Libertarianism Debunked

youtube.com/watch?v=KElTidGHT5Y

BTFO
T
F
O

Fucking Hasan is the one speaking in this vid. I guarantee you this faced backlash from the TYT base.

This guy is one of the most contemptable fucks I have every seen in a "news" channel.

Economic inequality and unfairness will always be present in pretty much any system do to the simple fact that humans put their family first and everyone else second.

If Bobby's parents were successful CEOs Bobby gets to benefit from their accumulated wealth and has a head start in life.

If Sally's parents were dumb niggers Sally will statistically end up being a dumb poor nigger herself because her parents either don't see the value in helping her or can't afford it due to being dumb niggers.

True libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism would increase inequality because Bobby would essentially be granted even more liberties than Sally by the sheer virtue that his capital, education and connections can enable him even more success while Sally can't get any handouts from the government and will just perpetuate more poverty by birthing more dumb nigger children and passing on more dumb nigger values to them.

>Don't give freedoms because the least successful will get violent
Sounds like a good argument for genocide

It's always funny to see liberals claim that the poor would turn criminal as soon as they would not receive welfare. In their view wealth redistribution is basically a bribe to the less productive people to stay away from crime. So instead of having those do the looting they instead get the government to do it for them and thereby it's not a crime for them because it's state sanctioned.

>Sally can't get any handouts from the government and will just perpetuate more poverty by birthing more dumb nigger children
>can't get any handouts
>birthing


I always figured that if the welfare state ended, the number of low IQ peoples would decrease as well.

abortions and birth control costs money too

taking 10 dicks when you're 16 because you're a dumb nigger, doesn't

>I agree with the social side of economics, because I am a lefty, but the part that seems icky and 'right-wing' is completely wrong and let me explain it in 5 minutes with high-school-level arguments!
Really made me think. You can only have full freedom work when the costs aren't socialised. As long as I have to pay taxes to look after others, I will never support drugs, abortion, etc because it means I have to pay for retards to do retarded shit. Make people pay for themselves and truly I could not give a fuck if someone wants to do heroin or kill their baby.

The Young (((Roaches)))

>1 post by this ID
Not watching your faggot video

I'd like to imagine that even the stupidest communities would eventually realize that they can't afford to let their youth fuck like rabbits because there isn't enough resources to care for the inevitable increase in mouths to feed.

I haven't looked into it, but I imagine back in Afrikkka (before billions were given in "aid") there must have been a very strict sexual culture much like in every other society without plenty of resources.

His whole argument is that the government is there to keep the big corporations in check and regulate them. When in fact the big corporations are in bed with the government.

How exactly are Bobby granted more liberties than Sally? What liberty is there that Sally doesn't have when there is no government to suppress people and every interaction is based on a voluntary basis?

How does Sally birth more children when she can't feed them? Birth control is a fundamental principle found throughout the history of mankind. What is her incentive to get pregnant when she can't feed the children? If it is marriage than this would mean Sally decided to from a family in which to raise a child from which it profits.
Without government handouts there is no incentive for Sally to get pregnant. Limited resources will mean natural austerity.

Now let's forget about "from rags to riches to rags" in your story about Bobby. If Bobby's parents were successful CEOs than that means they were productive people lauded by society with their wealth. So Bobby's parents are match for success, right? They're probably intelligent, eager and have all other necessary traits to lead a company successfully. So those people bringing children into the world would constitute as a way up for society as a whole, wouldn't it?

>because Bobby would essentially be granted even more liberties than Sally by the sheer virtue that his capital

Yes because money grows on freedom trees and is to be distributed fairly

Wealth isn't freedom. The important difference is freedom is a right, wealth has to be produced by someone to fucking exist.

So bobby's parents could not consume equal to their productivity, so they had money left over, and left it to their child. What is wrong with that? Why do they owe sally jack shit?

The only way to help poor people is

A) Increase their productivty
B) Make scarce resource use more efficient

The welfare state does neither, it makes both of those worse because it pays people to be poor. Guess what happens faggot

Libertarianism debunked in just 5 minutes?
So I'm guessing this video is full of not an agrument

How does one debunk a political ideology? It's an opinion, you TYT morons.

In a libertarian society the people with money would just hire the non-violent poor people to be police to stop the violent poor people.

Or kill them with mercenaries.

