Why would any sane person not be libertarian?

Why would any sane person not be libertarian?
Why would you want your life limited by the government?

>caring about politics

Good question but dude this jpg wtf

10th grader who spent an hour on reddit detected

Not really.
Your life is limited by your government.
You can't legally decide to fuck your life up by taking a shit ton of heroin.
I want to have that freedom. The freedom to destroy my life.
Why would anyone not want to the right to make their own decisions about their life?

uh because i'm not a billionaire with a private army

What? A skinny feminist? I know it's unusual but they do exist... Nothing else seems extraordinary or remarkable about her except she looks a bit softer/nicer than most

So libertarian means anarchism?
Twat.
The government should ensure the freedom of the population.
Not restrict it.

>there are people who seriously believe limited government=pure anarchy

anarchism means without rulers, its possible to have a horizontalist anarchist government

It's got to do with keeping idiots from harming others. A safe and stable society is more important than the needs of the individual. Libertarian self entitlement is only matched by that of tumblrinas.

You are an idiot.
Don't be disheartened, though.
You can fix it.

Okay...

how about you talk about some specific policy points instead of the name of your party

What?
I don't get your point.
Why do you think a libertarian government would lead to people hurting each other?
That doesn't make sense...

libertarian style of government would create monopolies and stifle progress and technological advancements

we have evidence of a period of low economic regulation, its called the gilded age

anyone remember Martin Schkreli? Could you have imagined what he would have done if there were less government rules

Yes, I support the party libertarianism...
Do you support the party authoritarianism?

remember when goldman sachs morgan chase et al repealed glass steagal and crashed the world's economy, make a shitload of money and got away with it?

i'm going to ignore that leading question

again, i'll ask, could you provide some specific policy points?

>A safe and stable society is more important than the needs of the individual.
Literally communist theory 101.

Oh well that explained everything, thanks.

you're just retarded

If you think this image is good you are worse than reddit. Even reddit is better than this

Even OP is dumb gg

Le monopoly maymay. Most economists accept that monopolies don't survive in a free market

and less rules and oversight would have some how stopped them?

It's about limiting other people's lives by the government.

source?

because some/many people are better of that way. because they are weak and cant take care of themselves.

>a purely merit based society would stifle progress
Riiiiiiight

Not really.
I am talking about the philosophy in general.
Why would you want your freedom restricted?
Why would you want to be protected, not allowed to make your own mistakes?

I don't support libertarianism because I don't support the idea that the oppressions of corporations is better than the oppression of the government.

Libertarianism is great until you give corporations who have laws that say they are 'people' so much liberty they use it to impose bullshit on the middle class, I.E. walmart making 15 billion a year in pure profit yet paying wages so low the tax payers must subsidize employees healthcare and food stamps. Liberty for people? Yes, all for it. Liberty for multi billion dollar conglomerates hiding trillions of dollars in taxable money in offshore accounts? Nah. No thanks. That being said I'm an anarchist. All government is just people putting themselves into a situation they exploit for financial gain.

>Even OP is dumb
Why "even"?
Surely it is just a given, that OP (Me) is an idiot

Less of the crony capitalism that allowed them to operate that way in the first place. You're blaming the market for problems that politicians created. Politicians actively helped them to do what they did.

Why?
Explain this claim.

>tfw there's a monopoly on diamonds

I don't think you understand that Walmart isn't actually harming anyone and in fact is providing lots of extremely useful services (and work for people with low skills if you're into that).

If you think those who invest in such useful ends deserve to have their money taken away you will find they buy boats or take leisure time instead of starting companies

and i'm talking about the world of realpolitik, where 7bn+ people live and are affected by decisions to cheap out on car brakes etc

when your economics 101 rational actor theory smashes into a realworld economy people get killed and my value system can't abide this much violence.

what use is violence? the only truly capitalist use of violence is to prevent further violence.

what an adorable post

Okay so right now you have government actively allowing corporations to have the power that they do, remove a massive chunk of that governments power and you simultaneously remove a part of the corporations power. The vote you place with your wallet is the only vote that you can place that is actually counted, more limited government allows your only real vote to count for more.

