Libertarianism is a mental disorder

Libertarianism is a mental disorder

Libertarianism is wrong on many issues but the only ones who are so butthurt about it are the commies
So fuck off

People who can't post meaningful criticisms of libertarianism are literally too stupid for a libertarian society. The wonderful thing about a libertarian society, is that people can disassociate from people like you and can form their own communes separate from low IQ parasites like you.

Like what?

It's a self eroding philosophy that creates its own problems which in turn demand rules and regulations in order to prevent people from stepping on each others toes. There will always be a state, and state will always be required for large groups of people.

Unargued assertions, the mark of a low IQ poster.

How do you fix monopolies like (((Facebook))) and (((Google))) without state intervention?
How do you fix rampant faggotry without state education?

>inb4 state caused these issues in the first place
This might be right but it doesn't answer the questions

if i want a tiny amount of government, a tiny social safety net for the truly misfortunate, public roads, public schools, etc. what am I?

>people can disassociate from people like you and can form their own communes
Sounds like communism.
>separate from low IQ parasites like you.
how authoritarian of you.

A normal well-adjusted person.

There's no monopoly with google and you shouldn't even be on Jew book

abolish their intellectual property right

We could have private citizens that everyone pays a little towards to provide safety from things like that

You obviously have the foresight of a chimpanzee. Typical lolbertarian. One day you'll grow up and realize that you're not the only person in the world.

This is the wonderful thing about libertarianism. Morons like you would die. Learn to distinguish libertarianism as a board political philosophy that encompasses minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Libertarian is synonymous with the former.

There would be a state.

> How do you fix monopolies like (((Facebook))) and (((Google))) without state intervention?
You don't understand what a monopoly is. You've put parentheses around Google and Facebook suggesting they're part of some global Jewish conspiracy. And you are asking a basic question Austrian economists have dealt with before. You're a waste of time.

A normal well-adjusted human being

A conservative.

>Morons like you would die
This is wishful thinking of the grandest order. Morons won't die, they're far too useful.

Sounds like taxes. Who would collect these taxes and organize the flow of such funds towards the goal? Do we call it the government? The state, or something else?

>create a libertarian society where everyone lives in little Fallout like communes
>all of the sudden these guys show up and tell you that you are part of the People's Republic of China now
>they tell you that you will from now on pay taxes and obey the law
>one retard shouts that they're violating the NAP and that he'll attack them if they don't leave
>one of the machinegunners fires 300 rounds in his fatass
what do?

> Sounds like communism.
Now I know you're a waste of time.

> a tiny social safety net for the truly misfortunate, public roads, public schools, etc. what am I?
All of these could be handled by the market and the community

>le libertarianism is corporatism meme

>britbong hating freedom
Why i am not surprised?

Let my insurance company sort it out.

They can all exist in a libertarian society, as well. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy and it is not the complete absence of government.

>unargued assertions
>doesn't provide argument against assertions

Morons tend to breed out of control and move into your perfect utopias only to step the on the toes of lolbertarians. In order to prevent this, you must implement certain first strike counter measures. Which would go against your lolbertarian values.

What do other nation states do when they get attacked by another country? I.e. Ukraine, Tibet, Nazi Germany

The fundamental problem I have with Libertarianism and Anarchism is that they're rooted in the concept of natural rights, which don't exist in any meaningful sense. The only reason I respect these supposed rights today is that they've become legal, but they're still founded on a false premise.

(((OP)))

libertarians understand the real politics better than cuckservatives and neoliberals which are 90% of political people

No point engaging people who don't argue their assertions.

> Morons tend to breed out of control
Only when there is wealth redistribution via welfare programs or in the case of Africa, foreign aid.

I don't use either. However these entities shape the consciousness of masses and they promote harmful ideologies that are bound to influence my life negatively sooner or later.
Whether you call these monopolies in technical sense or not is irrelevant because they function as such. The very nature of social media is that they're dysfunctional without a huge base of users so the new companies are not able to attract users even if they offer a better quality of service (but with smaller user base), Same goes for the search engine, the more people use them, the harder it is to compete.

