LIBERTARIANS UTTERLY BTFO

But seriously, how can anyone be a lolbertarian and not be mentally stunted in some way?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/andrewhibbard/status/882635592344850432
forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2016/05/17/regulatory-spending-from-eisenhower-to-obama/#1bc0237e3738
exiledonline.com/great-moments-in-libertarian-history-nambla-spokesman-declares-himself-libertarian/
press.princeton.edu/titles/4173.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>astrology is inherently unscientific whereas myself as a libertarian i use Logic Philosophy and Science to determine the optimal wo
What the fuck is it even trying to say here? I love how they think they're so intelligent, when they can't even form a proper sentence and speak English to get their points across.

They're making fun of the Dunning-Kruger effect that is pervasive among libertarians.

Of course if the jokes applies to you, you won't get it and you'll just get mad instead.

>Dunning-Kruger effect
So basically the pot is calling the kettle black.

I see libertarians are living up to their well-known ability to take a joke.

twitter.com/andrewhibbard/status/882635592344850432

...

Hurr derr... You people who like liberty, BTFO.... You're so stupid...not nearly as smart as us communists and nat soc faggots.

Except that there's a lot more to the organized autism known as libertarianism than "liking liberty."

>(((liberty)))

Trite nonsense.

(You)
How can it be retarded to recognise that in this political and cultural climate governments are necessary to protect ourselves, so its just best to try to increase personal freedoms and private property rights.

>fuck your dunning-kruger effecr

You're talking to a NatSoc here. I just find it funny to see how people who bring up how rational, logical, and educated they are to prove a point are making fun of people who do the same thing.

Libertarians are bootlickers and pedophiles

>muh FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOMMS
Freedom is what got us into this mess in the first place, faggot.
A culture centered around freedom is like a nation ruled by anarchy; it will quickly shift into a far more stable and far less free/anarchic status.

>You're talking to a NatSoc here

That's even worse.

You sound scared that people might feel themselves capable of thinking for themselves and make governments obsolete

>logical, sophisticated philosophy that seeks to theorize and move towards a peaceful free society of independent, thinking moral agents for the wealth and betterment of all
>"omg Virgo is supposed to get betrayed today my day is ruined, my bf must be cheating on me, I'll suck Chad's dick behind his back to get back at him!"
I get that both are unrealistic but come on now

For you.

he's a big guy

>make governments obsolete

And what if even more unscrupulous corporations take their place, as it wont to happen in Libertopia?

kek

If you find a corporation to be unscrupulous ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... STOP BUYING SHIT FROM THERE!

I love how lolbergs think they're dystopia world run by huge corporations will somehow be "free"
Better get back to work or your Google Employee Tracker Chip™ will alert Mark Zuckerberg as to your shitposting on the job.

>your talking to a NatSoc here.
Literal collectivist

kek

>I love how lolbergs think they're dystopia world run by huge corporations will somehow be "free"

lmao, the cuck above you just tried to argue that:

>STOP BUYING SHIT FROM THERE!

Ah yes, that always works so well in the real world, especially the corporation has a monopoly or near monopoly on the product/service in question.

>monopoly
>free market
You can't pick both.

Proofs, mi famigo.
Surely there would still be corporate mergers and acquisitions in ancapistan, surely it's not unthinkable that one corporation or group of corporations might decide to collude.

I'm honestly really interested why you think monopolies cannot arise in a free market.
After all, if they can't, where did states come from?

If the corporation is deemed unappealing for your business because its too big or powerful, there would be room for competition and people would take advantage of that opportunity.

>lolbergs actually believe this

Hi OrwellNGoode.

How come whenever the free market is more and more deregulated, more and more monopolies seem to form? That's exactly what happened in America once the deregulation craze reached its peak in the 80s, 90s and early 00s.

Not if that corporation is offering basic essentials like food for half the price of the competition. Everyone loves to bitch Wal-Mart, but they can't go anywhere else to shop because it would break the bank. Then again, we live in a system that makes laws and regulations that favor those monopolies, so who knows how different it would be if they also didn't have such favorable situations and subsidies?

Cmpanies as big as walmart exist due to government protection. They are "too big to fail" essentially.

Any PLC would get bailed out

>A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
That would never happen in a free market, the state is the biggest monopoly actually.