Then they are fucked.
But seriously a small government, is still a government.
They are there to help people and ensure they can survive

Why would a libertarian tolerate the legal fiction of corporate personhood?

Why would a libertarian tolerate our bizarre and broken conglomeration of benefits and entitlements instead of weaning us off the teat of the state with something like a negative income tax--improving the social safety and obsoleting hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats in one fell swoop?

Why would you expose yourself to ridicule by mocking libertarianism (which acknowledges a need for a government to prevent violent coercion) and then claiming to be an anarchist?

we had stores before wal*mart, but we didn't have a single buyer of most consumer goods, and wal*mart uses that monopoly power to put other companies out of business. on paper in capitalist wacky land all this money going places is good but when you examine the entire ecology of the marketplace you see workers making less at every level due to the disruptive nature of the massive entity

not to mention that wal*mart lobbies congress to chip away at labor rights

Charity exists friend and those are exactly the people it should help.
Government has an incentive to lie about which people are helpless and make more people dependent and unemployed

If they want to keep MAKING money (without working), they'll suck up taxes as just a bother cost of business. The whole "I'll stop investing" thing is ridiculous, a tantrum that they won't sustain for more than a year or two because the money they make under regulation and taxation is still MONEY THEY MAKE, and they will still want a NEW yacht a few years from now. If you don't work and don't invest, eventually you have no money.

except when it comes to specific policy points, libertarians repeal regulations and anarchists advocate for total economic reform

you're clearly an anarchist who's gotten tricked by big business into being a splitter

You seem to think that libertarianism means anarchism (correct me if I am wrong)
Small government, does not mean no government.
Regulations can still be in place.

>people are greedy and shortsighted
>lets designate a special class of people to correct greed and shortsightedness
>It'll work great as long as they don't get greedy and shortsighted, otherwise they might abuse all that power we gave them!
Sounds like a great plan, sign me up.

>capitalist wacky land
Socialist confirmed. Capitalism built the single wealthiest and most powerful country to ever exist. Get fucked retard.

Well the problem is the media has us confused, they're running the show culturally and a lot of people don't know that right and left aren't equivalent to authoritarian and libertarian. I think there's a lot of "liberals" out there who don't see the change that's taken place among the economically left and right, they still view the left as being libertarian when it's spend the last 25 years shedding itself of libertarian ideas and values. The right, in response, has minimized religious voices, voices they only took on as their own to fight equally with the left, and has necessarily become the libertarian side.

Honestly the two party system has me feeling like I'm voting for a bad guy either way, so yeah, I'd rather vote for the bad guy who isn't a true believer in controlling people for their own good. Trump is perfectly happy to just let you be a loser and call you one to your face, Hillary by comparison is going to do this No Shitlord Left Behind stuff and probably let the SJWs witch-hunt people "for the greater good", she'll let systems of control scale up and they'll scale up just a jpg file does, all craggy and full of errors and artifacts.

The new authoritarian left doesn't want to account for human nature and plan accordingly, they don't want to create structures with proper scaling because they don't want to slow down and thus have their own individual life mean less. They'd rather just announce none of those things are problems, problems don't exist, false rape accusations don't happen, groups don't naturally become corrupt over time without oversight, etc. They're going to make all the same mistakes as the soviet union.

why invest more into something that has little financial benefit when what you have works fine? Most companies are happy to just sit on their ass as the dosh runs in. Case and point: my town has had shitty internet service for decades and the isp's didn't do anything to improve it because we'll buy internet reguardless so why put in the extra effort. Finally it was up the the municipal government to bring fiber optics to the people, which would not have happened under an ideal libertarian society

