Explain why Libertarianism isn't retard-tier

I believe in free markets for most things and in the concept of private property, but Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't seem like a viable system. I mean the U.S. pretty much already tried that in the 19th century with pretty poor results for most people. How would the dominating economic forces or corporations be any more beneficial and less exploitative than traditional governments? Wouldn't they become the de facto government? Also not to sound like a treefag or GMO tin foil hatter, but how would such a system deal with things like real pollution or adequate food and drug inspection?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>hurrrr vote with your dollar, corrupt and inept corporations will fail in the glorious and all-knowing free market

This is the best argument you can expect. Libertarians will attempt to diffuse this using masturbatory terminology they read in a newsletter but it all boils down to the above statement.

Libertarians are autistic children but you have to be a full-blown retard to think that the government can handle your economic affairs better than you.

Because it is autism comically treated with the weed -tier.

Wow you're so right, why rely on the nanny-state when I could test food coloring for toxicity, cordon off national parks, and oversee our nuclear arsenal all myself? You're so smart why haven't we thought of this sooner.

Come back after you get age 22 under your belt kiddo.

>How would the dominating economic forces or corporations be any more beneficial and less exploitative than traditional governments?
By you not buying their shit if they are so awful. It doesn't even matter if there is actually more than one company in a sector, what matters is there COULD be.
>how would such a system deal with things like real pollution
With real private property. If you pollute you damage someone else's property and should compensate for it.
>adequate food and drug inspection
With labels? Plenty of labels already exist (organic, fair trade, biodynamie) and they are all more stringent than the baseline F&D regulation.

trade should be voluntary and based on barter, echanging value for value, natural rights should be respected unless they infringe on others rights

open borders is fucking stupid though

Curious as to what national parks and nuclear weapons have to do with corporate regulations, but boy you sure do sound mad

National parks are already largely supported by private interests, hunters associations in particular.
Nobody asked you to test your food yourself. Do you have less trust in some of the existing private labels than in F&D inspection?
And who the fuck asked you to test the nuclear arsenal yourself? Like shit, you know about that stuff where other people do shit for you? It's called business.

it's time to reclaim this board user, for liberty

What would prevent corporate collusion or monopolies?

Assuming this isn't ANCAP, there would be state justice system right?

I could maybe see the private certification/label thing, but how could you really trust them? I know, I know the FDA could be lobbied/bribed as well.

>Company A sells widgets, which are convenient/shiny/addictive/fun/delicious.
>Unfortunately, they are also proven to cause a high rate of butt cancer
>Futhermore, Company A holds a monopoly on the widget market and refuses to acknowledge the link between frequent widget use and butt cancer
>Company B starts up and introduces the widget 2.0, which is miraculously cancer-free but also more expensive
>Company A buys Company B and kills the widget 2.0
>this is totally legal since antitrust isn't a thing
>widgets still legal since FDA isn't a thing
>8 year olds spend their allowance on widgets and die from butt cancer by age 27
>even though several fedora'd gentlemen plan boycotts of the widget, the public still loves them enough to keep Company A profitable

nice free market

do you have a real world example?

>What would prevent corporate collusion
the possibility of any other competitor entering the market at any given moment.
>or monopolies
de facto monopolies aren't an issue
>Assuming this isn't ANCAP, there would be state justice system right?
For handling the whole "catching criminals" thing, yes probably. But when it comes to business arbitration private courts do a mighty fine job as it is. In fact pretty much the entirety of international business disputes are handled by private arbitration.

>I could maybe see the private certification/label thing, but how could you really trust them?
No more than you can trust the police to actually take your complaint instead of pulling a racket on you if you live in Mexico. No matter your preffered system, it sure ain't gonna work if the majority of your countrymen aren't virtuous.
So, sure, general trust and honesty is important for business. In my experience businesspeople are the best sustainers and exporters of those virtues though.

I actually agree with you: intellectual property rights are a travesty and a hindrance to proper market competition.

so get rid of the patent system?

Yeah, I don't believe in the whole "nobody will inovate if they can't rent-seek out of it" narrative.
Being the first adopter is generally enough to pull a major profit.

>Being the first adopter is generally enough to pull a major profit.
But what if you have not enough capital to pursue your idea on a large enough scale to be profitable?

Go to a venture capitalist and tell them your idea to get them to invest, but then they just take it for themselves.


The only people investing would be those with oodles of money.

**innovating not investing, sorry

You can sign a non disclosure agreement before you do your pitch.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott

Here's a great example of what pure, unadulterated capitalism does in parts of the world without regulation. Note the distinct lack of these "competitors" and "consumer actions" that exist in the fevered imagination of the Libertarian.

Well as Libertarian myself, let me explain.

It is the most logical choice. Bipartisanship is ruining our country.

