Is there a legitimate argument against libertarianism, Sup Forums?

is there a legitimate argument against libertarianism, Sup Forums?

no memes pls

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
prri.org/spotlight/libertariangotw/
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Too idealistic. Most people can't be freelance workers and nonwhites have no interest in "liberty"

>who was army

roeds

The only real argument against it is that it's hand is not firm enough to prevent the destruction and decay of prosperous civilizations.

why'd you make her eyes blue

I think a libertarian minded society could work well, but you still need SOME regulations.Roads is not a good argument. Roads would get built. However, I have no problem with the state bulding roads.

>is there a legitimate argument against libertarianism, Sup Forums?
Obviously.

People don't care about how anything other than price.
Libertarians seem to think that people will choose to support companies based on their behaviour.
They won't.
People buy iPhones today and know they were made by essentially slave labour. They don't care.

If there's some factory in Nebraska that dumps all its waste into the local river, the people in New York won't give a shit.

Also, potential for monopolies of basic functions.
Like the meme response of "roads". They'll be tolled yeah, but the prices will be absurd because there, by nature, cannot be an alternative.

The utter failure of privatized education and health care system in the US.

Competition ought to lower the prices. Instead, pharmacologists and private uni owners use the market position of their goods to push prices further and further - because you often can't choose simply not to visit that renowned uni or not to buy that unique medicine.

Also, only protective taxes on imported goods can insure the economic development of some regions. That's the thing Trump preaches.

Libertarian order cannot persist on its own. You need a government to protect it.

Also immigration will ruin it

roads

No practical implementation to create a libertarian society and then maintain it.

Success just attracts free-loaders.

I like parts of libertarianism i.e. the sheriff state where only negative rights (right not to be killed, robbed assaulted) are protected. But my issue with it is that it doesn't take a stance on social issues, like gay marriage.

Roads

You can fix pharma by adjusting patent law and universities charge so much because of the availability of college loans.

>The utter failure of privatized education and health care system in the US.

you mean the education and health care that are both heavily regulated by the federal government? is it those ones, hans? go back to watching your wife take muslim cock, fgt

A libertarian nation is at a severe disadvantage militarily. Conquering a nation of sovereign citizens, or at least destabilizing it, should be a piece of cake for any well organized and adequately supplied public army.

Another issue is immigration. Mass immigration is in the best interest of large businesses, and it will happen if the state does not keep it in check.

I have a tough time believing that a single corporation won't grow to the point in which it resembles a government. In that case, all the principles of liberty and freedom that libertarians (and myself) cherish would go right out the window. Google has no obligation to respect the right to privacy.

>success attracts free loaders

i'm not convinced you know the difference between right and left libertarianism. your scenario would really only cripple left libertarians. right libertarians are perfectly fine with charity, but they understand that you aren't owed something just for existing

>you mean the education and health care that are both heavily regulated by the federal government?
He means in it's pricing and availability, not its efficacy.

You guys pay more per capita health care than people who are taxed for it.
Because that makes sense, right?

It requires for everyone to believe in the NAP.
It'll only last until a group that's stronger than the ones enforcing the NAP shows up.

against nature and biology, there are biological operating factors, you have to control them (female hypergamy, adultery, epigenetics, races, genes) or your society goes down like ours

>I have a tough time believing that a single corporation won't grow to the point in which it resembles a government. In that case, all the principles of liberty and freedom that libertarians (and myself) cherish would go right out the window. Google has no obligation to respect the right to privacy.
Why do you think only big corporations would infringe upon your rights?
A school of piranhas can be as dangerous as a shark.

/thread

Most people on the right are libertarians. They agree that you should have the freedom to do what you want. But disagree with what you do with that freedom. If libertarians weren't degenerates and actually had opinions on things other than weed and polygamy then I'd take them more seriously

open borders doesn't work unless you're a globalist shill

Well the problem is subsidized prices. The market understands what government doesn't, which is that when the government gives people money for student loans or medicine, they still have what money they started with, which consumers would have used anyway. They know they can get you to pay extra now. This is the reason for rising tuition and medical fees.

Except that piranha are less dangerous than sharks.

>You tried.

As opposed to small corporations? I have a tough time believing the local pizza parlor chain can monitor my web browsing history. It takes a lot of resources to perform mass surveillance of a population, and the more bigger a corporation is, the more powerful it can become.

