Can someone explain why libertarianism is sustainable? In my mind...

Can someone explain why libertarianism is sustainable? In my mind, the wealth would just aggregate to the mega rich and fuck over the entirety of the working class, causing repetition of the industrialist manipulation of the early 1900s. Pic unrelated.

Shameless self bump, I need answers.

How do the rich get money?
Think about that for a bit.

I believe it's because it allows small buisnesses to expand, but don't quote me

The rich get money from investing in raw resources and from mutual dealings with other rich people. Easy. The value of labor is all subjective.

in order for the rich to get all the money, they'd have to trade something that was worth all the money for it.

What you WOULD see, is the end of mega corporations lobbying government for special interest that squash the smaller competition, as well as the limited liability that lets companies get away with fucking over their customers.

The end of intellectual property would also stop stifling information, including on things like life saving medication. No longer could vital drugs be $200 a pill, when wal-mart can churn out a clone for $10 for 30.

So you think the rich dont rely on new lines of revenue? It is just them pushing money to each other and claiming raw resources? It isnt like they sell their products?

I can see your point, but I imagine big pharma would find ways to limit distribution of the drugs we actually need. Information is power in such a situation.

They do. That's rhetoric.

Where's the like button on Sup Forums? Sorry, newFag.

So then a competiting busisness would buy a pill, reverse engineer it, and then make there own. Intellectual property is a government enforced monopoly...which is ALWAYS bad for customers.

The rich don't do the selling, the corporate entities do. That's how investments pay off.

>Trying this hard to sound intelligent
Fuck off to pol no one gives two shits

Bait?

So they have to sell their product to maintain their wealth and attract customers. Once government intervention is gone, no more bailouts when you do something stupid, no more subsidized labor with welfare. The power will be in the hands of the consumer, not in the corporation. No more letting companies get the upper hand through government manipulation. The worker will get back their right to collectively bargin.

>investments dont rely on a product being sold
Jesus

I guess the only problem I see is our national infrastructure being lesser because of the lack of taxes. Although I guess corporate interests would be to create roads anyways.

Lesser taxes doesnt mean the infrastructure will be neglected

Investments rely on the success of the entity. Do you understand stocks or not?

OP here, I was for bernie, but now I see libertarianism is the only option to end corruption in the US.

OP didn't deliver, but you guys did. Thanks a bunch

How does the entity find success? Do you not understand business or not?

The entity succeeds by selling products. That was what I originally said. Did you misread my earlier comment?

You mean how africans are exploited by rich americans and europeans? How much should the government tax you so you don't fuck over poor people in africa, india, asia, etc?

It seems to be us or them in such a situation. Are you okay with your kid being raised in a sweatshop?

And that bring me back to my point of saying the rich still rely on a product being sold, investment or not. We control the rich by giving them our money for a product or service, without the government intervention that allows faulty businesses to stay affloat, the rich lose their life boat.

What the fuck makes you think that would happen in America?

Well, if it's us or them then maybe it's the rich or us huh?

Listen, want to screw the rich? Don't have kids. Convince all the poor people you know not to have kids. If the poor start not having kids, the rich don't have people to screw over.

Eventually, the value of labor would decrease, making you work 16 hours a day just to eat.

What makes you think that? Do people lose their collective bargaining in this world? Are we reverted back to the 19th century where information wasnt spread around the world in a blink of the eye?

No. More than 50% of food goes to waste in the U.S. We're living on a butter mountain. People are simultaneously dying of obesity and starvation in this nation. Explain that one to me.

If the cost of labor goes down, then so does the cost of food. Eventually, food becomes free, and money is used for increasingly frivolous things instead, until everyone's living in an age of abundance, and what was considered a rare, high value item in the past is now produced in droves, mainly for something to do.

No government intervention always leads to corporations abusing labor. Monopolies like Youtube are evidence of this. The strike system shits all over creators, and said creators have no other platform, so they must remain.

Why doesnt anyone create a new platform? Why should the government get involved with a situation that could be resolved by creating a new platform? Why dont youtubers collectively come together and demand changes? Why dont they leave for something else? This isnt a problem that needs government intervention.

I guess opposite inflation would be a good counterargument. Props.

In a libertarian society, why can't I just steal for wealth?

Because laws arent abolished and basic government functions still exist?

Creating a new platform requires traction, and the monopoly would do everythong in its power to stop that. Government prevents monopolies altogether.

It's not counter inflation, dawg. The longer a nation goes without crumbling, the more efficient they get at making things, sans government redistribution of wealth. Such as inflation.

The law being a monopoly of power?

I think you are confusing a Libertarian society with an Anarchic society.