Now i hate whiny liberals as much as the next guy and am not a big fan of the left, but i hate divisive cunts even more who prefer to stick to their party rather than what's best for the American people.

Obviously right wing and left wing governments both have good points you can draw from both sides to create a most superior ideology.

After all, our country wasn't created to be just a bipartisan mess, it was founded by the people, in the interest of the people.

How could anybody be so stupid as to confine themselves to think with their party and its agenda rather than whats best for the country, is the question i have for you.

was their any bribery of politicians involved, or were the pols just stupid/evil?

>Obviously right wing and left wing governments both have good points
top jej, tripsmaster

do list the good ideas from teh left

And who would enforce that agreement?

I just don't find the argument of limitless competition as a convincing solution against collusion and monopolies. If a corporation or corporations own all or the vast majority of resources necessary to a specific industry how could you stop them? (e.g. Sugar company owns all land suitable for sugar cane, Coal company owns most or all of the mines, etc.)

courts?

How do you know the enforcers of the agreement will enforce the law?

The free market obviously works! The average consumer is very knowledgeable in what products he buys.

That is why we don't have an obesity epidemic in the US and that is why people refused to buy iphones made with inhumane labor in China.

An NGO had to take Nestle to court in Europe because the legal framework simply doesn't exist in the third world.

please answer the question I asked you

1.) Gridlock was almost built into the structure of our government since its inception. 2.) I don't agree with Laissez-faire capitalism nor am I socially liberal like many Libertarians are. I don't tow the party line of the Reps., but they represent my ideology better than any other party, although certainly not entirely.

Lying to your consumers is obviously unlawful. This can be handled by justice and doesn't constitute "regulation".

Well for one thing, competition isn't strictly contiguous but also transversal. i.e. if someone holds all the coal and overcharges then other energy production methods will prevail
if de Beers is too cuntish about limiting the supply of diamonds then artificial diamond businesses will become more successful, and so on

Well, if you're not being an edgemaster, social equality.

Protecting the rights of the minorities.

Government assistance (yes lots abuse it, but it is essential in having a first world country)

Free college, free healthcare (permitted i think this should only be applicable to those who absolutely cannot afford it, and make decent grades whilst doing so)

investing money in green technology

Ending the war on drugs

secularism

combine that with right wing policies on military, immigration and taxes and anti political correctness and 2nd amendment rights and you have one badass nation

And where will this justice system magically manifest? A private court? What's to stop them with colluding with other corporations? Where do you appeal rulings? Another private court? Better hope they're in bed with the competition. Who will enforce the rulings? A private law enforcement company? Better hope it's in their financial interests to do so.

Because private interests can usurp and violate your rights just as easily as any government authority.

>americans think free college somehow magically suppresses intellectual/social reproduction
It does literally nothing. Engineers and doctors will still be massively engineers and doctors children. We've been doing that forever and lo and behold there are hundreds of factors more important in deciding why educated people's children do better in school.

International business is doing a fine job despite all those objections.
I also have to do the regrettable constatation that once again the conversation immediately steered from specific points about economy to the eternal "BUT WHO WILL CATCH THE CRIMINALS" like in every other thread. Why bother arguing about the more specific point then if you're always gonna fall back on the same general point about total ancapism?

what if I AM being an edgemaster? does it hurt your fee fees?

>Protecting the rights of the minorities.
why? why not just protect the rights of all, without bias or favor? why special protected classes above other classes?

>Government assistance
you mean enforced charity? oh wait, it's not charity is it's coerced through threat, is it?

>Free college, free healthcare
again, it's not free, it's paid for by others through threat of force, what right do others have to my earnings? do they have the right to make teachers and doctors work for free? isn't that a form of slavery?

>investing money in green technology
if it was any good, it wouldn't need government to step in and take peoples money through threat of force. it would succeed on it's own, if it can't then it is unviable

>Ending the war on drugs
not sure what you are implying here. should the government SUPPLY all drugs? should it facilitate imports? should it enforce being drugged? or should it cease all attempts to prevent drugs entering the nation?

>secularism
what's so great about secularism? it's rise seems tied to the decline of the West and the family

>anti political correctness
yet it is the communists who invented and pushed it

please answer the question I asked you

Yes, international business is doing just fine without the guiding hand of regulatory agencies at all. None whatsoever.

Can you make a more specific point?

I'll agree this may provide a solution given that you tweak patent law or intellectual property rights, otherwise powerful companies will just buy up and dismantle their competition. Still from a more philosophical point of view, I'm not so sure than Consumerism via Libertarianism is really the answer to what is beneficial to mankind or even an individual nation. What's to stop us from being mindless Beyonce watching cheetos munching drones and not pursue higher goals?

Read the article and formulate your own conclusions. I provided you with an example of the failures of unchecked capitalism as you requested. Feel free to agree or disagree based on what you have learned.

>does it hurt your fee fees

Not really, it just makes me take you slightly less serious.

