This triggers the libertarian

>This triggers the libertarian.

I would just like to let you know that you are one of my favorite posters UK guy who hates libertarians, and I'm a fan of your work.

not an argument

No it doesn't. Safety, defense and infrastructure are all okay roles of government

>This confuses and frightens the socialist

As an anarcho-capitalist, I'll just start a company that fixes roads and the companies that rely on roads will pay me to fix them.

theres been a pothole outside my house for years and you know what the council did? sent down a crew to raise the curb by 2mm so that it would fit regulations, thanks government

Or is also not a raccoon. And not a plate of spaghetti.

OP never claimed it was any of those things, either.

There's a pothole at the entrance to my neighborhood you have to violently swerve around every time if you want to avoid it, it's been there for months.

Libertarians what do you do when someone uses MUH FREE MARKET to form a private military and go dictator on your asses?

Kill them

What? we live in state right now, and we're not the only thing in a state, our roads are too.

What if they are a better capitalist and are able to use MUH FREE MARKET better and more effectively than you?

That would threaten the liberty and the free market and therefore the wealth of just about everybody else, so it would be in their interest to stop it.

Regardless, your argument only makes sense in Anarcho-capitalism which is only one strand. Most Libertarians accept that a reduced state is worth the benefits it brings.

how the fuck do those things ever create?

not an argument

Hypothetically libertarians: What if someone used MUH FREE MARKET to buy up every single last bit of a compound on the planet that was needed to make a life saving drug... Then proceeded to destroy it because MUH FREEDOMS.

What do?

>That would threaten the liberty and the free market and therefore the wealth of just about everybody else
You will need proofs with that. In such a scenario a lot of people could actually increase their wealth exponentially. A private military would have a numerous group to back it up, and the resources invested into the money and organization would be aimed at improving the initial sum of money, even from a libertarian point of view.

Then I and my compatriots have been outplayed. But it's such a falacious example that it is downright cringe worthy. Having a huge bloated corpse of a government does not better your chances in a war with a hostile dictatorship with superior force

*into the equipment

...

...

Libertarians don't mind state taxes, which is what pays for roads. It's the endless federal taxes and the government sitting around thing of new things to buy with the money they haven't taken yet they have a problem with. Seems reasonable to me.

the roads here are already an absurdly broken mess

t. Quebec

In a hyperbolic example of such an extreme. A freeman would only be able so hold his possessions as far as his force would allow

>Other PMCs would be threatened by the potential of a monopoly
>There is always some other dick who will want the same amount of power, => constant coups

Again though, this is an anarcho-cap fantasy in an isolated vacuum. Most Libertarian societies are about rolling back the influence of the state, not removing it. Using anarcho-cap is like using the Soviet union to describe social liberals.

Make my own PMC

War, has changed

Report the pothole

You should do what some guy did and spray paint a big penis just around the pothole, a few complaints about that and the council will fix that I bet.

A whole in the street actually shows that the state is not working in maintaining the roads.
Somehow people think it is difficult to build roads.
Compared to the use it is very cheap, but government fucks it up.
Our government spends as much money on rails as on roads, while only 7% of the population use them.
Government is inherently inefficient in allocating ressources.

Military is one of the only institution that a state should provide.
It shields a country from outside threats, secures trade routes outside of the country.

This is needed for a free market to work.

One other institution is a quick and just judical system.

But guess what all governments at least in Europe fail at.
Military was outsourced to the US. I don't think they will forever sacrifice their sons for our social security system to work a little longer.
Germany is down to one Panzer division and only a handful of our planes are operational, while still using around 200000 people in the military and at least as much employed as civilian support.
German military even uses private security to guard their military installations, because it is cheaper than using the stationed soldiers.

The roads are shit.
For example it took 50 years to connect Munich and Stuttgart, two of the biggest industrial centers of Germany to get connected by a Autobahn.
And what did they do? Only a 2 times 3 lanes one that won't be enough to handle the traffic, while building an even more expensive high speed railway next to it, that no one will use.

Our judical system is slow as fuck and you don't know anymore what is right or wrong to do because of an unlimted amount of ambigous laws and regulations.
Any lawsuit can fuck a business over.

I'm not driving I'm travelling.

...

This triggers anyone who gives a fuck about their car

>Potholes in Somalia
This double triggers the libertarian

Holes in a government road triggers a libertarian?
okay

Can someone once and for all explain to me what the fuck a libertarian is?

Liberals are degenerate tards -right?
What is Libertarian?

>Cu0ause damage to property, i jury, and death
S'ok

>Resemble a genital that 50% of people have
Fixed next day, cant have that in view of children

Fuck.

