How come lolbertarians can't be reasoned with? They're like commies...

How come lolbertarians can't be reasoned with? They're like commies, they think their ideology is better than everyone else's and infallible.

Also general snek thread

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

interesting thing is tho, theirs is one of the only theories in which one's own ideology is recognized as better for oneself only ... commies want to impose their personal morality on all people and kill off large swathes of the population. libertarians just want to be left alone and have guns just in case

Reminder that if Rand had died yesterday that the next President would be a libertarian.

Ideologies can't be reasoned with.

liberal or conservative?

it's different, yanno

Not necessarily better for oneself though, considering that you'd have private toll roads, and you'd probably have to pay for fire or police insurance if you ever thought you'd need them.

Unlike commies, their idealogies haven't been tried, come on, what do you have to lose?
I mean, yeah, most of your rights, roads, probably your life, but hey it's better than living under a cucked country, whereas you can shoot niggers without repercussions, but I would be against that.
Just chain them up and sell them.
Mhmm, capitalism minus regulation.

Highly doubt that.
Not really, they're both bad for different reasons.

I hate that the Gadsden flag is so closely associated with the Libertarians. It represents something much bigger than that.

Who said we were infallible?
No one ideology has only upsides. There's always a worst case scenario where shit falls apart, it's just that our worst case is a lot more fun.
Who here would prefer 1984 dystopia to a Mad Max wasteland?

That's ancap faggot, they're different.

Same, we should take it back from those faggots.

Seriously all libertarians I've ever talked to think the free market can solve any major problem, like healthcare. That's been tried in many countries and even the US for the past 50+ years before the ACA, and it simply doesn't work.

I dont think most Gadsden flags are purist Libertarians. Just Right WIng smaller government types.

The AnCaps are probably more ideological libertarians. I could be wrong.

...

Tell me what justifies the government to do things that would be completely unacceptable for a private individual or group to carry out, other than it being necessary.

Kind of a shitty argument, the government is elected by the people to run the country. They're given the right, through the vote, to run the country as they see fit.

No I get that the free market can cause problems in several areas. However, I keep finding that, atleast in the US, our federal government does far more harm than good in trying to correct this. Obamacare sure as hell didn't improve our healthcare.
>just right wing smaller government types
Is that not Libertarianism? I thought lack of government was An-Cap.

>elected by the people to ruin the country
ftfy
>run the country as they see fit.
Not given. They take that right because we, as a people, choose not to stop them.
Also liberal democracy is not the only model of a functional government.

Improved for some, made worse for others. You must admit that based on the numbers alone, more people have health coverage.

The very poor got the long end of the stick, it's the lower middle class that got the worst of it.

>America had a free market in healthcare.

This vicious meme spread by Bernie Sanders is poisoning our politics.

America has Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, each of which are single payer systems, and covered 50% of healthcare costs. That's right; America is half single-payer.

In addition the private healthcare market is writ large inaccessible except through employers, and is loaded to the top with regulations, licensing, and patents. Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore are far more market-based than the US in healthcare.

I pay for that shit anyway through taxes.

libertarianism is based on the NAP and private property rights. Private property is the only legitimate property, so the state cannot exist; however, I do believe that "anarchy" shouldn't be used to describe libertarians. Anarchy means without hierarchy, but the very existence of private property implies a hierarchy

Ok, so is it morally permissible for me to hold an event with an auditorium full of people where someone is elected by vote to rob a bank?

>implying health coverage is equivalent to health care
That's a bit of a stretch. Not that the health of the people was the primary concern of the bill's authors. The health metric of their concern was that of the insurance industry. Too many people weren't buying into their racket.
If the concern for the people's health were genuine, single payer would have been passed without compromise. But that's not the land of the hustle.

It's just labels really. There are overlaps. Murray Rothbard (pictured under Libertarian in the black graphic above) is associated with Ancap.

>more people have health coverage
What do you mean by coverage, exactly? I've spoken to a couple of people who work healthcare fraud, and they believe that most of the poor was already getting covered sufficiently under state healthcare laws. Additionally, most hospital bills for certain surgeries were getting forgiven by the hospitals themselves. Is this at all true?