Police cant be a private organizations, crime will always exist,open borders will never work, without the arm of the government different beliefs will clash it heterogeneous communities. Legalizing all drugs will increase drug use and addiction.

Its a meme and its stupid.

>the more bigger
Fucking Christ

Roads?

>It takes a lot of resources to perform mass surveillance of a population
Not really when people freely give out all the information you..

What I'm saying is that you don't need "government sized" corps for there to be problems with right infringement.

Do you think Pizza Hut and the like are "government sized"?
Is Facebook or Walmart or any other big corporations?

They're big enough now to do whatever they want.

People are not capable of governing themselves. Just look at the trafic in any arbitrairy country. Retards can't handle freedom om choice.

...

Is that Mary Elizabeth Winstead? I don't remember her having blue eyes.

The US only regulates quality and vuman rights, but not price.
Also, it regulates those things becouse companies had the bad habit of not cheking quality and causing mutations in babies do to it.

Libertarians are generally okay with paying taxes on public goods (roads, police, firemen, military, library)in order to get around the free-rider problem.

But not okay with paying taxes that go to nonsense things like corporate welfare.

>ancap = libertarian
>if you're a libertarian then you support open borders and unlimited immigration
>only the state could do things right
>people actually say this unironically

The only way your rights are protected is through government (i.e. police, military, fire department, courts, esc.). Without regulation or government interference especially in a globalised world, whoever has the most money or firearms decides your rights at the end of the day.

See

They are socialists who refuse to have a private government (monarchy)

Corporate welfare creates infrastructure and stimulates the economy.libertardians btfo

>no memes pls
But user, he who controls the memes controls the world

...

What happens when big corporations make bad decisions?

If you're at all serious about libertarianism, please watch this video. It's important for you to know just how fucking stupid and impossible this ideology is; we need post-Keynesian liberal nationalism, not retarded retardland.
youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

>roads

Yes. A libertarian utopia has no taxes and no government. What would happen is the accumulation of wealth passed through the generations, and such a society would quickly devolve into autocracy.

You know, this is what happened in the early days of civilization, societies started out egalitarian, and whomever started accumulating wealth and passing it down through the generations eventually became the ruling class.

The people unify as one and refuse to buy their products.
Because in a libertarian society, everyone is full educated and capable of changing their purchasing strategy on a whim.

She doesn't, it's a photoshop from Sup Forums

>nonwhites have no interest in "liberty"

Sup Forums actually believes this.

yeah it would end my welfare neet existence

>nonwhites have no interest in "liberty"

I'm not white and I voted for Johnson back in 2012.

Congratulations. Two niggers. I guess you win.
prri.org/spotlight/libertariangotw/
>They [libertarians] are also racially homogeneous, with nearly all (94 percent) libertarians identifying as non-Hispanic whites.

Self hating mixed leafs of white / asian parents

They cannot vent their rage elsewhere, so they come to Sup Forums to shitpost

i don't understand this meme

i am mixed and i am actually fine

Checked.
The point is that if businesses can afford to be dumb and have the government bail them out, they why try as hard?

The idea of individual liberty goes against us in so many ways. You fucks seem to like science so here you go:

jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

When you gain individual liberty, you lose allegiance to your community.

>libertarianism is anarchy
Please do not

>A libertarian utopia has no taxes and no government

>they why try as hard?
Because they want to maximize profits.
It's never enough to be "Ok".
Not increasing profits is equal to losing profits.
Expand or die.

There is no "Oh well, if we fail, the feds will bail us out" attitude.
Because even if it does, the legacy of the people involved will be shit and they'll lose their jobs.

The modern system doesn't make corporate greed any less potent.

come on, we all know sowell is an anomaly

>posting an exception changes the rule

Pollution + Diversity = Libertarianism

Man made climate change is real and a significant problem.

No, I'm not memeing you. I'm quite serious.

Slippery Slope
Thats pretty much it but this applies to all political ideologies

You mean the state funding a private company to make the road

Libertarianism: "Yo, let's open up the borders and open a new coal power plant!"

Which is a horrible idea because it incentives using poor materials for the road.
For one, it's cheaper so greater profits.
For second, it means another contract in a few years when the road needs repairs.