Anarchism would ideally work much like frontier societies, think the wild west except you've got to call a town meeting for any decission that elected officials would otherwise make, under very favorable conditions (eg strong societal mores) it could actually thrive... The problem is scale, even with means such as social media anarchists would not be able to build even moderately advanced industrial societies, they would certainly not be able to cope with multi-culturalism... Utopian anarchism, the idea taken to an extreme by hippies/punks would be even more dysfunctional, even small comunes are usually led by what are in effect autocratic juntas... Libertarianism in moder n usage has nothing to do with anarchism, it's become code for fiscal conservative policies coupled with liberal attitudes regarding society, eg tolerant/secularist conservatives, liberals who are for limited government/free enterprise, etc. The problem with libertarianism is no such societies exist, you can have the oposite; traditionally conservative societies with a strong welfare system is where Europe was at some decades ago, but you can't have both a liberal society and limited government... The reason is the more conservative elements will always try to impose their values (tirany of the majority) and with full economics means at their disposal this eventually results in either them taking over (and growing government) or minorities becoming majorities (eg the poor) and taking over themselves. Humans will always look for power...

TLDR, anarchism and liberatarianism are both shit ideologies

/thread

america was a fucking shit hole before a socialist took over and forced the vandergilts to create a proper fucking nation

How does it feel to be an ideologue?

Countries like Spain and Greece with the most 'labor rights' also have the highest unemployment. That's bad for business to start with but it's also bad for workers.

So if you tax something you don't get less of it? It's ridiculous to think taxing someone 100% would stop them investing?
Very interesting. I'll write home to mother about this

Even under this awful government (both parties!), the dollars we spend on government regulation of corporations is still superior to unregulated corporate power.

/thread

>18 trillion in debt
>wealthiest
ok hun

>spain and greece are poor because of worker rights, not 4000+ years of antisocial land use by el rey and hoi polloi

you're simplifying shit too much, i can't take it

abandon thread

>America has had socialist policy at any point in history
Oh I'm having a giggle m8. FDR literally did nothing of any actual significance, and for that matter was not a socialist.

Hello, straw man! Who suggested 100% taxation?

>when what you have works fine
Does it work fine, though?
>which would not have happened under an ideal libertarian society
Under an ideal libertarian society everything would be perfect, surely. I am not misunderstanding the word "ideal" here, am I?

you can tho people do it all the fucking time

That's a lie, france, germany, the UK, Scandinavian countries all have stronger labor laws and distribute more benefits through their welfare systems

I want the government to restrict your life, im just collateral damage

>economic reform
Please, do go on.

How will you tear down the price system and individual pursuit of material wealth and status without violent coercion?

The world was a shithole. The U.S. was such a bright spot that people emigrated to it by the millions. Socialists don't get to take credit for what the private sector built.

he was a scandanavian style social democrat, his new deal legislation included taxes that took from the rich and social programs like the WPA et al that gave to the poor

welfare is socialism, haven't you ever watched fox news?

>annual gdp of 18 trillion
>dollar is the strongest currency in the world, also the global currency
>implying that debt to China actually matters, or any debt for that matter.
HAHAHAHAHA

Nice anecdote friend. But it seems to me government has much less of an incentive to improve their schools, fix their roads, or sort out waste and fraud in the military.
Whereas a businessman who sits idle is losing his own money.
Honestly it seems to me you might be misunderstanding that situation- since if there were excess profits any internet company could have stepped in and made money. But regardless your anecdote doesn't address the wider examination of incentives.

But that doesn't explain their unemployment.
Laws which make hiring more expensive reduce hiring.
That's why they have so much unemployment.

If 100% taxes make investment less attractive, do 99% taxes make investment less attractive? Why are being so silly?