>why? why not just protect the rights of all, without bias or favor? why special protected classes above other classes?

Well yes, with minorities being protected that would mean all people are protected. Im not saying we give them special treatment, just make sure that they have the same rights as the majority.

>you mean enforced charity? oh wait, it's not charity is it's coerced through threat, is it?

No, not enforced, it means if you ever somehow find yourself in a situation where you are poor as dirt or have nothing, you atleast have means to clothe, feed and shelter yourself.

>again, it's not free, it's paid for by others through threat of force, what right do others have to my earnings? do they have the right to make teachers and doctors work for free? isn't that a form of slavery?

They wouldn't be working freely, just as public school teacher do not work for free. It's paid for by taxes.

>if it was any good, it wouldn't need government to step in and take peoples money through threat of force. it would succeed on it's own, if it can't then it is unviable

don't even understand what youre getting at? if we started researching green technology that would allow us to generate a fuckton of revenue, especially if we were the first nation to be a green powerhouse. Just like we were with tech from the 20's-80's

>not sure what you are implying here. should the government SUPPLY all drugs? should it facilitate imports? should it enforce being drugged? or should it cease all attempts to prevent drugs entering the nation?

decriminalize all drugs, make rehab mandatory for all addictive drugs. it would cost less then our current penal institutions

>what's so great about secularism? it's rise seems tied to the decline of the West and the family

Source? one of the principles this nation was founded upon was the separation of church and state

If you were never a liberal, you don't have a heart.
If you were never a conservative, you don't have a brain.

Been on both spectrums. Leaning more towards liberal social spectrum with a focus on libertarian economics.

I certainly wouldn't trust politicians and administrators to uplift us intellectually and spiritually. That would be the role of other institutions like academia, culture and religion. And subversion too, which definitely can't be state-driven.

>as you requested
I'm fairly certain he was asking about companies buying out an innovator to maintain their monopoly. Personally I couldn't be arsed whether or not third world countries manage to maintain a proper justice system, or rather it's not our responsibility to do it for them.

A specific point on what? That government agencies regulate trade? If you're going to make a broad, blatantly false statement that international business operates completely outside the bounds of regulation, you're not giving me much of a jumping off point.

But here, I'll play along - they're usually three or four letters, and they tell you what you can and can't do. For example, if you're a fruit importer, you can't import pineapples to the US that have big chunks of lead in them.

break it down for us, faggot

I asked you a question, if you can't answer it, then don't, but that does reflect on you

You did mention that they didn't have any laws, hmmmm. is that the libertarian position? no laws?

did the country in question have military and police capable of stopping the ebil corpastion? yet they didn't? that sounnds like corruption and dereliction of duty to me, not capitalism, ya scummy gommie fug

>For example, if you're a fruit importer, you can't import pineapples to the US that have big chunks of lead in them.
Literally what does this have to do with international litigation?

Free markets are good for most things, but not everything. Also, you can't deny the tribal aspect of humans. They naturally elect a leader to set rules and make decisions on how resources are allocated. Libertarianism will never happen.

the kansas tallgrass prairie is a privately maintained example of our precious heartlands history. your excuse falls on its face

>Also not to sound like a treefag or GMO tin foil hatter, but how would such a system deal with things like real pollution or adequate food and drug inspection?
market demand

That's cool and all but nations are a completely different beast from tribes.
Tribes aren't an abstraction, unlike nations.

Your definition of libertarian economics may be a little skewed if you think it's a completely free-based economy. There absolutely must be consumer rights and company restrictions so that they don't fuck people over completely for a profit margin.

Though, I don't see why you would ever intervene within the economics of a company aside from what I just said. Let the market reign.

Im an ancap but am voting for trump and usually refrain from arguing it until this election is over. shills try to push the nat soc / libertarian division so we stop pursuing our shared interests

Libertarianism goes against human nature like socialism. Ask 100 peoole if they have an issue with government being involved in building roads and schools. 99.9 are okay with it.

>Futhermore, Company A holds a monopoly on the widget market

no they don't.

Infastructure =/= Private Sector

Are you talking to me or the wall?

DRAAAAAINAGE EELAI

because they did it all those other times

Shut the fuck up Randy

>"we can't do without a king, it's a silly idea"
And how the fuck are public schools human nature? Human nature didn't exist before the XIXth century?

DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAINAGE

still not making an argument for statism

in fact you're making a very strong case against it

>make sure that they have the same rights as the majority.
like in the US with fag marriage and affirmative action which places Whites and Males on the lowest tier? wht is your rationale for this blatant sexism and racism?

