Legit intelligent minarchist/libertarian here. AMA

Legit intelligent minarchist/libertarian here. AMA.

Inb4 "but what about the roads?". But I'll answer that one if you want.

>implying roads are good

roads just bring about imigration faster! abolish roads! seize the means of imigration!

What is a Leppo ?

Is Destiny our guy?

how do you believe private institutions will be able to handle long term high budget projects covering large amounts of area and coordinating large groups of people?

Hopefully roads will be a thing of the past as soon as we get hover-crafts.

How will the country as a whole defend itself against foreign powers without an army

What happens when another group gets together, grows larger and more powerful than you, and then conquers you?

why would anyone care about roads?

How much does it hurt living in a commie nanny state?

>tfw to smart too debate you

god i wish i wasn't so smart

>Inb4 "but what about the roads?"

thats an-cap, not minarchist
Stop trying to make us look like you dumbasses

Open border or closed border?

>how do you believe private institutions will be able to handle long term high budget projects covering large amounts of area and coordinating large groups of people?
Of course. This is something mega-corporations already do.

>How will the country as a whole defend itself against foreign powers without an army?
Libertarians still believe in national armies. You're thinking of ancaps.

How do you handle orphans and the severely disabled?

Who pays for the fire dept to put out a fire in a nature reserve etc?

Could you perhaps concede that running courts and prisons for profit may lead to a conflict of interest?

>Open border or closed border?
In an ideal libertarian society where the welfare state doesn't exist, open borders. This is how America was founded. Anyone too dumb or unproductive to get by on their own merit will self-deport or starve.

If we're talking about intermediate modern states, however, strong borders are an absolutely necessity. Otherwise those undesirables who would normally self-deport will leech off the tax base and steal your money.

>How do you handle orphans and the severely disabled?
Through their guardian. Who serves as their guardian is up to society to decide, whether it's a family member or somebody unrelated. These are minor issues where parliaments/councils and such are the best deciders. These decisions are arbitrary, but must be made. For example, you need to decide on an age for adulthood.

>Who pays for the fire dept to put out a fire in a nature reserve etc?
The landowner.

>intelligent
>libertarian
pick one

why do you say minarchist but then show the ancap guy. You are a fucking disgrace

how can you protect the borders of your nation from neighbouring and invading countries?

>Could you perhaps concede that running courts and prisons for profit may lead to a conflict of interest?
Not anymore than any other private government contractor. For example, modern day construction companies lobby government to waste public money of grossly overpriced deals. This is all part of the corruption that comes when government is too big.

which ones? the ones receiving governmental funding to do so?

Why aren't you anarcho corporatist? Humans should be citizens of the company they work for, not the lands they live on.

How many ancap/libertarian books have you read?

Do you prefer McDonald's Tactical Recreational Warheads™ or Verizon's Fun-For-All Dirty Bombs™?

So, if you have open borders, how do you prevent other nations from settling and colonizing your land?

How does not having any environmental regulations work? Wouldn't the bodies of water become masses of sludge and the air filled with smog all the time?

What happens when so many jobs are automated away that there no longer exist enough employment opportunities for people to subsist and welfare doesn't exist?

inb4 "who knows about the jobs of the future, there will always be jobs" increases in productivity and technology are in direct opposition to jobs and unless you expect to increase consumption infinitely somehow (without running out of resources) there will be an inevitable unemployment discrepancy

fucking neo liberals mans

Would you say schools would become privatized, or a wide-reaching franchise?

>So, if you have open borders, how do you prevent other nations from settling and colonizing your land?
They still have to pay (low/voluntary) tax and abide by the rules of the land. If they don't, then it's war.

>How does not having any environmental regulations work? Wouldn't the bodies of water become masses of sludge and the air filled with smog all the time?
Privatize the environment. If somebody owned the oceans, then they wouldn't let it get filled with sludge. Dead serious here.

>What happens when so many jobs are automated away that there no longer exist enough employment opportunities for people to subsist and welfare doesn't exist?
That's a non-argument. Automation is not a problem because it results in increased productivity (i.e., they increase overall wealth). The producer now is richer, so he's free to purchase other goods and services, and create entirely new industries with that wealth. As an example, "youtuber" is now a full-time job in the modern world, which only became possible thanks to increased wealth and productivity from technology. This "robotics will make everyone unemployed!" is a nonsensical boogieman.

>increases in productivity and technology are in direct opposition to job growth
Citation needed. Anywhere there is wealth, there will be jobs.

>Would you say schools would become privatized
Absolutely. Private enterprise is ALWAYS more efficient than government spending. Instead of relying on babbling government officials to decide school curriculum (which results in dumb shit like the SJW infestation), it should be up to the parents. That way if they're not happy with the curriculum or the results, they can take their money elsewhere or demand changes from the administration, as they're a paying customer.

>non-argument
Productivity is the amount of value that can be produced per person. An increase in productivity means less people are needed to create the same amount of value. That means, for the level of jobs to stay at least the same, the amount of value demanded in an economy has to increase at least proportional to that, plus the excess value extracted from owners.

But given that by mathematical necessity no society has a marginal propensity to consume equal to or greater than 1, the value simply cannot increase that much. Your argument is only one that the rate of increase of unemployment is negligible -- but it is still present under every circumstance. New industries open as older ones close but the net result of increases in productivity is that there are just less jobs per people. The best possible solution to this in an idealised would be to apply some sort of socialist distribution of equal wealth as that would achieve the highest possible marginal propensity to consume and hence keep the most jobs open as possible, but even with this, unstoppable growing unemployment is inevitable.

Your answer to my question was a non-answer.

So if I own a mine and the land around it why wouldn't I extract the material as efficiently as possible for max profit and leave it a polluted wasteland?

Just because I own something doesn't mean it's in my interest to care for its long term well being.