>That would never happen in a free market

Can you offer any proof of this? Because whenever we point to real world examples, lolbertians just resort to No True Scotsman.

The fact the state exists proves that monopolies rise out of free markets, since before the state existed there was a free market according to the libertarian belief that free markets are natural.

>unironically being an statist cuck
Be honest with us OP. How many times did your dad fuck you in the ass before you were 10?

>That would never happen in a free market, the state is the biggest monopoly actually.
Disregarding effective or local monopolies, perhaps.

The fact that the state exists means that monopolies can rise out of free markets. While it is likely easiest for states to form, considering they're in the market of physical force, I think we can all agree that physical force is not the only kind of coercive force.

And that is the problem I have with the people who are staunchly against the free market. They don't think the government has a hand to play in this, when they certainly do by giving the monopolies free range to write their own legislation in the backrooms. We haven't been a true free market in a long time. And that includes your deregulation craze of the 80's, 90's, and 00's. Which I'm having a hard time trying to figure out, because everything I'm looking at says the amount of government regulation and spending on them has increased since the 60's. forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2016/05/17/regulatory-spending-from-eisenhower-to-obama/#1bc0237e3738

>unironically being an ancap
Be honest with us, user. Are you underage, or have you just not left your room since you were 15?

So much lolbertarian butthurt right there.

>loving corporate benis in your mouth

Nice projection.

exiledonline.com/great-moments-in-libertarian-history-nambla-spokesman-declares-himself-libertarian/

>Browsing through some old copies of the late, great Spy magazine, I found this interview with the former spokesman for the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), Joe Powers, in which he declares himself a Libertarian.

>accept refugees and the part and parcel
no
>i-it was j-just a j-joke, haha, g-got you

for jews

And why does the government exist? Isn't the state a monopoly that protects itself? I love how libertarians say monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market, then immediately argue in favor of breaking up the state's monopoly on force.

Liberalism is fantasy football for Californians.

Shit makes about as much sense as the guy in OP's image.

Agreed

honestly. pol btfo

>guy
Did you just assume xir's gender?

>We haven't been a true free market in a long time

Okay, so when would you say we had a "true" free market? Let us know, man.

Loose government is comparable to horoscopes. I don't get it.

I don't get the liberals who claim that it's a heartless dystopia. If anything, loose government is benefiting your type the most. Socialism, Nazism, and communism prevented your garbage ideals. Stalin didn't host pride parades, he used you as shooting targets.

>Forbes
know the source to understand the spin.

Theres more regulation now than ever. More laws, health and safety, demographic concerns (hire so many women, minorities etc) and all that.

These were not concerns in to 80s - or less so.

The "hidden hand" will always contr the market and re is no need for intervention ever. Intervention only serves to upset the balance. The balance is so upset we can't even fathom a free market.

Authoritarianism of any kind will produce distain. Leave people to look after them selves and they will be forced to be considerate responsible adults or get left behind

No, I didn't assume I made the gender what it shall be. I formed it out of the very ether and gave it shape. Xir is forever a guy now until I choose to reform the ether into a new gender.

The state does have a monopoly on force. I would like to break it up. We don't have a free market.

You're making my arguments for me you idiot

?

I forgot to put "if ever". Which I know sounds a lot like the "it wasn't true communism" argument, but it is the same problem communism had. In both systems the people with the most power held a monopoly on everything. For the USSR, it was the corrupt Politburo that controlled all aspects of the economy, for the US, it's the large corporate monopolies that buy politicians and are thus allowed to basically write their own legislation. The problem is making the government transparent and "honest" enough to not fuck over the common people by favoring themselves and/or their donors.

I think there is a balance that needs to be struck. Some regulation is required, but in the US, it has gotten so out of control that your average small business cannot function under this system. However, you need basic government intervention to make sure basic rights and customs are upheld. People are greedy by nature, and you can't have too much of one or the other running things or else that specific group's greed will prevail and they will have the power.

I'm starting to believe this antilibertarian memes are made up by paid shills
Or just someone who makes a mockery of libertarianism by taking it to an distopian extreme
Libertarianism is not the same as anarchism or Ancap wtf

>Which I know sounds a lot like the "it wasn't true communism" argument, but it is the same problem communism had.

Wow, really makes me think. It's almost as if the Libertarian utopia shares many of the same problems as the Communist utopia does.

