Why can't anyone name something wrong with libertarianism?

Why can't anyone name something wrong with libertarianism?

>B..but why would a corporation do what's best for society?

Because fuck you that's why

>Also libertarianism does not mean anarchism

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/07/10/the-libertarian-war-over-the-civil-war/
governing.com/topics/politics/gov-crystal-minnesota-libertarians.html
fortune.com/2016/07/25/us-state-secession-brexit-election/
newsweek.com/what-should-libertarians-think-about-civil-war-354946
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because as a liberal I want my free stuff from the government no matter who else pays for it.

That's the spirit

You need government to protect people from the businesses that will profit from exploiting the workers.

>This business is exploiting me
>Finds job at a business that isn't exploiting workers

Wow we really needed the government for that

Wealth distribution and the welfare of others is more important than feeling like you're being stolen from.

Says who? You? Ok then redistribute your own wealth

You asked me to find a problem with it, so I did. Your model doesn't look out for the little guy.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then, I brushed my teeth with that water, filtered to standards set by the EPA and my state.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank and printed by the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
I park my car on the street, paved and maintained by the Department of Transportation, and put quarters issued by the United States Mint into the parking meter.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right. Keep government out of my Medicare!

Because the South lost. Only traitors hate Uncle Sam.

Deal with it you illiterate redneck faggot.

Ok, so your argument is that the government does a better job at redistributing wealth than the private sector (specifically charitable institutions).

The United States government is nearly $20 trillion in debt.
If the US Government needs money, it just borrows it more, and also collects taxes at the threat of gunpoint.

Private charities do not have $20 trillion in debt, and cannot force anyone to pay them at the threat of jail, yet still remain successful.

Private charity is objectively superior in both regards.

Private charity also does not have to do as much as the government and have as much things to pay for.

False analogy, you are objectively making a bad argument.

Nice copy pasta

Yes, the government managed to do all that while only being $20 trillion in debt! And forcing you to pay for all those things (even if you don't want them) by threat of jail. So great!
I'm a college educated person from New England but nice try

Isnt libertarianism the right wing anarchism mov ement? I would partually agree, as I do with Trump as a leftist. But every political system needs compromises. Your system needs public roads and a lot of taxes

He was making an argument that the government is better at wealth distribution. Wealth distribution is charity, so I aptly compared it to the work of private charities.
Obviously the government does much more than charity, but that's what he was arguing.

Not anarchism, limited government (much less than we currently have, but still some government).

i think it's important to actively take care of the less fortunate/dependents. Leaving people to their own devices just doesn't lead to any concrete answers, where as the systems put in place by government help us all. Furthermore, there are no examples of successful truly libertarian states which makes it harder to vouch for. I don't think "people will sort out education/health care/etc. by themselves" is a convincing argument. Streamlining these systems through government representation and taxation is very efficient and (hopefully) democratic. Society requires cooperation, there is no avoiding this.

>I'm a college educated person from New England
>Libertarian

Pick one, you mouth-breathing, inbred, pigfucking traitor.

Yankees go to town meetings, pay their taxes, and participate in our government. Yankees forced big government on the South, mandated public schools for the rest of the country, and ended their free market in Niggers.

So stop lying, Johnny Reb. Take your hood off, have a seat by the fire, and tell everyone what LibertAryanism is really about.

A few reasons.

So firstly, there is something called the "test of free will" which tests human societal conditions under freedom. Now actually, white societies tend to regulate themselves and produce quality societies, however the Marxist and Jewish intellectualism stemming from the Frankfurt school knowingly/accidentally subverted the entire culture, and turned free will against society. So technically we didn't fail the test, it was rigged against us. Regardless, with the current situation the answer is not more free will.

Tldr: our society isn't stable right now

Secondly, libertarianism (capitalism), like communism seeks to answer the question of unlimited human wants with limited resources. The problem with this is the effect on culture, it encourages materialism. In fascism the economic question is instead switched to more of a need based economy. The allegory of hunger is often brought up; you don't WANT to eat, it is simply necessary. You want to satiate the hunger, you don't want businesses to ENCOURAGE hunger. It's much the same with economics in fascism, materialism takes a back seat to other more important aspects of society.

Tldr: it encourages gluttony

Thirdly, government regulated morality isn't inherently flawed, it's just often very poorly implemented. Sparta is a good example of a good aristocracy. Hell, the founding text of Western Civilization, The Republic, advocates for a society ruled by elites.

