Name one thing wrong with libertarianism

As an economic system.

That's right, you cant.

Monopolization and corp merges

/thread

> Selling to the eternal jew

how much will you pay me to answer

What prevents Shekelsteiner Corp from dumping radioactive material in the landfill in front of your house? What prevent Goldberg Services from tripling the price of tap water cube meter overnight

wow that was easy

Bizarre belief that people play by the rules out of pure philanthropy?

Even socialism is pedicated on a quid pro quo for the masses. Libertarian economics runs on fairies and unicorns.

Your 200mm ww1 howitzer you got from a scrap metal auction and the shells it came with. Free market baby!

Both phenomena which dramatically and demonstrably increase output and therefore well-being

Take Rockefeller and Carnegie, each reduced prices up to 90% in their respective industries, providing otherwise unobtainable goods and services to millions of consumers

>Your 200mm ww1 howitzer

No, fuck that. In a libertarian paradise, I'll simply get myself a goddamn Death Star.

...

Public outcry would bankrupt the company.

Trump's VP cost his state billions because businesses refused to do business there after his anti-gay bill.

libertarianism is not an economic system

Open borders.

black people

Tolls roads and private licenses, trips man.

/thread

"Do what thou wilt"- Allistar Crowley

Yeah so. Letting people do whatever the fuck they want, legalizing drugs, opening borders, minimizing government authority, is a recipe for disaster

>Pay toll
>Drive your car ten feet
>Pay another toll
>Repeat x 1000 to get from point A to point B

You want it, and if you can pay for it, 5 people will compete for the contract. It's glorious.

On a more serious note, assuming libertarians don't go full retard, some state functions like providing security and enforcing basic, western decency have to be performed by a state like organization. We can't go full mad max, everybody will agree.

>Pay tol
>Drive your car ten feet
>Pay another toll

>stop driving on that road
>capitalism

Libertarians are often not just economic, they're very strong constitutionalists and that's simply retarded.

You can't defend the constitution as a stone-like unchanging object. The very fact that it has amendments proves that it's subject to change. Anyone not accepting of that fact needs to go to Mexico.

Because irradiating a neighborhood violates the NAP. Police would get involved. Libertarianism=/=Ancap.

>Name one thing wrong with libertarianism
It's anti-White.

Prove me wrong.

Oh, that's right. You can't.

You also didn't address the arguement of private licenses.

Pay for an annual license to drive on a private road and never have to deal with tolls.

It's pretty much the same as the standard registration fee (tax).

What would stop a private company from maintaining roads? They're clearly needed=people will pay.

This is literally the most retarded argument against libertarianism.

How does that prove anything other than libertarians operate with facts in mind and not feelings?

>they're very strong constitutionalists and that's simply retarded.
How so?

Liberia.

The Bill of Rights is eternal.

Everything after is up for debate.

Get out before you get shot, traitor.

The point is not maintaining roads but the level of bullshit they'd go to Jew you out of your money IE tolls every five miles. And since it's the only road in town you have no fucking choice but to deal with it

>He thinks a private road company wouldn't squeeze the money out of every person that needs to use their road

>Inb4 natural monopolies don't exist

>Bizarre belief that people play by the rules out of pure philanthropy?
Where the Hell did you come up with that? At the epicenter the theory is mutually beneficial self interest.
This is central to literally every text ever written on the subject. You don't know the first thing about what you're speaking of.

The Constitution isn't defended for its own sake but because of the principles on which it stands

The free market rewards those with the highest IQs. That would make it a little more pro-asian than pro-white but still very much pro-white

Victorian England

Yes, government is the only organization capable of implementing a solution to this very complex problem.

Fuck off. I can think of solutions to this off the top of my head.
The private sector is capable of producing countless goods and services. Why are roads believed to be any different?

Based on how most people, especially on Sup Forums describe libertarianism:

The problem with this question is the kind of people that are hardcore libertarians are nothing like either capitalists or communists. Both believe each system is ultimately the way forward for improving the lives of the most amount of people, with communism being the most naively idealistic. Libertarians are in essence, far more self centered. If a libertarian society had massive sections of unemployment but a select few that "live the dream", it would be deemed a success. Those who fail in the system would be part of a natural process of libertarianism, a sort of natural selection that would be seen as weeding out the week. By ordinary people's interpretation of it, a libertarian society would most likely be a living hell, but the libertarians would see the massive gaps in wealth and such as just the opposite.

To see the UK oppress feckless third world savages again, I' d have it.

Full libertarianism and full communism are equally idealistic (and both naively so)

Because in their mind,you are not supposed to run paralel roads. However, if that road is that precious, surely a second, more efficiently managed road would force the other one to adapt?

How will you maintain the roads without the roads there to begin with? Someone needs to build them first, which has no incentive in libertarianism

libs are ignorant of how businesses really work. If left alone, businesses cut corners, dilute, pollute, oppress, suppress, combine, conspire, inflate, and drive out the good leaving the consumer no choice but the bad.

How do you enforce the system? People are actually pretty cooperative.

Pot Holes

>only government can build roads mindtrap

use some imagination

>no incentive
Transportation is literally one of the biggest industries in the world, you commie.

Did you know all railroads for example were privately owned enterprises at first and then got nationalized, in the uk as late as the 50's? If there is a need to get from a to b and given the chance, people will figure out how to make it possible.

truth. no other companies at the time or any since would have had the means to build up infrastructure the way Standard Oil did. But if we had let them continue monopolizing w/o gov intervention (anti-trust), we basically be dealing with the Comcast/TimeWarner of gasoline. No thanks.

come on user

>The very fact that it has amendments proves that it's subject to change.
That's the only way that it is subject to change, as it was written and intended.

So.. government employees physically constructed all the roads in Canada? Remarkable..
Our lazy-assed government merely pays private companies to build roads on the taxpayers behalf.

The point is both want very different things. Libertarianism is about what's best for the self and communism is about what's best for everyone, in theory that is.

You just drew an analogy to two companies that have their market share established and protected by the government and regulation, and yet you use it in an argument for said regulation without a hint of irony
I'd like you to think about that.

Secondly, by the time Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 it had ~60% market share -- a substantial decline from its peak
When talking about monopolies, it's easy to forget about *potential* competition, rather than what's immediately present in the market.
In this case, as well as others, potential competition is proven to be enough of a safeguard against true coercive monopoly.
The sane cannot be said for regulatory forces.

Communism is only best for everyone uber the assumption of collective will and values
In reality, or individual's ideal is another's nightmare

Massive gaps in wealth aren't equivalent to many people being impoverished. Wealth isn't zero sum.