Niggers don't count as examples

Free to be used. Free to use. Man is still a wolf to man, whatever the system.

>tfw trump made libertarians and traditional cuckservatives irrelevent for the foreseeable future

Get out of my political system you money worshipping kikes

Understanding that economic freedom is the most important freedom there is.
And not free government shit.

You can only argue what polcies and laws economic freedom actually secures and which do harm it or even destroy it in certain markets.

But figures that a Swede would not understand that.

Edgy manchildren that never grown out of their "lol, fuck authority" phase

Lolbertardians absolutely BTFO to never recover!

Anyone who isn't already a 1% will be nothing more than an indentured slave in that system. Enjoy feudalism.

>implying is any different from now
The advantage is that is more efficient, less middlemen

Leftists don't accept opposing views not to be extreme dumb asses. Even if you tell them that, they'll correct you to say you don't believe there is a role for the government.

You actually believe that? 1%? There are so many small businesses that make money to sustain their families, why to you fall for such interactue lefty memes? Are you a child?

Hahaha fuck off man you'll have warlords lining up to fuck your ass and rentseekers to scoop up all the crumbs.

So who's gonna fix the goddamn hole?

Have you ever read a history book?

Me, for $50. Just as soon as I'm finished digging all these other potholes...

The owner?

was posted in another thread

Gods speed to those businesses. But what happens when Walmart or McDonalds takes over their market? These corporations have do many more resources to snuff out their competition. That's not how a truly free market should operate.

This makes me moist

I am no longer a lolbertarian. This post made me realize we need an extensive government or potholes will never be fixed. Please take 50% of my income so I never see a pothole again.

I remember when they were called centrists. In fact they ARE still called centrists, and libretardian parasites are latching onto that demographic just as they once latched on to the republicunt demographic.

Well said Chaim.

Be better at capitalism. Seriously, no matter what system is best, the best people using the best system will always have a strong military advantage over everyone else. That system is very clearly capitalism (unless you have no idea how the USA became the richest nation to ever exist), so be the best at it, or hope the best doesn't destroy you.

The very principles you're refuting refute your point, if someone makes a monopoly (highly unlikely without the help of a government), and effectively becomes a dictator, people lose the freedom to any of the things in that post, and they would riot.
The reason a mcdonnalds might win is because it was chosen by the public to win, monopolies are bad because they hurt people, I put it to you, that mcdonnalds wouldn't last long, if it started being an asshole to the people, very quickly, competition would arise.

>implying private city owners wouldn't just hire road repair and charge you a subscription
What a fag

>posts a picture of the current ruling system
>t-this triggers the liberarian!
protipp: in a libertarian society such holes would be fixed asap

Always the fear mongering of the evil big corporate monopolies by people who don't understand economic freedom.

If someone can establish a monopoly in a free market it is because they are the best, working the most efficient.
If they stop to do that, they will no longer be the best and others will replace them again quickly.

I am curious - what mechanisms do libertarians believe would ensure people still enjoy their basic human rights under this system? Who determines the laws, punishments, and regulations, and who has the authority to punish the "wrongdoers"?

Walmart and McDonalds, due to scale, become inefficient because of unions, small companies could compete with them if they weren't forced by the government to play by the same rules as the unionized big corporations.

People need to realize that the government regulations are nothing more than the expansion of union rules equally to all existing business, which represents a handicap for those who are just starting now and decreases competition.

How exactly does a single person or company own a road? Especially if it's the only one that cars can use to get from A to B? What happens when this "owner" doesn't fix his road that others rely on? They can't go anywhere else. That's why governments are help reasonable for shit like this (ie water, infrastructure, postal service).

Ok then, clearly, we need healthcare and social security, because a hole.

Well it's clear you've never read a history book. Why don't you study the "golden age" robber barons and great depression.

why do they need to be fixed?
>my dear car will break ;_;

use a bike lmao

>That's not how a truly free market should operate.

In your opinion.

>Libertarians
>Parasites
>Not the greedy tax gobblers of the left and right (Statists)

Roads on the most economically libertarian country in the world.

Tax as low as possible, government as small as possible, regulations as lax as possible

Roads on the most communist country in the world

>empty as fuck

seems about right

The government, elected by the people.
People who use their power to control the people unfairly always show up, most governments are proof of that. All I'm saying is that it's always up to the people to dismantle unfair powers.

test

>never s
Sorry but Mansa Musa was richer than the entire US

Libertarians (like the founding fathers of America) believe in "small government" so a small government funded with tariffs on imported goods, would punish murderers and thieves.

But a small government would never tell people what kind of food, drink or drugs they can use, a small government would never plunder one portion of society, to indulge another sector, like bloated governments do now.