You seem autistic m8 I expect there will be at least 40 answers by (you) ITT defending your precious ideology by calling other meanie names

It is in any feasible modern application.

Mexican cartel loving freedom, why am I not surprised?

You are actually legitimately retarded.

Neither of your replies made an iota of sense.

>proud civic nationalist

kek

>always fighting defensive wars
Typical lolbertarian. This is how you lose.

Property rights are real, argumentation ethics proves it without a doubt.

The difference is I can choose to pay for a service from a private citizen.
What, it wasn't the leaf?

Probably because you're too stupid to understand the idea of hypocrisy.

Someone doesn't play moo.

> However these entities shape the consciousness of masses and they promote harmful ideologies that are bound to influence my life negatively sooner or later.

You would be free to start your own news agency or whatever to counter it.

> Whether you call these monopolies in technical sense or not is irrelevant because they function as such.

You don't understand what a monopoly is. This sentence is meaningless.

> the harder it is to compete.
They do a good job, what's wrong?

> You seem autistic m8 I expect there will be at least 40 answers by (you) ITT defending your precious ideology by calling other meanie names
People should really not give morons like you the time of day. At least understand what you attack. I am not against you raising questions but when you do it as if you know what you're talking about and then spout of just factually incorrect things, it's annoying.


> Mexican cartel loving freedom, why am I not surprised?
???

>nation states
>states

This is why your retarded ideology doesn't work

>h-h-hello insurance company?
>Yes hello sir, how can we help you today?
>I-I am at war with China... could you send some one over to help me and my commune out? they've got like a giant army and shit...
>I'm sorry we are unable to assist you with that but we urge you to call us back in the future if you need our help. Good day Mr. user.
what now?

>what do other nation states do
use their army and government organisation which they build up over several years with tax money

All this samefagging, any real libertarian would of pointed out the fact that your pic is a Strawman assuming both situations are forced.

How pathetic do you have to be to samefag this many posts u retarded cuck?

>The difference is I can choose to pay for a service from a private citizen.
Sounds like capitalism. Wealth accumulates, that's how you end up with the Zuckerbergs and Rothschilds of the world. Not that completely disagree, but you need to make sure these people do not become the state, themselves, and that requires a state beforehand with rules and regulations. Basically, lolbertarians lack any degree of foresight.

> what now?
People will likely have defense resources pooled up.

> use their army and government organisation which they build up over several years with tax money
Hire insurance companies, or use their tax payer funded army. Libertarianism encompasses minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I am a minarchist.

>I play Master of Orion on the easiest dif as psylons
>Look guys I can play only defensively and win
Try that with Stellaris, you will fail.

Name one successful historical society which was based on libertarian principles.
Oh right, Libertarian Jesus said empirical evidence is not relevant to his theory, how convenient :D

Stop the infighting on Sup Forums. Regardless if you are libertarian or not, let's just get along for once shall we?

>They do a good job, what's wrong?
Yeah because turning half of population into functional retards spewing leftist bullshit is doing a good job as long as they make some shekels.
See this is why you're an autist, you pick up one arbitrary principle of generating wealth and ignore the whole world besides it.

>People will likely have defense resources pooled up.
some rednecks who own a lot of guns aren't going to do jack shit against an organised army with drone strikes, jets, tanks,...

>Hire insurance companies
which fucking insurance company is going to war with fucking China? what kind of a suicidal company are we talking about here

No, because in Communism you literally are not allowed to disassociate from the rest of the community because it relies on everyone contributing, AKA everyone has an enforced social responsibility. So you're not just wrong, you're pretty much as wrong as it's possible to get because it sounds like the exact opposite of Communism.

Somehow your second point manages to be even more retarded. How on earth is simply not dealing with someone authoritarian? Authoritarian implies authority, as anyone with a basic grasp of language can tell. Where is the authority over the idiots like yourself in this scenario? How on earth does not living near someone equate to authority over them? I genuinely don't even know how you arrived at that.

People like you make me thankful for what I have because I would rather be dead than live the braindead life that you must lead.

>Only when there is wealth redistribution via welfare programs or in the case of Africa, foreign aid.
Then explain India, and China.