Tldr: control but not exploitation for elites is a good thing

Lastly, all capitalism leads to crony capitalism.

stopped reading at jewish you fucking loony

There are no perfect examples of a libertarian state, that is true. But there are some locations that are libertarian leaning that are very successful

Switzerland is a very free country that has had much economic success.
The state of New Hampshire is a very free state. No income tax, good gun laws, big on private education etc. and it's one of the best states in the union.
There are many other good examples if you search for them.
Almost fell for it, you baited a little too hard.

You missed the point of the copypasta.

Yes and I was making the point that private charities on their best day have never had to deal with the amount of money or responsibilities that the government does.

You're trying to say they do a better job at something they've never done to a scale of the government. It's like saying a guy who organised his backyard barbecue did a better job than the guy who organised coachella. It's a ridiculous comparison.

Daily reminder that even with government regulation big business still take every opportunity to fuck you over, whether it be selling medicine they know gives you heart failure or artificially inflating the price of diamonds about 7000% percent or dumping chemical refuse in your water.

They do all this stuff knowing it's fucked up and harming lives and knowing it's illegal but hoping they don't get caught. Imagine if it wasn't illegal and they could do whatever they wanted. On day one of a libertarian system Subway would burn down your house for $3

Yeah, didn't know that. Thanks for the info. But we would never have single direct political movement in lead, compliance policy is the buzzword for the early 21st century.

I would agree with your idea of state backing off private concerns and let the local comunities govern themself a lot more. Those movements even support local cash flow through supermarkets mostly seeling local grown foods. But state and country more so need to watch over multi national companies, because they give a fuck about human rights and national belonging of the people.

Nice to see your willing to engage in philosophical debate, user. Your obviously much smarter than me for dismissing claims out of hand and rejecting anything new in that stupid, minuscule, lizard brain of yours.

Fucking you're* lmao

I don't see why we're still having this conversation. You asked for someone to find a problem and you've got them in spades.

Why, then, are you still here?

Doesn't change the fact that libertarianism is just a gussied up version of Neo-Confederacy.

Libertarians have everything in common with the League of the South.

1. Hates the Federal Government.
2. Hates Uncle Sam.
3. Encourages Sedition and Secession.
4. Hates minorities, especially Niggers.
5. Wants to end all Welfare.

Face it, it's just a new word for an old idea.

youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8

Somalia's a great system as well.

> Inb4 not true libertarian

Neither are any of the ones you offered.

In fact, the closest thing the world has ever had to a libertarian system is in 2012 when Kansas decided to turn their state libertarian.

In 2 years the whole state was bankrupt and relying on rebates from Obamacare.

This world has one example of in place libertarianism and it couldn't last 2 years

Many of the problems you describe are caused by a government, not the absence of one.

>Encouraging materialism

Yeah because society isn't very materialistic as it is

>All capitalism leads to crony capitalism
Government leads to cronyism, not capitalism

And you think i'm a reptilian as well. Take your meds please loony

Sorry, I never had any contact with that movement, but wouldn't libertarians be a better leading party than the current capitalist controlled lobbyist politicians? Just curious from a european perspective. They are more for the people than every other leading party except the greens so far.

ignoring a homeless schizo on the street does not speak volumes about my philosophical open mindedness. noone's going to engage you retard. back to the loony bin

Because just like Communism, Libertarianism sounds great in theory.

When any part of it is implemented it just end's up being a shitshow.

Communism is a retarded economic system that ends up catering too a few. Libertarinism is a retarded economic system that ends up catering to a few.

Yet here you are, continuing to reply to me, in a debate thread, offering no input of your own, just plugging your ears and going "lalalalalalala"

Yeah sure, one small charity doesn't have to deal with the stuff the feds do. But guess what? There's more than one charity in the United States bud.

>Selling medicine that they know gives you heart failure
Guess what happens when the medicine gives people heart failure? People don't buy it, and they get the shit sued out of them. Not a successful business model.
>Artificial inflation
Doesn't work in the long term with competition
>Dumping chemicals into water
Destruction of private property is still illegal

Btw that's not OP cause I'm OP

You don't seem to get it. Libertarians are just a re-hashed version of the old Confederates--the south during our Civil War.

It's basically a break-away, anglo-protestant, southern separatist movement.

And that's why famous libertarians wear masks like this.

Well I kind of reject the entire premise of your reply, because as I stated, free will has been an abhorrent failure for our society. We need maybe a decade of revitalization, then we can go back to free will.

You know what tragedy of the commons is?

Right?

Libertarians seem to ignore this most of the time.