Libertarian = small government (Colonial America, Monaco)
Anarchist = no government (Somalia)

Statists on suicide watch.

>they is just hard workin! The cooperation dindu nuffin!
I'm so tired of this meme. Once business get large enough and if it decides to toss morals to the side, they can do shit no other company can regardless of how hard working that small company is. McDonalds/Walmart can influence politics, treat their employees like shit, cut corners on production that others can't, while still maintaining a advertising campaign or propaganda that claims their helping the world and providing jobs. Free markets don't protect against shit like this and that's when regulation becomes inevitable.

Why does every post from a paid government-promoting shill look like it was typed by an illiterate Bangladeshi?

Police and courts, unless you're talking retard anarchists, then I guess the holy spirit or something

I have often heard libertarians mention the "non-violence principle". How can the government craft the laws, enforce them, and protect its citizens without the use of violence?

...

>only one road exists

RAREST

400 billion? We have 400 people worth a billion a piece at least.

>blaming capitalism for the Hoover tarrifs

Just look up the history how the Golden Gate bridge was built as an example.

If you don't fulfill a contract you are punished and replaced.
If the government just sets the standards for a road, as in laws, but does not own the road it can punish and ultimately disown the owner of said road and find a new contractor when it does not fulfill its part of the deal.

Most streets are required by the businesses so they will build the road together and contract someone to maintain it.

So many possibilities. Not that complicated.

They did dismanle the oligarchs, with a democratically elected government. FDR's New Deal reset the balance leading to the middle-class utopia of post-war USA. Ever since then the oligarchs have been clawing back, from the overt coup they tried to organize with Smedley Butler through to the boiling frog rollback of govt regulation.

Common shittalk, Somalia has a government, but not one recognized by the world.

Or perhaps more accurately, they are a bunch of warlords that own the place like kings, not anarchist, at all.

>american ignorant of own history

Stop the presses!

That's literally not how it works at all in the real world you stupid nigger

If someone has a monopoly they will pay off suppliers to set up barriers to entry and buy up shop fronts to prevent competitors from even starting up competing businesses. This legitimately happened in Australia in the grocery sector until the Government told Woolworths and Coles they can't set up new shops near other shops because they were literally buying up shops in Shopping centres and sometimes having two outlets in the same centre just so other competitors couldn't set up shop.

The world doesn't work how you think It fucking does. Your random Joe off the street can't fucking start up his own business competing with a major global corporation just because he's sick of their shit, no matter how much government red tape you get rid of. Dealing with suppliers and establishing distribution networks takes a lot of resources and If one company is large enough, they can completely block out competitors by preventing others from using them.

>Retarded jargon
>Absolute stupidity

McDonalds and Walmart are bound by the same market forces which exist for all corporations (except for any "companies" which receive unfair protection from the government, like Obama insider scams like solyndra etc)_

Walmart has closed multiple stores, Target Canada went completely bust and closed. The free market is a fickle mistress (unless they have corrupt government officials on speed dial like Solyndra, GM, Dianne Feinstein husbands corrupt company etc)

This.
Centralism makes sense and is respectable; libertarianism is just communism wearing a shitty hat.

> they can't set up new shops near other shops

They can't set up new shops near their own* existing shops rather, they can set up shops near competitors.

>influence politics
So libertarian

If anything you said was true, where are all the corporate giants from the 1900's? Or any time before that really. They all die, they all get too bloated and outdated.

Yes, a government rule is violent by nature, what libertarians say, as opposed to anarchists, is that some violent rule is necessary to make sure people have the other rights.
By the way, by rights, I mean what you would be able to do if there was no one else in the world. Would you have the right to sustain yourself? Yes
Would you have the right to a free car? No, because that means a duty on others to provide you with the free car.
Would you have the right to security? Yes, because there would be nobody else to be a security issue. That means, your existance threatens other people, so you have the duty to pay for the security of others, because if you didn't exist, the other would be safe.
Now, does it mean the government may take money from you to pay for others' health? No, they would be as sick if you didn't exist, it's not your fault, and if you want to help, it should be your choice.

Personally, I'm fine with state violence on a limited scale, honestly without threat of violence you can't have a state at all. Using violence against murderers, theives, rapists, nothing wrong with that to me.

>If someone has a monopoly they will pay off suppliers to set up barriers to entry and buy up shop fronts to prevent competitors from even starting up competing businesses.

So they will spend a hefty sum of money to block companies from entering the market, but what happens when the one entering the market is someone who has built their capital in some totally different market and can outmanouver you because your fixed costs are huge due to those pay offs?

Ah, good ol FDR. I love how he is revered and yet his entire reign is known as The Great Depression