenrment has made it so ineffeicent
Yes people who want to help people will voluntarily help people why is that so absurd to you
people who don't might be ostracized socially but anyhting past that is immoral
>Not enough unfortunately.
I'd say a good ammount of the dissabled can still actually contribute economically, and the ones that can't there is likle ygoing to be enough for, we can't know until we try it htought but regardless it isn't an excuse to shoot people who disagree with you
>You think bleeding heart liberals are so numerous that this would be sufficient to replace the welfare state?
Start a PR campaign for people to donate to charities then, Generally i would assume it would be more likely that communties that are close would help out people there, but when you have bgiger cities where no one knows anyone it will be more difficult and there the bleeding heart liberals may be enough. Again even if it isn't the case, not an excuse to shoot people who disagree.
>So people will invariably die. There is no other way around it.
Possibly, maybe not death but possibly just a less comfortable life, they are the product of a unjust system
>No, I'm saying that not ENOUGH people will contribute ENOUGH money to support these people.
No way to know that for sure, i'd expect alot of people doing work to collect money for charity for it if people start dying though. Switching from an unjust society to a just society will for sure have some growing pains.
>So basically you're saying "well people will contribute what they can and the rest will die." That's not good enough, and if faced with the choice of "force people to give money at gunpoint" or "die" I would choose the former. As would all disabled people.
Or you could just use mtuirk (not much now but our economy is fucked and everything is inflated due to the fed, it would be possible to live off online stuff with ease in the future, i'ts posisble now just not easy.
Work does not equal death you lazy bum
>>28865347
It leads to degeneracy without religious backing. Libertarian atheists are the worst. Also it has a flawed global economic outlook.
>>28872024
>Women initate most divorces and divorces shot up with the government starte dto subsidize single moms
What the fuck are you even talking about with this "subsidizing single moms" shit? Single moms don't receive anything for being single moms. They receive benefits when they are POOR that are increased when they have dependents, just like how you pay less taxes when you have dependents.
>Yes people who want to help people will voluntarily help people why is that so absurd to you
Because literally everyone knows that medicaid and public healthcare in the United States is abysmal, and no one is helping people get better insurance out of the kindness of their hearts right now. Why would they suddenly start doing this if they didn't have to pay taxes to support those programs anymore? People DO NOT like to give away money in large amounts, and that's what it would take to insure all these mentally ill people on public aid effectively.
>I'd say a good ammount of the dissabled can still actually contribute economically
You have been endorsing online, low/no-skill work. That market is small, and the flood of disabled people that no longer receive benefits would vastly outnumber the amount of available work.
That market isn't going to just suddenly increase if taxes are removed from the equation, so we can say that there won't be enough work.
>Start a PR campaign for people to donate to charities then
Yes, let's have the people who have been deemed unable to work by a rigorous and difficult review system organize and execute a PR campaign that is effectively more work than they did before they were disabled. Sounds fucking excellent.
>Possibly, maybe not death but possibly just a less comfortable life, they are the product of a unjust system
So homelessness then? Disabled people don't get much more than the bare minimum anyway you know.
>>28865347
elements of it makes sense. it's impossible to practice in it's pure form.
>>28872065
>No way to know that for sure, i'd expect alot of people doing work to collect money for charity for it if people start dying though. Switching from an unjust society to a just society will for sure have some growing pains.
So again you admit that people will invariably die because of this, and it will mainly be the people that are unable to work or provide for themselves. No one else will have as tough of a time.
The disabled will be effectively purged.
>Or you could just use mtuirk (not much now but our economy is fucked and everything is inflated due to the fed, it would be possible to live off online stuff with ease in the future, i'ts posisble now just not easy.
I already explained mturk, and it's VERY hard to live off of just that right now anyway (I did this before disability.)
>Work does not equal death you lazy bum
You're right, but there isn't enough work that these people can feasibly do should their benefits be taken away, and it's not reasonable to assume that people will donate to support them.
So again, if faced with the choices
>we are going to remove all handouts. you will be supported by charity and donations, or you will have to fight for work online, or you will die. sorry.
>force people to give money in the form of taxes at gunpoint to support the people that cannot support themselves and thus save many lives at the cost of a reasonable percentage of their income (that pays for other shit they use, like roads, hospitals, sidewalks, etc)
I would choose the latter, every single time. So would every single other person who depends on welfare to survive.
Libertarianism WILL cause the purging of the weak. That's what it's designed to do.
>>28865347
damn lolbertarians
>>28872285
This is all based on your idea that charity won't be suffecient which you have no evidence to prove
you are basically viewing libertarianism as
today - welfare
when in reality our economy will be very different so problems you have now wouldnt be occuring then, supporting people will be way cheaper and more effecient so charity won't be as big a deal for example
can't know for sure but the idea of people just letting people starve to death is absurd I think you may be detatched from normal society a bit.
It's a possiblity just not a likely one, and it doesn't justify immoral action.
>>28872460
Letting people in their community* if it's far away and abstract it's different but as a minimum them being able to survive is reasonable
>>28872460
>won't be suffecient which you have no evidence to prove
Do you have any evidence to prove that it will? Any evidence that people donate massive amounts of money to causes that they didn't before when their incomes are increased 30% or less?
>supporting people will be way cheaper and more effecient so charity won't be as big a deal for example
This is actually something you have no way to prove, at all. People have been saying that free market healthcare will drive down the costs to reasonable levels for decades and it has never once been proven to be correct.
Rent and bills aren't going to drastically go down in price either. Neither will food, and those expenses right there are just about all of the average welfare income earner's monthly income.