Mate I'm not even a libertarian, but hurling pejoratives at something doesn't invalidate it

Free markets don't apply for externalities. For instance if we engage in voluntary exchange and you sell me a car that's fine and dandy. But the ecological impacts of me using an automobile aren't accounted for in this exchange. (Climate change, depletion of resources, lower air quality etc) Other people are involuntarily effected by free market exchanges, and all voluntary exchanges have multitudes of externalities.

Another reason is that Capitalism is dependent on the symbiotic relationship between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. But as automation becomes more and more prevalent and the socially necessary labor time to produce goods reaches near 0 than that symbiotic relationship is rendered obsolete, under such conditions any system based on private ownership over the means of production ceases to function.

>libertarian
I looked at wikipedias entry and it was pretty much the same other people told and I thought of it. There may be southern swasticka tatoed rednecks, but in the left ranks, there are also molotov throwing people and they don't represent the political party.
I am no right wing, but at least, be fair to them and be open to the fact, that the left also has niggers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am aware of the theory. I'm not an anarchist and not completely against all government.

Hypothetically, if a business were dumping hazardous materials into a river, that directly or indirectly affects private property. Like most libertarians, I am not opposed to government intervention in that situation, where private property is being harmed.

I'm not trying to invalidate anything. If you believe the Confederacy should be its own country, libertarianism is a great choice for you in the US.

But it is what it is. Ever wonder why all the famous libertarian think tanks (like mises.org) are located in the Deep South, and all their famous politicians (like Ron and Rand Paul) are from southern slave states?

I'm not making it up. Here's a reputable newspaper article about it from a couple of years back:

washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/07/10/the-libertarian-war-over-the-civil-war/

...

See

There are basically 0 left-libertarians in the USA, though. I hear they exist in Europe. But they're just not a thing here.

It's because here libertarianism and our old civil war politics are tied together at the hip in a way that's different than in other countries.

The most "anti-government" people in the USA are southerners who feel that they were conquered in 1865, and who want "their country back."

And funnily enough, in the most important stuff, left and right have the same opinion, so why not search discourse and discuss about stuff, instead of starting flame wars.

Ok? Still doesn't change the fact that a libertarian society will become impossible once automation reaches critical mass.

Okay...but what relevance does this have to the ideology of libertarianism...at all? Unless you're trying to imply guilt by association with southerners, there is no point to associating t with the south.

Libertarianism has existed since the 1700's, it's not intrinsically tied with the south.

Why's that? I'm not sure how you're arguing that automation will make it obsolete.
A free market will always find the equilibrium.

Libertarianism and anarchism are actually traditionally left wing, Socialist / Communist ideologies. right wing Libertarianism was simply just called classical liberalism until very recently.

I heard Texas, Cali. Maine, some western, some midwestern and some eastern states hate the govt. Those are all left and right, but the stupid facebook flame wars and memes stop real discussions and talking. (didn't include forums and other shit)

You don't get to retroactively associate libertarianism with Marxism when "classical liberalism" existed before Marxism.

Also, there is nothing libertarian about socialism, I'm aware of the differences with communism, but calling socialism libertarian is laughable.

I'm saying that it drives the ideology of libertarians to a great extent.

That's why more than half of libertarians are against abortion, even though more than half of the US is for it.

That's why fewer than 5% of libertarians are Catholic, even though 25% of the US is (the south is still very anti-Catholic, see map).

That's why a majority of libertarians argue that business owners should have the "right to segregate" based on race or sexual orientation, even though a supermajority (over 80%) of Americans do not want to legalize segregation again.

On and on it goes.

Libertarianism and Neo-Confederacy are the same thing.
That's why

And all of you should stop replying to the troll saying Libertarianism is just a confederacy thing.
The Libertarian Party has members in every state.
The only libertarian city council is in the north
governing.com/topics/politics/gov-crystal-minnesota-libertarians.html
Not to mention the biggest pushes to secede from the US is currently coming from both California and New England

Again, this has nothing to do with libertarianism. Neo-confederacy doesn't drive their ideology, economic and personal liberty do. Some of this might coincide with southern beliefs (states rights versus federal rights), and so what? Again, this is all completely fucking irrelevant to the ideology.

I live in Boston. There is 0 push to secede here. I mean 0. That's what rednecks do. We started this country. We're the Shining City on the Hill--the Athens of America. Have been since 1620.

I don't know where you got your news, but we're not going nowhere, nohow.