>No, not enforced
I have no problem with charity, but nobody has a RIGHT to my earnings, only slaves canbe forced to work for others

>It's paid for by taxes
under threat of jail, how free, such liberty

>first nation to be a green powerhouse
it's not cost effective. they only work 30% of the time, and windmills need replacing every 10 years. you seek to force people to pay more for energy, which also encourages businesses to move away to where it is cheaper

>decriminalize all drugs, make rehab mandatory for all addictive drugs
even scopolamine?

>Source? one of the principles this nation was founded upon was the separation of church and state
look up the divorce rate over time, look at the increased sluttiness of women, look at the lack of respect for children to parents and teachers

>If you were never a liberal, you don't have a heart.
>If you were never a conservative, you don't have a brain.
oh wow, what a meaningless platitude, are you #MentallyHill ?

>Leaning more towards liberal social spectrum with a focus on libertarian economics.
you sound like a faggot, read a book

I'm a libtardaryan at heart, but I'd prefer natsoc to what we have now with endemic corruption at all levels

nice uniforms too

only downside is the forced charity bullshit, but I culd stand that if it was my own people who were taken care of and not shitskins, although I would prefer to give what I can afford to local charities rather than corporations that give their directors 6 figures, and spend 60% on advertising for more donations

>in the 19th century

You do realize that's when the Industrial Revolution was taking place, right? The world saw countless improvements in medical science, technical inventions, etc. This narrative about the common man being held down by aristocrats is nonsense. No one was worse off, just a few people climbed to massive heights, most of whom did great things for the world.

>How would the dominating economic forces or corporations be any more beneficial and less exploitative than traditional governments?

You aren't forced to comply with corporations. You are forced to comply with government. The only reason why corporations are so powerful today is because we live in a corporatocracy where the government protects and abets big business. You take away the government and you take away the ability for corporations to exploit the government.

>how would such a system deal with things like real pollution or adequate food and drug inspection?

Because we're talking about a Libertarian government and not anarchy. The sole purpose of the government should be the judicial system and national defense. If someone pollutes, it's considered and externality, and everyone who is unjustly effected can sue the party that polluted. As far as food and drug testing, what do you really think goes on today? Why would and how could supermarkets and pharmacies profit off of tainted food/drugs? It's in their best interest to offer quality products at quality prices. You can also have independent body conduct inspections, kind of like how countless websites and organizations review cars, computers, restaurants, etc.

Tribes elect leaders to lead the pack and make certain decisions. It's just the way it is. There will never be a true libertarian government ever.

They should've put you in a glass jar on the mantelpiece.

>already tried that in the 19th century with pretty poor results for most people.
lol you're fucking retarded

.9 of a person, you really are specially retarded

and who cares what the masses think, principles and trhe defence of natuiral rights overrule opinion

>Im an ancap but am voting for trump
same

>one of the principles this nation was founded upon was the separation of church and state
and that we are given natural rights by our creator. its not theocracy I will give you that but americas version of inalienable rights are not secular

Not an argument fag, go research how poor the conditions of the American Industrial Age were and get back to me.

Even Gary Johnson worships the state. If everyone were white on the planet libertarianism could work. But most of the planet, probs 99% of non whites are not down with it.

Could we use our dollas to vote the browns and Jews out?

why do we need to care what non-Whites think?

Best living standards in the world. Faster GDP growth than any other nation on earth.

I AM A FALSE PROPHET, AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION

Shifting demographics make libertarianism a dead movement. Nationalism is mire important IMO. We can debate economics, but immigration is a PERMANENT policy.

true, who cares about money if your people will be mixed out of existence, only the immoral rich(jews and shabbas goy)

Compared to what, idiot? Do you honestly think people were worse off then than they were before those times? Maybe you should go research how to post on the internet without coming off like a retarded jackass.

Why would Company A kill widget 2.0 you moron?

Late 19th century Industrial Age, you know the time of the robber barons.

I

DRINK

YOUR

MILKSHAKE!!!

Poor urban living conditions, barely livable wages, no labor laws preventing abuse. Sure there were no modern conveniences before that, but honestly the Antebellum U.S likely was much better for a lot of people. You're the kind of history ignorant moron who is the burger stereotype.

>Company A buys Company B and kills the widget 2.0

Why?
Company A would make more money with widget 2.0, have more living customers for more time, and take care of their bad publicity from their ass death widget. Plus a preexisting company like Company A would be able to produce more widgets and get them into more stores.

tl;dr You obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about kiddo.

I actually think libertarians are clueless and are the enemy for the issues of today.

They would let terrorists flood in or let terrorists acquire nuclear bombs with no intervention.

Did you not see the GDP growth i posted? And yes, late 19th century U.S. was pulling ahead from the rest of the world with regard to living standards.

I
LEFT
MY
SON

IVE
ABANDONED
MY
CHILD

IVE ABANDONDED MY BOY

HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-uuuuuuuuuuuu

goat movie user, patrician tastes right there

IF I HAD A MILKSHAKE, AND YOU HAD A MILKSHAKE