>but the idea of people just letting people starve to death is absurd
I agree, but your solutions for replacing welfare are not sufficient, and would result in people starving to death or being homeless. I didn't even get into removing section 8 housing and other things which would cause even more problems.
>It's a possiblity just not a likely one, and it doesn't justify immoral action.
What's more immoral: "stealing" your money to distribute some of it to people who can't provide by themselves while the rest is distributed to services you use on a daily basis, or letting people die because you want more money?
Also on your point about not being able to work online today
I said we can't know past theory because we haven't had it in a while, might look up charity in the 19th century will do some research.
We don't have free market healthcare kek
Before you coul djust get prescriptoins from pharamicists now there is tons of regulation and regulations on health insurance doubles it up
a house in the 40s-50s would be worht like 17 thousand dollars in todays money, housing prices are hugely inflated
it would sell for hundred of thousands now and i think it's hard to say that building houses is more diffuclt now
Even wihtout going full free market just returning to sound currency our wages would be about 40% higher
In a free market an entrepenur sees a problem and can make money off of it, and whoever does it most effeciently does the best. There are tons of options whihc may work but yes none of them are guaranteed, the point of hte free market is the fidn the most effecient way to do so though.
Uh shooting people is more immoral then letting people voluntarily help people out.
Again do you really think in a prosperous society that homeless starving people dying in the streets would just be ignored?
>>28872611
>Again do you really think in a prosperous society that homeless starving people dying in the streets would just be ignored?
>United States
>Richest country in the world for decades
>homeless people are ignored
>homeless people do starve in the streets
>laws are passed to remove homeless people from areas when they are deemed "unsightly"
>every state and city trying to move their homeless to somewhere else so they don't have to deal with them
Yes, I do think that they would be ignored, because they already are, and it's not because there isn't enough money to help them.
>>28872526
it doesn't even need to be charity. Most people will be fine under libertarianism because they have social networks to support them. Only the socially inept and those unlucky to be born to shitty/irresponsible parents will be screwed.
>I'm STILL too much of a statist pussy to admit to being anarcho capitalist
>Also on your point about not being able to work online today
Forgot to talk about this
there are multiple jobs which pay like 13 bucks an hour for search engine evalution and stuff which require no experience or education, mturk is only one thing there are tons of options
Internet marketing stuff as well is a way people make a living off the internet and that doesn't have a limit on how man ypeople can do it really. Just takes initaitive and effort
If you want to learn a skill opens up a huge amount more but even without skills it's totally possible, and with cheaper housing it will be easy,
>>28872659
>Only the socially inept and those unlucky to be born to shitty/irresponsible parents will be screwed.
So it's okay to purge people through inaction as long as they are autistic, but it's not okay to take 20% of your paycheck to distribute less than 1% of what is taken to help these people?
>>28872667
Yes, people can do it. It's very difficult even today.
Do you think the job pool for internet work is large enough to support the entirety of the american disabled, and I keep forgetting to mention old people living off of social security so them too.
Do you really think there are THAT many jobs available? Do you realize that in order to survive on mturk/internet no/low-skill work you have to work a multitude of jobs? Do you think that there is enough work for every person to have multiple jobs, let alone one?
>Richest country in the world for decades
>homeless people are ignored
>homeless people do starve in the streets
>laws are passed to remove homeless people from areas when they are deemed "unsightly"
I live in portland which has a huge problem with homeless people
they are mostly drug addicts who assault people randomly and shit in public, the ones who actually try to get help do and they all live off food stamps.
Tons of food pantries and places help them though
Very few are dying of starvation if any, freezing to death is more common.
Googling looks like onyl starvations are kids with shitty parents
a homleess people wouldnt starve to death because you could just commit a crime and get food in jail or dumpster dive. Freezing to daeth is an actual concern though
>>28872730
Not really just takes a bit of effort, old peple should live off savings or family and if their incompetent that is their problem, and chairty might help them but I wouldnt donate to that.
Not all disabled people can't socialize plenty of them can do non-online work. They are useful labor which can be used and if someone takes advantage of it they can make alot of money.
>>28872662
i am an ancap
>>28872688
no it's not right to initate force against people, people are responsible for their own lives.
>>28872783
>no it's not right to initate force against people, people are responsible for their own lives.
So you're advocating the second hand purging of the autistic, basically. Just admit this, please. It is very obvious that you support this in full, but you just won't say it.
>they are mostly drug addicts who assault people randomly and shit in public,
You know that 50% of untreated schizos become homeless, right?
And you know that drug addiction can be fixed with proper healthcare and support, right?
But we shouldn't give those things to people. Spending money to reintegrate people into society is far too immoral, right?
>old peple should live off savings or family and if their incompetent that is their problem, and chairty might help them but I wouldnt donate to that.
So old people should die if they didn't save? Okay. So you're now advocating for both the purging of the socially inept/people with no support network, and old people.
>Not all disabled people can't socialize plenty of them can do non-online work. They are useful labor which can be used and if someone takes advantage of it they can make alot of money.
No one wants to hire disabled people. Companies are sometimes forced to become EOEs because disabled person applications are binned.
They are still binned even if they claim to be an EOE. Literally no one wants to hire the disabled.
>i am an ancap
Then you should know that your patron saint Ayn Rand believed a much more radical version of what you believe, and then did a complete 180 when she got older and realized that her dream system would fuck her in the ass and started advocating for the opposite of this.
And she used things like roads and hospitals throughout her entire life even though she was vehemently against them because they were built with tax money.
So basically what I am asking you to do is clarify your position on second hand/inaction purging of the autistic/socially inept and old. Yes or no?