No, it's central to it. Here, let Ron Paul explain why.

youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8

Because in a capitalist society those who dont own the means of production (proletariat) are depended upon employment from those who do own the means of production (bourgeoisie) to meet subsistence. Once automation reduces socially necessary labor time to a point where vast amounts of the labor force are not needed, that relationship breaks down. Those who find themselves unemployed (nearly half the population by some estimates, but that's just speculation) Will be given no choice but to seize and socialize the means of production, or starve. The free market isn't magic, no it wont "always" find equilibrium.

I'm from NE and I wouldn't call it 0. It is small (basically irrelevant) but more so than more places.
fortune.com/2016/07/25/us-state-secession-brexit-election/

You might not agree with the terminology, but that's what these things were traditionally referred to as. The idea that socialism cant be libertarian is rather ideologically charged. I suggest reading philosophers like Proudhon or Kropotkin if you want to learn more about the concept.

Ok, so say the proletariat completely automizes everything.
Food, cars, clothes, technology.. everything.
The bourgeoise is unemployed and has no money.

Who the fuck do you think they can sell their products to? The other factory owners? No, they need the bourgeoise just like the bourgeoise needs them. An equilibrium will be found.

Literally exactly what I pointed out in my last post. The coinciding of libertarian beliefs with southern beliefs (states rights). Did you even watch the video? Half of it is about economics, and there is at no point where he mentions anything "neoconfederate"

Why reply to a troll post? Especially with such eager? Simply ignore him, those people are usally also the ones rampaging about over education

Who would built the roads?

Exactly, this leads to a contradiction that no free market society (or any society) has ever encountered. the bourgeoisie will use automation to reduce labor costs but as larger and larger portions of the proletariat find themselves unemployed this trend will eventually lead to inevitable social upheaval. just as capitalism came about because technology made a feudal society untenable, technology will make capitalism untenable, thus leading to another stage in economic organization.

He's standing in front of a giant Confederate Flag talking about the Civil War and how the South was Right.

It doesn't get more obviously neo-Confederate than that.

I showed you Ron Paul himself. I showed you a Washington Post article. Here's a Newsweek one:

newsweek.com/what-should-libertarians-think-about-civil-war-354946

You're just a traitor trying to recruit people, and so you're concealing the truth, or else you're being willfully ignorant for facts and evidence, in which case you're just a brainwashed moron.

I'm not sure which it is yet.

But my money's on you being a pigfucking southerner and lying about being from the North.

I don't know if you are that guy, but I would rather use the words, that capitalism will devour itself. Because it forces companies to move to foreign countries to produce cheap products, while the people they are producing for don't have the money to pay the shit. The buzzword would be predatory capitalism

pretty much.

Lol I'm fucking Canadian, and your paranoia in regards to this is pretty funny.

Yes and all the charities put together still don't deal with the amount the government does.

More to the point, they all are individually dealing with virtually nothing compared to the government, it's still a false comparison. Let me make the barbecue one again, but change it to fit your new "Lots of charities"

This weekend there were over 10,000 backyard barbecues planned by private individuals that went well, therefore they can do a better job than the guy who planned coachella.

It's lots of charities individually dealing with tiny amounts compared to the government and collectively still dealing with a fraction of the governments responsibilities, it's still a fucking stupid analogy.

> Guess what happens when the medicine gives people heart failure? People don't buy it, and they get the shit sued out of them. Not a successful business model.

Guess what actually happens? It takes about 25 years to be figures out and that's only because of a government investigation.

Are you fucking slow? How do you think this works, person A takes medicine and one day later has heart failure? It;s several years down the track, they have no reason to believe it's the medicine any more than a number of other factors in their lives or just random coincidence. It takes a centralized authority constantly investigating business's to stop this, and even then companies get away with it for decades.

> Doesn't work in the long term with competition

Except the diamond industry has been doing this for about 100 years

> Destruction of private property is still illegal

1: Who's going to enforce this?
2: Who owns the sea?
3: The business will obviously claim that their dumping of chemicals is harmless, who's going to investigate these claims?

>You're just a traitor trying to recruit people, and so you're concealing the truth, or else you're being willfully ignorant for facts and evidence, in which case you're just a brainwashed moron.

What a crazy fuck. Trying to paint people of libertarian ideology as confederates based on confirmation bias of cherry-picked libertarians from the south.

>You asked me to find a problem with it, so I did. Your model doesn't look out for the little guy.

So explain this to me, why is stealing from people who did nothing wrong ok?

Why is rewarding people who did nothing right ok?