> low IQ raises refuted argument against libertarianism
See Iceland. See early America. See Hong Kong. See Singapore.

>argumentation ethics
Yes, "everyone who disagrees is wrong" is a sound argument.

USA from its beginning until 1920 or something (when they darted out of the gold standard)
Singapore
Hong Kong
Sweden until the 70's
Switzerland p much

You end up with those because they can use state power. And your solution is... state power.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

>How on earth is simply not dealing with someone authoritarian?
Because you have to keep them out of your lands by force, dumbass. That requires first strikes and breaking your precious NAP. Like I said, you have a complete lack of foresight.

switzerland

The reason libertarianism isn't popular and never will be is because its main proponents sound like this jackass and alienate anyone who'd actually want to investigate its ideas

They will tell them that "morons will die" just like this poster!!

>Iceland
Are you talking about medieval Iceland? That collapsed rather quickly, and Iceland had a populations in tens of thousands at that time.
>early America
Not libertarian, and government involved itself more and more as America thrived. Besides that, using America is just dishonest, America is a fucking continent full of fertile land and other resources. It's a very peculiar example.
>Hong Kong
>Singapore
Far from libertarian. De-facto dictatorship in case of Singapore. They are right-wing in economic sense, that's all. And both are peculiar examples, due to their location.

> some rednecks who own a lot of guns aren't going to do jack shit against an organised army with drone strikes, jets, tanks,...
They can buy SAM missles and everything else needed. Or biological weapons.

> which fucking insurance company is going to war with fucking China? what kind of a suicidal company are we talking about here
They could buy nukes, missles, etc.
> suicidal
It would be fight or get destroyed by China once they invade.

Look, you're a waste of time

Look dude, the arguments ITT are cliche arguments repeated ad infinitum. You don't have to respond to all of them. Libertarianism is very scary to low IQ people living off welfare. Some people are biologically made to be slaves. I've been in these threads before and it's the same arguments. Most of these people could have their answers answered if they went to Mises or some other place. But they don't. In fact they attack libertarianism and free market capitalism callously.

So cut your loses with some people and move on.

Why would any country go to war with libertarians?

You can't fight a convential war (see US vs Hajis for the past 15 years) Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan.

So you would have to wipe out all life in the libertarian country with WMDs which would invoke a similar response and mutual destruction.

Already covered first three.
>Sweden until the 70's
Absolutely false.
>Switzerland p much
''p much'' no.
None of the examples you use were libertarian. Furthermore, ALL of them had geopolitical situation favor them.

le helicopter XDDD!!!

Nah people like you deflect the arguments. Some people are just really that stupid. There's no point wasting time with them.

I am happy to have a nice a discussion with people. But most people are purely disingenuous. They make assertions they cant prove. They dont stay on their points. So it really is a matter of allocating a scarce resource (my time) to the people who need it most (>90IQ people who aren't biological slaves).

Not an ancap. I believe in state provided defense.

>Because you have to keep them out of your lands by force, dumbass.
Wait so private property is authoritarian to you?
Fuck off with that retard shit, or else tell me where you live so I can come help myself to your house. You're not a tyrant are you?

>private individuals will acquire nukes and sam missles
lmao how deluded can one get

if this country turned libcuck, I'd start a fascist movement with the goal of taking over the country and establishing a fascist ethno-state

trust me, I wouldn't be the only one with plans like that

Libertarianism contains decent to good critique of current United States corporate capitalism.

Libertarianism doesn't offer a realistic solution to them.

It's a nice idea to apply on a small scale whenever you can, but fails terribly at large scale where subversion and taking advantage are instant instincts of wealth and power holders.

>Why would any country go to war with libertarians?
Resources.
>You can't fight a convential war
You can.
>So you would have to wipe out all life in the libertarian country
This is where libertarian ignorance of reality and history shows. Name ONE society in entire human history that resisted a conqueror to the last man.
It doesn't exist. Majority of people bend over when confronted with violence. THAT is human nature.
What you cretins do is you create a simplistic social model and ignore reality, and BAM, you have a perfect ideology :D

>You can't fight a convential war
Why? You wouldn't have an army now? Your state gets smaller every time I hear you speak, just become anarchists already.