Why do you hate intellectual property so much, if you like a free market?
>50% of health care costs
Would like some sauce for that number. I bet you're looking at $, not persons covered.

Libertarians have actual statistical data and real life proof supporting their side.

What do fascists have? All they do is call everyone who proves them wrong a Jew.

>The very poor got the long end of the stick, it's the lower middle class that got the worst of it.
So they robbed the least powerful productive class of society to pay for parasites so that the parasites would vote for them. Why would I want to give these assholes more power over me?

I'm not against all IP, just patents, and some more abusive forms of copyrights.

And yes, 40-50% of the costs, not people are single payer.

I think part of it is because a true libertarian hasn't really been implemented in any significant scale.

Imagine for a moment a government that ensures your liberties and actually leaves you the fuck alone....

But we don't have a free market for healthcare.

That's fair, but bear in mind that old people, poor people, veterans, and service personnel are high-cost groups. One of the goals of Medicare-for-All was to broaden the risk pool while still driving down rates for everyone through administrative cost reduction and alignment of incentives. Instead the health care companies got a license to grab up to 20% of premiums paid for themselves.
kek nice memeball

>police, roads, and firefighters are all free :DDDD
Oh my god, state-babbies are so braindead.

You already do pay for all that. Except now, you only have to pay for them when you need them instead of continually, and it's cheaper because it is provided by the free market without the unnecessary overhead of bureaucracy.

God, I hate moderate statist retards. At least fascists take their ideology to the extreme, recognize and accept their slave status. Meanwhile moderate statists are stolen from, then given a small portion of their money back in piss-poor services, and then consider the state a godsend because they think they are getting irreplaceable services for free.

Fascists, if you do win, can you at least agree to kill these fucks too?

Bitch nigga, there will always be enough government there somewhere for you to claim "not really free". Just grow some nuts and be an ancap, everyone's sick of your shit.

>pay for them only when needed
>hasn't heard of price gouging
>hasn't heard of surge pricing
You might drop the pompous intellectual posture. The facts as observed aren't doing you any favors.
>unnecessary overhead of bureaucracy
>hasn't heard of executives
>hasn't heard of profit
Nah.

It's only gotten more expensive since we've gotten the government involved.

what about those that either have made a mistake or could not afford should they die are they not your people?

>ignoring the fact that all those other countries have government way more involved than here
gold star for you

Go to a charity hospital.

its getting more expensive because treatment is getting expensive also people stop taking care of themselfs

>ignoring the point entirely
Good job

Because they are as dumb as commies.
Both promote a completely anti-natural ideology. In fact; capitalism and communism are just two sides of the same shekel.

Both societies would result in the same in the long run.

...

>it's getting more expensive because it's getting more expensive
Uhhh...do you want to rephrase that sentence maybe?

It is not that the ideology is better, it is that most other ideologys tend to tread on me

>I'm not against all IP, just patents, and some more abusive forms of copyrights.

Then you will get no more IP - includin kick ass games. That shit costs money to make

Not a lolbertarian, but why would anyone hold an ideology if they didn't believe it was the best one?
>Fascists, if you do win, can you at least agree to kill these fucks too?
Will do.

>thinking you made a point when you actually BTFO of yourself, then complaining that the person you're arguing with is missing the point you actually destroyed with the post you made trying to make the point in the first place

If you don't pay for something continually, yes, you'll pay more for it when you do pay for it.

Thing is, you'll have so much more money since you won't have so much taxed away from you into a bureaucratic nightmare, feeding some fat politician who doesn't give enough of a fuck to do his job properly.

>unnecessary overhead of bureaucracy
>hasn't heard of executives
>hasn't heard of profit
Those two concepts have nothing to do with government. If you're going for the "oh well businesses have their own demons!" profit rewards efficiency and executives run shit.

And facts? Don't bring those up. They aren't on your side, commie.