>hasan

not giving the Young Roaches clicks
is their argument "what if a crazy rich person did something mean"?

Just like Africa right? No, you can survive on far less than what welfare provides in America. You can do the bare minimum for survival and reproduction on pennies a day, and without anything better to do they'll just keep popping out niglets.

>Libertarianism is just like communism because they both come from a place of good intentions, but neither are practical
>that's why the organisation that hires me supports a socialist proto dictator in the making who would destroy my country if he got his way
He doesn't even make an actual argument against libertarian ideas or policy suggestion, just promises it will lead to a real life version of some shitty jewlywood flick
I saved this image a couple of days ago and it's been applicable to so much already

>Debunked

How can you debunk the existence of an established ideology.

>linking to TYT on this site
must be cenk

when you say something is "debunked" or "discredited" what you actually mean is "it hurts my butt but I can't argue against it so I'll say it's debunked and assume you agree without investigating"
most liberal news sites and Alex Jones both abuse the fuck out of it

Pretty much, muh government is there to keep the rich in check and without them the employers would abuse employees.

A philosophy that existed for centuries with an enormous theoritical foundation debunked by a Chad saying he disagrees with it.
That was easy.

We give billions of dollars in aid to Africa every year

it was literally just
>wealth inequality will get worse because reasons
I guess he'll give those reasons in the second video

Who cares?

Libertarianism is a bunch of Jewish nonsense.

Apparently attractive men are the authority on all issues

I figured
there are a lot of arguments against libertarianism, but I don't think "what if [thing that happens now] happened and it's magically worse because there's no government" is a very good one. At least they didn't pull the pedophile card

>ELYSIUM IS LITERALLY WHAT LIBERTARIANS WANT
what did he mean by this?

When did Dane Cook get into politics?

GET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCK

you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism

>You need government to ensure the rich few do not impose injustly on the poor
>uses videos of GOVERNMENT forces fighting protesters as proof

is he a dumb

People against libertarianism are just unimaginative when it comes to finding alternatives to how services can be provided without government.
They are, however, very imaginative when it comes to conjuring awful dystopian images of situations that, ironically, are very similar to actual situations existing under various governments.

Elysium was shit t b h

>They are, however, very imaginative when it comes to conjuring awful dystopian images of situations that, ironically, are very similar to actual situations existing under various governments.

>what if a really rich pedophile starts kidnapping and raping kids and no one can stop him because of the NAP?
>ignores that Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile along with god knows who else, all exist

anarchocapitalism != libertarianism

Yeah pretty much like that

This! Look at that contentious population boom after colonization ended. We are paying for this replacement!

Tbh I think libertarianism is one truth away from ancap and ancap is the consequence of libertarianism thought through

We could really do something about this if we wanted to.

nah man shit will be perfect once white men and bankers (AKA THE SAME THING) are gone

just wait, we figured out how to do it perfect this time. it was all practice leading up till now.

>I haven't looked into it, but I imagine back in Afrikkka (before billions were given in "aid") there must have been a very strict sexual culture much like in every other society without plenty of resources.
not really, infant mortality did the trick just fine

I actually haven't seen a desire to try and separate anarchocapitalism from libertarianism as much as on Sup Forums most recently. There is no greater context in the latter one. Usually you just ask people if they are anarchocapitalists or minarchists and you know what's up.

It's of course the great tragedy about libertarianism in a way because the left has absolutely now problem with gathering all kinds of ideologies under one big tent and bring that force to bear.

...

Milton Friedman would make him cry.

>TYT

I didn't even expand the embed, cockroach.

upvote

Now I seriously wonder if that sinking fertility rate is correlated to the Sharia takeover at the end of the 1970s.

One of the reasons Moslems spread in Germany so effectively is because the welfare state is subsidizing them. Both systems are fundamentally anti-evolutionary but combined together they have the power to destroy a whole civilization.

Yeah
I think the problem is that leftism is inherently immoral in all its forms, so it's easier for them to band together.
Whereas Ancaps for example reject any initiation of violence and regard any form of state as immoral, but minarchists are fine with 'some' violence and state, but if and violence / state is already bad, even a little is bad too, so they can't really blanda up without rejecting their own principles.

Yeah
I think the problem is that leftism is inherently immoral in all its forms, so it's easier for them to band together.
Whereas Ancaps for example reject any initiation of violence and regard any form of state as immoral, but minarchists are fine with 'some' violence and state, but if and violence / state is already bad, even a little is bad too, so they can't really blanda up without rejecting their own principles.