No they really do have more unemployment. Don't call me a liar just because you disagree with me, it's gay

I am quite sure I said legally.
I cannot legally buy heroin.

think of it this way, our economy thrives on violent coercion to keep peoples grubby mitts off your robots so your robots can make stuff for those people to buy

what if instead we just used the robots to make the stuff we need and leave money and ownership of the robots out of it

all we have to do is have one little purge and get all the robots working for who is left and instead of having an economy that thrives on and rewards violence

I mean even if our plan doesn't ever work, it's functionally similar to capitalism -- regular violence to protect a perception of safety and stability

>Scandinavian social democrat
You mean a style of government that didn't exist at the time of his presidency?
>take from the rich and give to the poor!
Oh good a system of government based on a children's story.
>welfare=socialism
LOL

That's because you're the governments property, get over it. Abide by the laws or get out, that's how a system works.

oh no my metaphor is anachronistic

whatever shall i do

And I say the system should be changed so that I have that freedom.

Because I want the government to protect me from people like you.

Learning what the word anachronism means would be a decent start.

You're not free, and you'll never be free, sorry bud, but it's too far progressed for you to realized how contained you truly are, the freedom you think you have is only a illusion to keep you content while you still think you have a chance.

Libertarianism does not mean anarchism.
How many times has that been said in this thread?

wtf

Why would I destroy industry that produces shit I want? In fact, if I saw some anarchist faggot trying to wreck my town, maybe I'd stomp his ass and call the cops.

Who decides what we "need"? How do you get millions of people to spontaneously cooperate to establish the supply chains for something as simple as a pencil without free trade?

Even if we lived in a star trek universe where machines produced everything without human input, why would anyone learn to build, repair, or improve the robots if they got the goods for free?

Why can't you get together with the other frycooks and womens studies graduates and buy some of your own robots?

>one small purge
Why bother? Your planned economy (that is somehow still compatible with your anarchist ideals) would cause famine and rampant suffering without any added effort.

kek

look dipshit, fdr and his parties made laws to make government organizations funded by taxes to provide a social safety net. today this is called 'scandanavian style social democracy', that's why I used this phrase even though it was anachronistic to use in reference to fdr

because of the faggots here i'm all for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

"communism is not love. communism is a hammer with which we will crush the enemy." (mao"

What a weak faggot
Why would you admit that?

Why would any sane person not be libertarian?

Because libertarians are short sighted idiots that don't understand basic things like logistics or bureaucracy.

I know... that is why I said stuff should be done to make it so we do have freedom...

For profit. There are people who would sell tainted food and drugs without qualms,would stockpile dangerous explosives in crowded residences, would treat public menace diseases with quack medicine, as long as they made money.

the economic calculation problem may have been a problem before supercomputers and 21st century production methods, even still have you ever heard of running a surplus?

So they are just the same as every other fucker then.

Good luck with that.

Spainfag here.

Let me tell you how wrong you are in your assumption of having the 'most labor rights' overhere.

We absolutely DON"T!. You work, you have no rights, you can get fired at any point for any reason made up or exaggerated.

And when you do,.. you'll receive a maximum of 70% of your last earned income for a maximum of about 6 months afterwhich you can go fuck yourself.

Unemployment is high here because except for tourism along coastal areas and the 3 major cities the amount of industry is negligible.

Also

Niggers
(pic related)

samefag or two idiots?

We understand that bureaucracy is a disease of central planning and the state. And that logistics are what make socialism impracticable and a price system exactly necessary

Again, small government does not mean no government.
That small government can regulate stuff like that.

Another maoist state would be the best advertisement for free markets one could ask for.

Shall we start trying to smelt iron in our backyards now, or shall we wait til after the first mine steel mill foremen are executed for falsifying their production quotas?

Oh, I see, you have no idea how industries reliant on global supply chains work.

>what's causality

nigga really

>not caring about the force that shapes the world around you
>opting to bitch about not getting your way, whenever it comes around, instead
Enjoy your shit taxes and loss of rights, scumbag. It's not being willing to defend someone else's or your own rights that leads to slavery. But you're too caught up in your own, tiny, insignificant world to care about that right now. Maybe in 10 years when your nuts set into place, champ.

Yeah, your right. It will probably be a bit tricky.
Fuck it, freedom probably isn't even worth it...