Doesn't follow Keynesian economics, which is basically a proven fact at this point.

...

Just borders and environmental regulations. I believe in closed borders, environmental vonservationism, and tariffs to fund all government expenses which would be minimal. Remember
>libertarianism /= anarcho-capitalism

atomized individualism doesn't work

Do her with green and amber eyes next. Put some shit on her nose too since she loves sniffing ass.

>>libertarianism /= anarcho-capitalism

>I like to pick and choose what I think works and what doesn't because I don't really have any principles, I just don't like paying taxes and having minorities get a small portion of it

Libertarianism = Anarcho-Capitalism

>Do you live in a city? If not, why not?
>If so, can you safely walk anywhere in that city, at any time of day?
>If not, what authority is restricting your freedom?

No

People who think there are need to be physically removed

they're contacts for a tv show she's in I believe

The only argument is to slowly adopt it. The same speed we got in the shitter...overnight equals mass starvation.

Pic=qt3.14

>nonwhites have no interest in liberty
This is true, they just want gibsmedat

t. greatest shitposter on this board

Yeah the late 19th and early 20th century.

here's one with green

You need Pepe pointing.

wtf i hate libertarianism now

They are not set up to do so, since their benefits to their stakeholders. How are stakeholders protected in a liberetardian society?
Plus niggers burn through welfare money like nothing

I'm lolbertarian myself, more or less. I don't lie to myself about how going against freedom is anything else than coercion, and that all government is absolute government.

But in the end there are things that are constraints, interdiction outside property, and no amount of bullshit will make them not constraints and yet I think we must enforce them.

To give an obvious example, things like incest, which does not violate the NAP and anything like it based on property and contracts of civil law, and yet is a blight of such proportion that many anthropologists consider it a prerequisite to humans rising above ape level.

Then you get this kind of cuck argument that looks on the textbook example of lobbying and writings tens of thousands of pages of regulations (US healthcare) as free enterprise.

just open borders idiocy

oh and heroin for children

Nah, image search brings up the original where the light reflects a lot off her eyes. You can barely see her pupil in the original because they've shrunk and the light covers them.

That's more of a seafoam like the color of your post ID. I remember she was the girl who was humiliated in the fappening, still cute but would not kiss.

looks related to Martin Shkreli, wouldn't bang

>That's more of a seafoam like the color of your post ID. I remember she was the girl who was humiliated in the fappening, still cute but would not kiss.
shame on you

>the prices will be absurd because there, by nature, cannot be an alternative.
you for real? there are highways all across the US, many of which run parallel to teh interstates

I think that in an ideal Libertarian system you'd still have a central government.. It would be large and powerful enough to protect the borders of the libertarian order..

Against libertarians that believe in a "not too small" government, vs one that believes in a "government should only handle military" the "not too small" does have enough arguments to turn the debate into a standstill of ideals. Anything less than those two is an anarchist in denial and is not even worth a second of your time.

The latter though will absolutely get rekt by "muh roads" and "muh monopolies" though.

poor snek

Okay, answer these faggots:

>Who builds the roads? Why should I have to pay a toll ever 5 meters? It's retarded, plus if everyone could build a road the whole country would collapse, roads would transverse Yellowstone and other important shit because no rules
>What if a random guy comes to school with an automatic rifle and kills 50 kids? Provided he's played a bit of MW2 he can crouch and dodge bullets so he wouldn't be easily stopped before killing many people, and what about gun accidents? If anyone can buy a super OP gun lots of crazy shit would happen
>What if I work for 30 years for a company and they fire me? Do I just die on the streets because I had to sell my house or some shit?
>What if I'm fucked and I need medical assistance but I'm poor because of bad luck in life?

libertarians generally do not support welfare, tehy approve of charity, but not forced redistribution

i.e. no bennies for freeloaders

p-post pics

In some statistical samples, an exception is sometimes considered as an argument (following here ancestral proverbs) since it means you can effectively assess the contrary of the rule.

If we had not found a based libertarian nigger, the cucks would actually have an argument saying we just refuse to see them. But Sowell is proof that we can see based libertarian nigger.

I've been to a libertarian themed meeting, and they were seriously 90%+ white males, a few females and one single half non-white (half Pajeet) in a group of 40.

Literally white man: the ideology.