Than why havent they stopped it, there is already laws againsr monopolies? Maybe because it isnt a monopoly? There are plenty of other video platforms out there, but youtubers wont collectively move to a new platform. They dont care about the workers, just themselves. They need to organize and tell youtube if shit doesnt change by this date, we are leaving.
>thinking youtube is a monopoly

Yeah maybe. I don't know the theory.

That's the rare exception, because contested power in what causes political coups.

Is it?

If we don't set basic rules, we won't the the infrastructure to trust each other enough to do business.

With laws, I have recourse if I sell my raw materials to a refiner and do not get my agreed-upon amount. Libertarianism doesn't mean an abolishing of all law, only a simplification of the law.

Youtube is not too far off from it. It's decades ahead of any competition that exists, if you can call it that.

^
That's the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

Ok, but what really stops another company from providing a better service? Only user-choice, really.

Sounds reasonable. What kind of laws are overly complicated?

Yeah, but popularity is the key here, nobody on the new website would make any money.

well Hillary won't help you kid.

Youtube wasn't originally a platform for users to make money, only a really convenient way to showcase their videos.

Now that it's becoming more cumbersome to watch videos on Youtube, viewers will look elsewhere if a sufficiently attractive alternative emerges.

So if you had a platform that was able to skirt copyright law, had little to no ads, and allowed large videos to be uploaded, you have provided a better alternative. Now just post that shit on Reddit endlessly and word of mouth should catch on.

Berniefag/posssible libertarian here.
I was legit curious, no sarcasm intended.

...

Popularity=/=monopoly

It's very possible, yeah. But the creators would hardly benefit because less ads.

The same thing could be said about the original Youtube platform. Yet, they creators sold it off for a handsome amount.

Close enough, all things considered.

Youtube didnt pay in the beginning. It will be a rocky transition, but honestly if i was a venture capitialist i would totally get some of the more famous youtubers on a payroll, and have them cranking out constant content until i could bring in expensive yet minimal advertising. It could be done, and honestly probably will.

A monopoly controls the industry in such a way that people have no other choice.

Popularity is where the people have a choice but choose not to.

I can go to other platforms to upload my videos, I can't really choose my internet provider. See the difference?

Close enough doesnt warrant government intervention. You cant just expect the government to come whenever you think there is an injustice, that would tie up an already bloated and congested system. Laws are around for a reason.

Even Anarchy still can have laws, just no monopoly on their enforcement.

No, Anarchy is not the same thing as chaos. Chaos is a society without laws, anarchy is a society where nobody is above the law.

Anarchy has no central government, so laws would be very local at best. And a monopoly can still develop in Anarchy because there wouldn't be a strong government entity to prevent it.

And what prevents anyone from being above the law?

I see your points. I will research the topic more and maybe I'll renounce my socialism.

1.) Read Atlas Shrugged it's worthwhile. But don't be a fuck about it - it's not to be taken as gospel, just worth reading to understand the full side of libertarian / objectivism
2.) Understand that the US is a moderated capitalist society- libertarian-ism taken to an extreme gets rid of useful government protections we all benefit from. Again, just use your head.
3.) Most of the rich I know are producers. They have good ideas and capitalize them - they trade their ideas for money. Money is an exchange of value, so people are rich because they're valued. The rich tend to get richer because they tend to invest their money in an expanding economy - people who don't invest don't take advantage of an expanding economy.
4.) We have never lived in a more productive, more wealthy time in human history. Don't let Bernie fool you.

See in a socialist society, pure socialist, monopolies are the name of the game. Pure socialist mind you

I thought anarchy was where central government didn't exist completely.

That is what user described

But in the ideal socialist society, those monopolies are controlled by the people.

No central gov means that a convict could avoid the law using geographic location or social standing, the way I see it.

By the government you mean. Who regulates the business in a socialist society? The people? No they are too busy, it will be elected officials.

How is that any different than now?

Central gov means records like social security, which can be traced to you from wherever you use it. And social standing, let's just say that only applies to celebs.like OJ and Hillary.

This is a nice, intellectually honest thread. Sup Forums needs more of this shit.

And again how is that any different than today? I dont need my social to survive, neither do convicts. Cash under the table, no bank accounts, renting some dudes basment.

These are loopholes, but generally people aren't smart enough to get away with this type of shit.

Not to mention, federally hired police work better than a group of pissed off civvies, and they have access to every road camera.

>implying a private funded police force wouldnt excell

Better hope they have camera access like the feds, or they won't get far.

It's possible to live like that if you want to, but you can't exactly get benefits that others can by using their social if you decide to "live off the grid".

>implying camera access actually helps

Why aren't all niggers libertarians? No more police state shit and they'd be allowed to smoke all the crack they want.

Libertarians are cool with taxes as long as it's for shit we all absolutely need like roads emergency services etc. and if we only taxed for absolute need then the taxes would be substantially less and everyone would benefit

How else would they track someone? Locals aren't required to be eyewitnesses..