Standard liberal politics is immoral(actually amoral if you want to get into semantics), this is something most people want to ignore, but true.

Do you care to refute the several articles and videos I cited here, or are you just going to abandon all logic and say:

>lel confirmation bias

Kindly capitalize "Libertarian," you stupid Randroid fucknozzle. The word "libertarian" was coined to describe Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. As a mutualist-anarchist, I can guarantee you that Proudhon would have cheerfully beaten Ayn Rand to death with a clawhammer while singing the Marseillaise.

I know you ignorant sacks of shit are thoroughly dishonest and it's expected that you would steal someone else's terms, lacking the creative capacity to make your own, but have the decency not to force others to have to live down *your* idiot theology of greed.

It's the ultimate special snowflake ideology. The idea that you as an individual and your individual freedom should be the most important concern of all is appallingly narcissistic. You don't matter. At all. And you disgust me.

>I'm college educated from New England

>I'm Canadian

Okay. Well, let's hear your explanation for how you're both.

>care to refute the several articles and videos I cited here

I shouldn't even respond because this is probably bait, but the articles do not need refutation because they don't prove anything. So some libertarians are southern confederates, like Ron Paul and his son? You are so stupid you are saying libertarians are all confederates.

I lean libertarian and I am from New York, and New York bullshit itself drove me to have more libertarian attitudes. BTW I hate southern confederate faggots

Even if its just a few people that abuse a completely free market for their own gain its those that ruin it for everyone.
Being ruthless is an advantage in the free market.
There needs to be a counter force to stop the most ruthless people from controlling everything.

The solution is a control instance that prevents powerful corporations and individuals from destroying the system for their own gains.

If you have no control at all the result will be a dystopia.

>Monopolies don't exist
John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word with you

Who gave you the right to property?

Why does Ted Turner get to inherit 2 million acres and some Indian guy named Two Crows gets to inherit none?

Who stole what from whom?

Who determines who gets property?

Who or what enforces that determination?

And why?

Because I think the biggest thing big government does is enforce property law and make sure nobody trespasses or steals from special little rich white boys who have little deeds and mortgages and contracts that they protect with armies of Cops, Soldiers, Guns, Steal, Judges, and Jail Cells.

Libertarians love big government...as long as it's protecting arbitrary property claims.

>admitting they got equal pay over 50 years ago

>a business that isn't exploiting workers

That could be an issue since Capitalism is by definition exploitative.
With capitalism, an employer buys labor from an worker at the lowest possible price he can get away with, and then sells the products of that labor to a consumer at the highest possible price he can get away with.
At best, the employer is a middleman and at worst he's a parasite.

By admitting that workers should reject employers that exploit them means workers should reject capitalism.

>You are so stupid you are saying libertarians are all confederates.

I never said that. All I said was that the ideologies are intertwined. League of the South / KKK is no doubt nearly 100% white Protestant men. Libertarians are very disproportionately white, Protestant and male, but they're not nearly 100%. Maybe 80 or 90%.

But I never said "all." I just said the two ideologies IN AMERICA are deeply intertwined as they co-developed historically.

Man, reading comprehension is not a southern strong suit, is it?

>little rich white boys

Drop the "white" and I would agree with you. You're not doing us any favors by shackling us to identity politics. This is about 99% vs 1% not black vs white.

So this retard post wasn't yours?>Libertarianism and Neo-Confederacy are the same thing.

>Libertarians are very disproportionately white, Protestant and male, but they're not nearly 100%. Maybe 80 or 90%
>Fucking white male meme

>Man, reading comprehension is not a southern strong suit, is it?
It generally isn't in my experience with southerners, fortunately I don't have to deal with them, since as I said I am from New York, maybe reading comprehension and good reasoning aren't YOUR strong suit either.

It matters in the example, since the rich white boy inherited 2 million acres of land that his ancestors stole from the Indian kid's ancestors, in this case.

The point was not to drive identity politics in, but just to point out how land ownership and property is totally arbitrary based on nonsense like who one some war long before we were born rather than who earned what...

>I am a college educated New Englander
>I'm from Canada
>I am from New York

Pick one, Johnny Reb. Story keeps unraveling.

More than one poster has been puking out your bait

You're working from a false premises so your conclusion is also false.

All economics is capitalism (speculative production for trade) with a work-production-consumption cycle. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Mercantilism, etc. are just capitalism's cycle with a lesser degrees of individual liberty.

The only alternative to capitalism is the small hunter-gatherer extended family groups that existed prior to civilization.