>government is not involved in healthcare
>healthcare is cheap
>government gets involved in healthcare
>healthcare becomes expensive
Do I need to dumb it down for you more or is it starting to click?

i guess i could have put it a bit different i know there is a lot of private research and that is fine but to rely completly on the mercy of strangers is not a good ideia also there is medical research that or just reasearch that goverment is better at funding the one with no imediate profit also you attribute the rising cost just to government and that is not true medication its self has been getting more expensive its self

>but to rely completly on the mercy of strangers is not a good ideia
Why not? There's thousands of Catholic hospitals scattered throughout the world, people seem to trust them for some reason.

Also you need to slow down, or learn English better, or something. You're very hard to understand.

Are you really this thick?

All those countries you posted where healthcare is much cheaper than here have much more government involvement. So how does your post show that government is the problem? Does it not show the opposite?

Also do you even know what the axes are on that chart? Are you just trolling me? Sadly I think not.

Anyway, keep harping on your counterfactual world where government doesn't do anything and you just know it'd be great even though it's never existed and hasn't been tried.

How come pirates are such gigantic faggots?

BIGGER
>Thing is, you'll have so much more money since you won't have so much taxed away from you into a bureaucratic nightmare, feeding some fat politician who doesn't give enough of a fuck to do his job properly.
Oh will I? You don't think I'll be paying some monopolist landlord who doesn't give enough of a fuck to do his job properly, as much as I can bear, just because he can?
You seem to be trying to sell me the notion that private enterprise doesn't stink and isn't parasitic.
Profit rewards efficiency, but service is antithetical to efficiency. No prizes for guessing where that ends up.
Right at the DMV nightmare you all keep citing.

It did get more expensive for those countries after they got the government involved though. Even when praising the healthcare of other countries your still praising a system that lead to higher costs.

need to learn it better i did teach my self how to speak it so grammar was not a part of it

>It did get more expensive for those countries after they got the government involved though
which correlates with a lot of new treatments, longer lifespans, etc.

Social insurance and medical technology are both things societies have when the become wealthier. That's the cause of both trends, increased government involvement in healthcare and increased healthcare costs.

But taken by itself, as your chart shows, government involvement in healthcare lowers costs. Which makes sense, I mean how is some sick person going to be an informed, free-to-choose consumer? Why would you expect a free market to work for it?

>whereas you can shoot niggers without repercussions, but I would be against that.
>Just chain them up and sell them.

You've never heard of the non-aggression principle have you, Squidward?

>Oh will I? You don't think I'll be paying some monopolist landlord who doesn't give enough of a fuck to do his job properly, as much as I can bear, just because he can?
He loses customers, who can't afford to pay his ridiculously high rent, loses business, and quickly gets supplanted by a more realistic landlord. Competition gives you better and better.

Furthermore, unlike natural resources, to hold a monopoly over apartments you would have to hold a monopoly over all apartment buildings that have been and will be. Such a thing is only possible if a state were intervening to stop other business owners from getting in on the action with regulations.

Monopolies form due to state intervention in the market.

>You seem to be trying to sell me the notion that private enterprise doesn't stink and isn't parasitic.
You seem to be under the delusion that market forces don't act on business owners, limiting greed. A business that becomes to greedy gets supplanted by a business that offers a better deal, because there is no government acting as a gatekeeper to any industry.

Whats stopping leftycucks from setting up a metastate within an ancap region? I never got what the issue is. If you wanna get together and pay for achmed's fullride, go ahead - just leave the rest of us out of it.

>price gouging
Name an instance of price gouging in a free market.

>He loses customers, who can't afford to pay his ridiculously high rent, loses business, and quickly gets supplanted by a more realistic landlord. Competition gives you better and better.
Fantasy. Where is the competition going to come from when land and homes in general, not just apartments, can be privately owned without limit? Why wouldn't the rich collude just the same as today and offer only leases, not proper sales? What, exactly, forces them to compete in your fantasy world?
Wealth's natural tendency is to concentrate.
>You seem to be under the delusion that market forces don't act on business owners, limiting greed
You seem to be under the delusion that market forces work at all, in particular, that information asymmetry is not enabled by markets, and that powerful people do not have class interests more in common than in conflict. It is the widespread recognition of those class interests that enables ruling classes to form.
Now, outside of this sort of weak, non-binding moral expectation that the owners compete, what makes you think that they wouldn't form oligopolies and pretend to compete like professional wrestlers do?

this goy gets it. also we wont need roads once we all have McHelicopters

data caps

but US is a regulated market. Ignore me; i'm drunk

fuck ISPs

>Now, outside of this sort of weak, non-binding moral expectation that the owners compete, what makes you think that they wouldn't form oligopolies and pretend to compete like professional wrestlers do?
Because there is profit to be had by actually competing. When you don't artificially restrict business, every hungry-ass motherfucker is going to seize on inefficiencies and resolve them with competition for their own benefit as well as the consumer's benefit. This happens all the time in even our butchered form of capitalism. It will be even better with less government interference.