Wrong, if you had the freedom to reject whom you want from your business and community, it wouldn't be the problem. I recall the south being forced under threat of death to integrate, which then followed in the north

Every thing you attribute to libertarianism and freedom is a result of more government creating more government. It's a death spiral created by less freedom creating less freedom

I mean fuck, 99% of the problems that exist are ultimately a result of the income tax and welfare, that is certainly not freedom and sure as fuck isn't libertarian

Libertarianism is the pinkpill that slowly but surely drives left leaning normies down the ideological path of conservatism.

The Ron Paul supporters of yesteryear are more conservative today.

Yes, both are exactly that, utopias that look great on paper but would not work in real life.

Astrology has nothing to do with Libertarianism you statist dick rider.

>more conservative
Only insofar as the Overton window ceaselessly shifts left

Almost nothing people advocate for on this site would be controversial in the past

We westerners just export our "basic human rights" problem and buy from China who has slave labor basically.
Theres a case to be made for regulation for standards and safety - like with building material for eg. but not for eg. "you MUST hire so many women or else you are sexist" crap.

The average small business cannot operate under this system and all businesses start off small so theres some unfair advantage going on somewhere.

Are you arguing for or against libertarianism?

>Another shit thread.
Sup Forums loves shit threads now. Huhuh btfo huhuh

Unfortunately for you, there's another quixotic utopia, the Other God That Failed -- National Socialism.

There's an entire book about it:

press.princeton.edu/titles/4173.html

>This biography of Hans Freyer, a prominent German sociologist and political ideologist, is a case study of intellectuals and a "god that failed"--not on the political left, but on the right, where its significance has been overlooked.

We do have a free market, of force. The state established a monopoly, and maintains it very well. What makes you think the same doesn't apply to economics?

Shit threads can yield discussion regardless, newfag

OP is always a faggot, so his post doesn't matter anyway

>on the right
Starting with a bluepilled premise desu

I especially like when nazi lovers here try to merge lolbertarianism with Uncle Adolfs ideology.

They showed sure me. I better throw away my flags

>le ebin philosophy
Systems of government are discussed within the confines of the government

This isn't a discussion of systems of systems of government edgelord

Are you denying that the right-wing, especially the extreme right (Fascists, Absolute Monarchists, pre-Vatican II LARPers, etc) is often just as utopian and unrealistic as the far left?

>Are you arguing for or against libertarianism?
I'm arguing for free markets but with some standard necessary protections and regulations from the government involved.
>We westerners just export our "basic human rights" problem and buy from China who has slave labor basically.
This is a good example. I like free markets, but not to the point where the nation is hurt by them. Yes we get cheap shit, but at what cost to the nation? US companies, especially if they want to take advantage of being based in America, should not be allowed to off shore all of their manufacturing like that to countries that have what amounts to slave labor. I'm against that type of international free market.
>Theres a case to be made for regulation for standards and safety - like with building material for eg. but not for eg. "you MUST hire so many women or else you are sexist" crap.
Exactly, the problem I have with libertarians is that they think this stuff will somehow not happen because people would choose not to shop there. Like I said before, people bitch about Wal-Mart all of the time, yet they still go fill their shopping carts with products from that company because it is the cheapest.

..........................................we don't have a free market. I don't think you can argue that "banks getting bailed out" is what happens in a free market. That's literal interventionism.

Companies don't have armed brainwashed servants, and if companies (or individuals) acted like the government, they'd get arrested.

I'm denying the traditional right/left divide created by the "left" to distance themselves from Hitler

And no, of course I wouldn't deny any system isn't rife with utopian idealism

They didn't fail because of their ideals alone, they failed because they were targeted by multiple super powers after trying to seize Poland (presumably because Poland was killing off Germans). But yeah, they were overstepping their boundaries and lost hard because of it.

And where did government come from? Surely you would consider a hunter-gatherer society to be an extremely free society, perhaps even the most even the most free.
From freedom, comes order. Absolute Freedom, as a goal, as a virtue, is an unsustainable one.

Now, that is not to say that freedom is bad; it is very good! But as a structure for society in and of itself, it is dysfunctional.

The question is not "how can we increase freedom", the question is "how much freedom is absolutely necessary, and how can we structure the inevitable government such that it cannot, will not, breach this certain amount of freedom".

