ITT: Try and prove libertarianism is not the best form of political governance

ITT: Try and prove libertarianism is not the best form of political governance.

Protip: You fucking can't

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZgYh61YvYDo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Also inb4 >1 post by this user bullshit

Are we talking real life or utopias here? In real life the current demographics mean libertarian parties will never seize powet.

This no good ideology. This ideology for retard

youtube.com/watch?v=ZgYh61YvYDo

How does a libertarian country defend itself from the Chink red army?

>ITT: Try and prove libertarianism is not the best form of political governance.

Build a state university, build a highway, get to the moon, provide shelter for the poor and homeless, enable upward mobility, prevent over accumulation of wealth at the top, encourage investment over passive savings, have a fiat currency, issue a government backed bond.

All things libertarianism fails at.

the people need to have the hope that their government can provide ample support for them by way of public transportation, utilities and healthcare. in a libertarian government, none of these things are provided to the public, thus making said public lose faith in the government.

Most libertarians acknowledge the need for a federal government to provide for the defense of the country.

>libertarianism
>same as anarchy

Take a good hard look in the mirror mate. You're looking at a genuine fucking tard.

>state university
oh no, whatever will we do without substandard education?
>roads
apparently private roads can't exist
>get to the moon
for one thing, literally who gives a shit. for another, there's no argument saying that a private corporation would do this...for whatever fucking reason.
>provide shelter for the poor and homeless
what is charity
>enable upward mobility
how is upward mobility hindered by libertarianism? Moreover, how does the government "enable upward mobility"?
>prevent over accumulation of wealth at the top
Capital is not a zero sum game.
>investment over passive savings
See above point.
>no fiat currency
Explain why this would be the worst thing in the world?
>government backed bond
You're reaching now.

>fiat currency
>a good thing

Also, a communist country theoretically provides all of that. Look how well communism has done.

...and rely more on one another instead of some bureaucratic system that prides its members on being better than the rest.

The problem with libertarianism it is impssobile to manifest, to officially manifest, even constitutions wont help.

So its very likely that a libertarian state will become a socialist/crony capitalist what ever state.

In libertarianism there is literally no governance

Always Libertards.

National Libertarianism is a fine idea to have. Far better than National Socialism. Once you start opening your borders though shit hits the fan.

I don't see why people argue about libertarianism for the USA.

A hands free federal government would be the best, anything else can be filled by the state since each state is different and has their own needs. What happens in the states vary, hell even the age of consent is different among the many states.

>literally no governance

>literally being this literally retarded

>national libertarianism
Libertarianism is incompatible with nationalism

How?

Not really. The idea of a maximally limited government does imply a government, meaning territory, meaning people in that territory who would need to share the culture and laws (so probably also similar ethnicity) of libertarianism.

Libertarianism actually only functions within a nation, because international libertarianism is a goofball pipedream that requires global domination of libertarianism, an inherent oxymoron.

I mean, everything is sound imo but your opinion on space travel is shit. Not only has it provided us countless technological advancements, it really is humanity's only hope of long term survival. Climate change isn't a meme, countless studies have proven this. Our rock will not sustain us forever and to ignore this fact is to betray your own species. Fortunately, others agree
>what is SpaceX

>humanity's only hope for long term survival
If we can't figure out how to move faster than light then it's a pipe dream. Really don't see what going to the moon has to do with that, though. We've done that already. Is it economically feasible for us to make nations on the moon or some shit?

Am I free to go?

no but it's economically worthwhile to mine asteroids

I think private industry will find a way to finance this if it's economically feasible to do so.

as it would with everything else

B
Y
FASCISM
A
R

for real dog

do some philosophy plz

fascism is perfectly legitimate, especially with an armed populace ready to overthrow the government

it's basically the modern monarchism.

it's funny when people say "le natsoc memeb XDD" when they know, in their heart of hearts, that the entire jewish controlled system is against it

protip: for a reason

FROM WHERE DO YOU DERIVE YOUR AUTHORITY

>economically worthwhile to mine asteroids

literally not economical

maybe in 40 years

Right, but my point was that we don't necessarily have to keep a government-backed space program.

>keep government-backed
and i never said we had to. i'm an economics student so i'm naturally libertarian-leaning

was simply pointing out that space exploration can be profitable

Lol.

>apparently private roads can't exist

Literally the Ron Swanson of political opinions.

>The Parks Department could be run by token machines
>put in a token play on the playground
>put in a token feed a duck
>put in a token take a walk

My only beef is that libertarian states are still liberal democracies thus open to subterfuge and plundering from foreign elements. I believe the only systems that truly protect people are ones like Gaddafi's Libya and Hitlers Germany.

Put in a token "go fuck yourself" while you're at it.

>literally not economical
it absolutely is. asteroid mining would have one of, if not the, highest returns on investment.

i never said it was currently feasible. our technology isn't reliable enough.

all i said was it's economically worthwhile (in the context of my comment = private companies would be willing to invest in space exploration and related technological advancement)

I'm not saying public roads can't exist, but it's a dumb argument to say that only roads can come from governments. The way I see it, if the governments can do a better job of roads as opposed to private industry, they should be able to do that. At the end of the day, it's really more about the most efficient allocation of resources.

Nice shitpost

my comment stated it's not economically viable, though it may be in decades.

you respond with "yes it is economically viable, but it's not," thus agreeing with me though you argued against me with your first sentence.

also, you have absolutely no idea that it would have one of the highest ROIs. the costs involved are insane. who cares if there are $40b worth of minerals passing by us each year if it takes $50m to get them? and if multiple companies are space mining, they'll flood the market w/ resources and drive it's price down, hurting margins further.

you can't simply say it's economically worthwhile and have that be a meaningful statement. what you can say is there are valuable resources passing by us, and if private enterprise can access them cost effectively, they'll invest in space enterprises.

Roads could be easily privatized with sponsors, advertising, and tolls.

i hope you don't go around like this pretending you understand economics

too tired to break down your idiocy but please read a book or something

A fucking leaf.