I get it, you think people lack agency, because you yourself lack agency and think papa gov needs to step into every little aspect to make sure someone doesn't win too hard, not realizing that in a free system, the person who wins the hardest is also doing the best, because they aren't being propped up by shit legislation and red tape.

We're all adults, we can compete like ones. We don't need teacher to come in and make sure everyone gets participation trophies.

Naw we believe it would be better for almost everyone, and for those it wouldn't be better for... well, nothing could have save them anyway.

SHUT THE FUCK UP COMMIE. NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE UNDER YOUR GLORIFIED DYSGENICS PROGRAM OF AN IDEOLOGY.

They've tried that and it doesn't work. (Google Israeli Kibbutzim.) Why doesn't it work?

Because they are postmodernists opposed to all hierarchy, (i.e. social structure) and therefore they are totalitarians that want control over EVERYONE ELSE'S LIFE — not just their own, in the case of a libertarian or an ancap. They're not JUST opposed to involuntary, external state control — that is, they don't just want everyone to be free... because otherwise they'd be ancaps:

The free market is a phenomenon that arises from freedom: People naturally exchange value (whether money, barter, service, etc.) for goods they deem valuable. From that, arises supply and demand, and prices. That's the most intuitive way to allocate scarce resources that have alternate uses. It's the way free people naturally organize themselves.

Otherwise, the voluntary socialist kibbutzim in Israel, and the hippy communes wouldn't all eventually dissolve, and socialism/communism wouldn't need to be enforced by the state. There also wouldn't be any such thing as black markets, either. Capitalism/free markets — since they arise from free exchange — would require totalitarianism to suppress. So if you're an anarcho-communist, you'd need enforced anarchy (a self-evident contradiction). And if you're simply against all hierarchy, you would again need to enforce anarchy.

To prevent natural social hierarchies and structures and capitalism from forming, you'd need to use an external force — the state — to tear them down. Because hierarchies form naturally and in all forms of creative output (look up the pareto and natural distributions), you'd need totalitarianism to enforce anarchy... which is self-evidently impossible.

You can't be an pro freedom without being pro free market.

Isn't that every political ideology tho?

>Because there is profit to be had by actually competing
But there is less risk to be had by colluding. Which one leads to a more stable place in society? You're assuming interests that don't actually exist, and Yyou're ignoring the well-documented psychological phenomenon of loss aversion.
>cheap psychoanalysis
>We're all adults, we can compete like ones
Why would we? There's less risk in not doing so. Nobody needs authorities to simply not compete, despite what you have heard. The competitive psychopath can be taken care of by the community themselves.

Enough people do that you have to continually play dirty pool against them, lie to them, constrain their options, prevent them from accumulating enough resources, in order to prevent them from forming that community.
Are all capitalists lying piece of shit that need to be hanged on meat hooks and beaten like piñatas, or just you?

PARASITE

mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>US healthcare for the last 50 years was free market
I think the lolbergs are dumb too but please stahp making stupid claims. This is Bernout-tier idiocy.

youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw

>a dead guy's polemics
What's that have to do with that it's always more profitable to collude than to compete? If it weren't, there wouldn't have to be anti-trust laws.

I appreciate the rundown, guess i was being overly simplistic in thinking that if *-coms were to sign a contract or whatever to give their souls to the machine, itd be within the NAP. Anyways thanks I'll read about the kikeutzim tomorrow. Stay strong against the hoard of /leftypol/ brother.