>Iceland
look up how taxes and their laws work, besides the gibsmedats that are forced by the EU, they're p much a libertarian state
Look up Hong Kongs and SIngapore's tax laws, they'p re p much v libertarian, their government is just focused on contract agreement and defense, as it should be
>America is a fucking continent full of fertile land and other resources
So is north korea, venezuela, russia and fucking 2/3 of the continent of afica, it so happens to be they adopted left leaning politics :/

>meme full of text
not a single valid argument.

why do authoritarians do this shit? it's like deep down they know their ideology boils down to slavery and need to make freedom seem ridiculous.

Its unitols and demolitions, but you're a shit noob who doesn't understand basic strategy, or moo at all for that matter. Defensive wars are best, because you will always have the luxury of responding and receiving the opponent. Read Sun Tzu. He agreed. His axioms on attacking first are often taken out of context.

Demoliths. Autocomplete is dumb.

Freedom is slavery (unironically)

>a company that can build it's own army and terrorize the population isn't a problem
>but the state which is bound by laws is

Yes, you need the state to prevent people from creating their own state, or subverting the current one. There will always be a state required when you have large aggregates of people. I don't know why you're too retarded to understand this. Maybe you'd be more adjusted to living in a hippie commune of no more than 30 people. If your population grows any higher than 200 you can enjoy your complete lack of plumbing and waste disposal, which will make your commune such a festering, polluting shithole that you will eventually be inadvertently breaking the NAP for the people downstream of you. Also enjoy the complete lack of organization and conflicts of interests that can only be solved by implementation of a state. Even small villages were tiny representational republic which forced their hand in the ways of people keep the peace and prevent total anarchy. That is the state.
Lack of foresight, thus leading to hypocrisy. Typical lolbertarian.

You don't need to go to war against libertarians, subversive forces will destroy it from within in an instant due to its acceptance of so much freedom.

> Are you talking about medieval Iceland? That collapsed rather quickly, and Iceland had a populations in tens of thousands at that time.
What do you mean? It lasted for centuries.

> Not libertarian, and government involved itself more and more as America thrived
And America suffered more and more. America became less libertarian after the creation of the Fed in 1913. Up until then it did real well.

> Besides that, using America is just dishonest, America is a fucking continent full of fertile land and other resources. It's a very peculiar example.
The Soviet Union had 20 times more natural resources than the USA but only 5% of the GDP

> Far from libertarian. De-facto dictatorship in case of Singapore. They are right-wing in economic sense, that's all. And both are peculiar examples, due to their location.
Economically libertarian.

> Absolutely false.
Sweden was a minarchist free market society up until the 60's. Lol.

> ''p much'' no.
Minimal government for the greater half of the 20th century and even today has a small government and is economically very free

Look up their actions during banking crisis, have you been living under a rock? And no, Iceland is not a libertarian society.
Tax laws are not the only thing about libertarian ideology. Jesus Christ dude at least try to inform yourself about basics.
>So is north korea, venezuela, russia and fucking 2/3 of the continent of afica, it so happens to be they adopted left leaning politics :/
Holy fuck this guy is literally comparing North Korea with 19th century USA. I give up, you people are to retarded to sustain a conversation.

libertarian doesn't mean no government, it means reduced government. I'm libertarian, and I'd expand the government military spending to at least pre-clinton era. Libertarianism just doesn't leave room for 2/3s the budget being gibs.

>Iceland
In the Middle Ages it was literally populated by a few thousand people. Most people were farmers or fishermen and lived in small rural villages.
>early America
Had long tradition of protectionist trade policy.
>Hong Kong
Literally half of the population lives in government housing. It's not minarchist.
>Singapore
Soft dictatorship. The government also still plays an active role in the economy.