This is where the US has failed, because by incorporating its love of freedom into its own government, it has given the government the freedom to expand and change with little regard.

The anarchist/libertarian ideal of "freedom" is a ball resting on top of a hill; it's possible for it to stay up there indefinitely, but the slightest nudge in any direction will quickly send it hurtling down. Freedom is not the base state of humanity, it is an artificial nature that must be forcibly preserved proactively if it is to be successful.

it's not a free market if there are regulations, just saying. it's a regulated market at that point.

>created by the "left" to distance themselves from Hitler

Nazism was on the right-wing and the vast majority of its supporters and collaborators were also on the right. Sorry if that hurts your fee-fees, but it's historically accurate.

>with some standard regulations
And what are you going to do to prevent it from ballooning out if control?

You realize that things like "common sense regulations have justified the largest regulatory body in the history of the world right?

Why do people who prize freedom and human rights come across as such a threat to faggots on both sides?

Sorry, I want you to stay out of my business and I think your faggoty entitlement to get involved in with my life or business is stupid.

>government and economics aren't inherently linked
>the market on physical force isn't governed by the same rules as any other market because I say so
lmao

Are you illiterate, retarded, or both? Read user's post again, and this time, try not to be a nigger.

>people bitch about Wal-Mart all of the time, yet they still go fill their shopping carts with products from that company because it is the cheapest.
Right, so thats individuals choosing the best option for them like a libertarian would. The problem is the government is not libertarian, so companes like walmart build up to become huge and "too big to fail"

Individualism is cancer.

it really isn't, what principals of nazism are right wing? this is gonna be good

It's true. Has any one ever known a lolbertarian that wasn't a fucking weirdo?? I haven't.

I read it fine.
The state is not a company

Right? Nazism is fucking SOCIALISM you goddamn morons.

Also checked my dude.

>The state is not a company
It literally is a corporation, and even if it weren't, it still meets all the fundamental qualities for being a firm providing a service or good in some market.

>They didn't fail because of their ideals alone

Whenever far right nationalism takes hold among a populace, it inevitably becomes belligerent and leads to violent ethnic cleansing and/or war.

same could be said for leftism, outside of the upper class democrats the majority of the left is a freakshow.

Because freedom inevitably leads to less-freedom and human rights are a spook.

yes - the state shouldn't be a corporation.

Someone has the "helicopter rides for everyone" edit?

Right-wing socialism.

It doesn't matter what it should or shouldn't be, what matters is what it IS.
Because it IS a corporation, and because pretty much every state in history meets some qualities to be considered a similar entity, it proves that monopolies can arise in free markets.
That's the point, you illiterate fucking nigger.

I agree with you up until
>this is where the us failed
The US failed insofar as it was corrupted and it's directive was corrupted. If the criticism of the United States or libertarianism is that it can be corrupted then I challenge you to find me an incorruptible form of government or even lack thereof.

To me, that we remain one of the most free nations is only testament to the resiliency of the original directive.

The problem I have with you and others asserting that libertarianism is doomed to fail is that it has nothing to do with the actual government, it's when the system is fundamentally changed that the problems show up.

You people also seem to forget or ignore that the government is ultimately a reflection if the population. When you get a population that doesn't give a shit, they allow corruption to take place, and there is no government that can ensure this won't happen into perpetuity, which is why our founders enshrined the right to bear arms and had no expectation this shit would last so long
>the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots
Aka corruption is inevitable

The only thing supposedly right wing are conservatism, which is merely a relative ideology with no inherent political leanings, and nationalism, which every country on earth was until recently

That is some Orwellian logic right there. So we have to take away freedom to achieve freedom...

>it really isn't, what principals of nazism are right wing?

>Hatred of egalitarianism
>Veneration of the military and a warrior aristocracy
>Socially conservative
>Police state
>Romanticization of agrarian/rural life
>Rejection of the ideals of the French Revolution and constitutional government
>Rejection of secularism and materialism
>Rejection of class conflict in favor of class cooperation
>Belief in the intrinsic inferiority of certain groups and defense of slavery/serfdom

These are all standard right-wing archetypes.

we don't live in a free market.

You've been watching too much TV.

They've got their flaws but they aren't diseased roaches like the lefties.