>TYT

...

his argument is loose but not entirely wrong.

Libertarianism really is insanely abusable. all systems can be abused of course but libertarianism is one of the ones that practically asks for it, like anarchist ideologies.

god I hate roaches

Forgot picture related. :-)

The moral problem is of course the major argument to reject the state but I'm afraid that we will have a hard time convincing people with it. Even Ron Paul has admitted some weeks ago that he just doesn't see the existing society as moral enough to carry out the libertarian principles. The great corrupter is of course the state through its inherent suppression of the church as fundamental institution for morality in society and the legitimization of crime through taxation or the enforcement of arbitrary laws.

I agree with Brion McClanahan that you can't have western civilization without Christianity. If there is no eternal punishment for theft than there is no reason not to steal in this world. You just got to have that threat to enforce the moral fiber of society.

The funny thing with minarchists is that they don't have that long a way to go. As you already pointed out about people against libertarianism they are just unimaginative too. Most of them think that there has to be some form of state to take care of military defense or they argue somebody needs to encourage spending on fields the society would not cover. The space race and satellites is the prime example of propaganda they accept like everyone else.

>Forgot picture related. :-)

Forgot it again. (^_^)"

A libertarian society is possible literally tomorrow. You're a fool for letting yourself think too much. We've all pictured it. You just stand up and stop what you're doing and just do what you want.

Yeah, I think that the morality of towns depend on the families, the morality of districts depend on towns, the morality of provinces depend on districts, the morality of nations depends on provinces. If the family breaks down this sends shockwaves throughout the whole system. Then the top down approach is useless - supplying morality from the national level down to the family.

If cells become corrupted, you can't save the organism from the top down.

>hasan
into trash it goes
my name is hasan though desu

>PlayStation is plugged into the sand

TYT hired a chad?

not only that, they assume anyone speaking against it is racist therefore welfare=blacks, they're literally afraid of black people

>the young turks

the left lately seem more and more like a oprah watching housewife's club. Just flat out retarded soccer moms listening to Trudeau, prettyboys and rich men telling them they're right.

I have almost zero sympathy with libertarianism, but this is like Anna the Roachsucker hiring some intern to "destroy garbage men like Stephen Molyneaux"

>host, "pop crunch" on pop trigger

REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

He meant, "I m the 'pop culture analyst' for the young roaches, check out this totally sick reference bro! Its such a good comparison amirite?"

Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian, she was an objectivist

"If Bobby's parents were successful CEOs than that means they were productive people lauded by society with their wealth."


>rich people deserve their wealth
>rich people are more intelligent
>rich people are more productive
>still gases the jews for accomplishing the same

GET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCKGET OFF THE STAGE YOU FAT FUCK

>Muh every rich person is lazy and does nothing but count money and smoke cigars!
I bet you think they wear monocles too

TYT never had any argument

I get the point but I disagree. I don't think religion can be that source of morality anymore and can't be ever again, because Christianity is too weak and western people simple don't care. A religious source of morality could be islam but obviously that's not libertarian in its current form.

Morality can come from the simple logic that it must be wrong to do to others what you would not want done to yourself. Nobody wants to be violated or stolen from, it does not take a religion to have them realize it.

The problem is that liberty is something you need to learn, you need to understand it, and the state is doing a very good job at preventing it through its education and welfare shemes.
People only usually come into contact with libertarian ideas after being through years of socialist indoctrination, so only very few still have what it takes to accept these ideas, or at least most people struggle a lot with accepting them. That's where all the strawmen and the lack of imagination comes from - a chicken born in a barn can not imagine the sky without first seeing it.

The only hope to combat this is to provide alternative education methods, and thankfully we have the internet so impressionable people can come into contact with ANYTHING there. That's obviously a danger as well, but the only way to really grow the tree of liberty, and it seems to be growing okay-ish.
But we have lots of tornadoes coming up.

Also you don't really need the threat of eternal punishment for comiting a crime when you have the threat of a loaded .45 shoved in your face.

Not to mention that the poor-as-dirt rednecks that liberals hate on all the time in the (((media))) actually commit less crime than nigs, while receiving less welfare.

Did this silly cunt really just say "cloth-ED" with emphasis on the -ed?

What a fucking pretentious cunt.