That is kinda the thing with libertarianism, there is gonna be a lack of a large police force because no government. Any criminals would immediately get stomped by civilians with guns.

Honestly, libertarianism is a wild card because I'm not exactly sure how people today would react to it if it was forced upon them somehow. I like the idea but since most of the world doesn't operate like that, most people would be confused about shit that would grow much more important.

You're wrong. Your rhetoric is spot on though, it will have the complete opposite effect. mega corps will become even more wealthy and quash any competition because there will be no government or regulatory body to stop them. There would not be an end to intellectual property, it would become even more exacerbated then it is now, once again there would be no regulatory body to stop it."Labor cost" , you know, people who work at these corps, will become even less respected than they already are, and unless you are a stakeholder or upper management you basically be a serf, subject to the whims of said corp. Libertarianism is the feudal system. Mega corps hold all the power and the only form of government will be the military and police. Don't believe me? visit the UAE. this is the exact form of governance they practice there, and if your not management, you are literally a slave. On another point, if you see men who own these mega corps (David Koch.)
pushing for this type of government, that should be the first red flag to help you with your decision making.

They probably don't know much about it because all they hear is socialism and welfare from dems on TV which sounds good to them because, well, more money = more crack, regardless of legality.

So you started the Gore Bread?

fuck you nigger

Why does everyone think the govt will cease to exist. Libertarianism only stresses personal responsibility, shrinking the federal govt and allowing states more power to govern themselves, and fair taxes that apply equally to everyone and are only taken for absolute needs. Businesses aren't going to be turned loose with no oversight. Hell if anything they will be reigned in a bit to stop the current big business fuckery. Also the constitution is big with libertarians. It's just sad that this mindset won't work this time and unless the next libertarian candidate starts campaigning right now for next time it's very likely to never work. If you want more freedoms and less govt interference with your personal life as an American you'd better vote trump as much as I hate saying that. Hillary will have you eating from the federal govts hand and not even thinking about it. We can survive 4 years of a dipshit that doesn't know what he's doing. We will never survive even a couple years of the shrew that knows exactly what she's doing. You might not even get to vote next time.

This all fuckimg day long

...

Some wealth may aggregate to the upper class. This wealth is not stagnant, it is the definition of capital, in so far as capital is wealth that is not consumed and is instead invested into production.
Wealth in fact must also be produced, it doesn't just exist. And in capitalism, as capital is invested into production, the overall wealth in society increases, which is why the material circumstances of even the lower classes increase, even if the wealth is not evenly accumulated.
A corollary is that capitalism increases the ability of the worker to generate wealth, through the use of machines and tools, machines and tools that exist because of the investment of capital, i.e. a worker with a tractor or in a factory is orders of magnitude more productive than a worker using his hands or primitive hand tools.
Anyway, when you have freedom, capitalism is what results. If you want to change how the wealth is distributed from this, it can only be done by force, as voluntary trade has not produced your desired result.
Also, in practice the wealthy don't necessarily stay wealthy forever, either from spending, bad investments, bad running of businesses into the ground, dilution from inheritance, etc. I think if you look you will find that the more free a society, the more movement you have into and out of the wealthy classes. The more regulated the society, the more fixed the upper classes are, especially if they are using their wealth to capture and direct government force in their favor.

>mega corps will become even more wealthy and quash any competition because there will be no government or regulatory body to stop them.
Megacorps can only be undermined by nimble and innovative competitors, not by the government and regulators. Especially as what typically happens is said megacorp uses government and regulations to secure their position and discourage competition, under the guise of "protecting" the consumers. Taxi cartels vs uber, for example.
But if you look over the past 40 years, you can find many big corporations that have passed away, and many new companies that came into existance, some of which have become large corporations. Which in turn may also fade away in the coming years and decades.

What of the environment? Do libertarians even have a stance there? If anything, it sounds as if they"d just ignore the issue because oligarchy.

As property is privately owned, pollution is a problem, to the extent that it pollutes other people's property.
If you look at the environmental track record of the Soviet Union, it was atrocious, much worse than most countries today. And that is because no one owned any of the land or resources, or rather "everyone" owned it, with the government as caretaker. But this leads to typical Tragedy of the Commons situation. No one is motivated enough to care about it, least of all a government bureaucrat who has no material interest in it one way or another.
And pollution today in our society is mostly in areas where there is a commons, like rivers, lakes, air, and the oceans.
I think libertarians can morally get behind environmental regulations by the government, to keep the pollution of others from impacting your property, or in cases where something can't be made into private property, like air.

Is the G man even electable at this point?

Read Orwell's 'Animal Farm'

do you really think that we can force the polluters to stay clean? they have armies of pinkertons and we only have ourselves