A reform of IP laws and removing some versio s of it is not the same as havi g no IP laws. If you think the copyright system is anywhere near in it's best state, then you need to get your head checked. Just look at the copyright system on youtube; plethoras of 99% original content get taken down because it had a few seconds of a song made by a long dead artist who has already made it.

It's a fucking cult, like every political ideology. Though they're still more reasonable than most nazis
They're generally the most reasonable if they're on the right. If they're left "libertarians" them they're basically retards

Not true commie. All so called "natural monopolies" are fractal offspring of the arbitrary monopoly on authority we grant to the state via mob rule.

>what is linux
>muh kick-ass games
Go outside, user. Entertaining you is a waste of labor.

Nope.

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

>not true
>commie
Not even an argument.
>All so called "natural monopolies" are fractal offspring of the arbitrary monopoly on authority we grant to the state via mob rule.
Now that's just word salad. The rule of force would lead to very similar conclusions. What does the collusion of separate similar but distinct interests have to do with monopoly, natural or otherwise? You're floating in the wind, leaf.

ALL NATURAL MONOPOLIES ARE FRACTAL OFFSPRING OF THE ARBITRARY MONOPOLY ON AUTHORITY WE GRANT TO THE STATE VIA MOB RULE.

...

What natural monopoly are you referring to, exactly? Or is this some sort of liturgy I'm supposed to sing with you?

When a group of businesses form a cartel, they almost instantly dissolve on their own. Here's why:

>People are greedy.
>Businesses are run by people.
>So, businesses are greedy.
>Because they are greedy, businesses compete for money.
>The vast majority of businesses compete with prices.
We'll leave competing based on value-delivery and marketing out of this, for simplicity's sake.
>When businesses form a cartel, each member agrees to a set price, and they divide the market.
>Being greedy, each business wants more than his agreed upon marketshare.
>So one or more businesses undercuts the other members of the price-fixing cartel.
>Cutting his prices earns him more marketshare.
>Thus, he earns more than he would by participating in the cartel.
>The other cartel members become upset at being undercut and losing marketshare.
>They compete on prices and value.

Or someone starts a new business with better prices and/or better products and the cartel falls apart from without as well as from within.

Or, what will sometimes happen when there's one business and no competitors — like back when there was one aluminum supplier in the US — there aren't any competitors because there's no demand for any. Sometimes one business hits the sweet spot of the ideal price, the ideal value, and the ideal niche... the customers are happy enough with that business that nobody can compete.

In principle, there's nothing wrong with that... UNLESS... there's an arbitrary barrier to new competition. This is virtually always created with help from the state, as is the case with ISPs. The only other way a business could arbitrarily prevent competition is with force — which would violate the NAP and be dealt with swiftly in a libertarian/minarchist/ancap society.

Either way, in a free market, the average dude (customers and workers) wins.

You're welcome. I knew there had to be some reason I effortpost.

o7

So what if I think I'm better than you. Liberatarianism is about non-intervention and voluntarism.

I'll support Facism as long as leftism exists though.

The real debate is between Fascism and Libertarianism but we can't have it until all leftist scum is purged.

>Ancap.

What the fuck are you talking about? The problem with the leftists is that they're collectivist. The whole point of fascism is collectivism.

>People are greedy
Crashed right out of the gate. The ruling class recognizes their class interest and exhibit class solidarity. That's why they win and the rest of us lose.
How can you be this easily fooled by their palace intrigue?

>little white fanny packs

This. Hitler was just Bernie Sanders + Ethnonationalism.

Gibs me dat for white ppl only.

You seem to have forgotten the Hill-Burton act that funded community hospitals, in order to ensure that care would be made available. Now we have consolidation.

>collectivism is leftism
Not entirely. Leftism is the product of inferior people assuming that they are equal. It's the fundamental assumption that race, class and ability do not exist. Fascism is the best system if a state had to exist.

Fascism did a better job at purging commie scum than we did and they also preserved race.

The problem with a lot of Libertarians is that they are too principled that they won't resort to any authoritarian measures to truly secure a Libertarian future for whites.

You are confusing National Socialism with Fascism. They are not the same thing.

You're thinking of ancaps. Libertarians aren't muh roads, they're the doodweed of the right-wing

Communism has never been tried.