Libertarianism doesn't have arguments, it's a reactionary economic movement that conveniently ignores politics, law and culture and its proponents are obnoxious morons who use 'biological slaves' unironically as if reading some autistic economics blog-posts made you an übermensch somehow. Get over yourself, maybe you'll actually be able to get laid without having to resort to voluntary mutually agreed financial transactions with third parties

>n-no! you can't go there it's private property!
Sounds like you need a publicly funded police force/militia to keep bums out of your lands. That requires a state to collect taxes. Requires someone working for the state to use those taxes on behalf of the people to secure the proper gear. Prevention, user. See what I mean when I say you lack foresight?

When did libertarianism get equated with anarchy?

look up how much shit north korea didn't unearth, its literally the whole wealth of america yet somehow they cant put 2 and 2 together and solve their little starving problem

north korea is malnourished yet has more wealth than montenegro, when was the last time you've seen a malnourished montenigger? yet their territory is 3/4 rocks

>What do you mean? It lasted for centuries.
It lasted exactly 2 (two) centuries. In a homogeneous society of like 60-70,000 people. It's a fucking city. And it couldn't work.
>And America suffered more and more. America became less libertarian after the creation of the Fed in 1913. Up until then it did real well.
MUH FED. Except no. Go look up Whiskey Rebellion.
>The Soviet Union had 20 times more natural resources than the USA but only 5% of the GDP
Absolutely false on both numbers, why are you lying?
Do you have any idea about the concept of geography and how resource extraction works?
>Economically libertarian.
Yes, but in a very peculiar position. Singapore is right there next to one of the most important maritime passages, and Hong Kong is a gateway to China.
>Sweden was a minarchist free market society up until the 60's. Lol.
Nope.
>Minimal government for the greater half of the 20th century and even today has a small government and is economically very free
Nope.
None of the examples you use are libertarian, if you describe libertarian as ideas of mainstream libertarian thinkers.
You do have some quasi-libertarian examples in history. Like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Go look how it ended up.
Guess what, under ideal conditions everything works, in realistic conditions it doesn't. Your ideology is superficial escapism and autism, nothing else. You're not smart or even educated, you're a fucking bumbling idiot with a superiority complex. Laughable.

>Africa, Venezuela, and North Korea are communist
lol
Venezuela is an oil-based economy with Dutch disease and an incompetent leader. North Korea is for all intents and purposes a traditionalist monarchy. The African states that have functional government aren't communist.

Libertarianism is the best solution ever.

Everybody that loves comunism can buy a piece of land and create a voluntary comunist society.

Everybody that loves nazism can buy a piece of land and create their own voluntary nazi society.

Everybody that loves democracy can buy a piece of land and create their own voluntary society.

EVERYBODY CAN BE HAPPY OWN THEIR OWN PLACE. JUST DON'T FORCE OTHERS TO PARTICIPATE.

A good offense is the best defense. Of course you wouldn't understand that because you play against 1990s AI. That's not the way the real world works. Nations with governments will always be more organized than you, will have more growth than you, and will eventually try to take your clay, whether you like it or not. Cry about your NAP as much as you want, you still lacked the foresight required to see that you should have struck first once you saw the storm brewing.

And subversive forces that llove subverting can go on about subverting since the divide and conquer worked perfectly.

And how exactly are you gonna fund increased military spending?
That's literally the worst fucking vein of libertarianism. You want to fuck over citizens by giving more money to MIC and by cutting social services.
Hahahah, resource extraction isn't as simple as you think you fucking moron.
Not to mention you're using fucking NK as ''left of libertarianism'' example. Just stop posting.

If you don't want to pay rent you can move somewhere else, or buy your own property.
If you don't want to pay taxes...?

And don't tell me "move to another country", because you know damn well that it's not nearly as easy as moving house, with all the bureaucratic red tape in between.

Let the army who nobody of value in a libertarian society want to abolish.

Heck if the threat is real there would be one in an ancap society too.

>Venezuela is an oil-based economy with Dutch disease and an incompetent leader
not an argument
>North Korea is for all intents and purposes a traditionalist monarchy.
not an argument
>The African states that have functional government aren't communist.
but the ones that have the most precious raw resources are the most incompetent communist ones, yet again, not an argument

Anarcucks are suspiciously silent when somebody mentions Kowloon.