LIBERTARIAN HERE. Try and debate me

So far i haven't heard any objective arguments against my position.

Lets see if one of you can change my mind.

Roads.

Foreign policy is the only negative thing about libertarianism

roads

not an argument

not an argument

Libertarianism doesn't mean complete anarchy.

I don't want to be killed by the local militia for not paying a weekly fee for using the sidewalk

What is your position on Aleppo?

Where's the positive in having completely open borders? I literally can't think of any

How do you stop degeneracy in a libertarian society?

That's not true at all. Pure freedom requires complete anarchy. Any other form of freedom must always be followed by certain exceptions. No matter how small. Even libertarianism.

>when you want to discipline your son but you can't because it would violate the NAP so he grows into an asshole who violates the NAP

Hire the war lords to kill them all

>MUH ROADS

A libertarian is someone so stupid that they believe that people will cooperate better if you destroy the only means they have of cooperating.

>we don't need a government maaaaan *tokes bong* all we need is like *fires automatic rifle into the air* freedom from government tyranny so that we can *employs child slaves* get together on our own *adds rat meat to sausages* and like figure out rules for how we want to interact with each other. ITS JUST A PLANT, MAN.

>roads

Smokers are so disgustingly entitled, and so common that it was impossible to debate them on how "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone" doesn't apply in this case, as passive smoking is harmful.

Governments at large in the 00's banned smoking in public venues, and the entitled cunts got quite pissy - but it's a textbook tier example of how a government overriding the people can have positive outcomes.

Also, vaccines and herd immunity.

What do you value more, freedom or truth?

ITT: not an argument 50 times

roads

Ancap memes

>US Federal government spends $4 trillion in a year
>roads

This is what mentally retarded people actually believe.

I believe in the liberty to take your stuff and shag your teenage daughter. I don't believe in 'But's.

ideally you wouldn't be paying taxes to fund some low iq black person who has a kid they can't afford and lack of welfare would prevent them from having more

Freedom has no inherent value

Libertarians are anarchists in everything but name. Some libertarians say we don't need police, some say we do. Some say we don't need any government agencies or regulations and government should only be for the defense of the country, while others say we still need regulation.

Either way, their overall mission is the same: less and less government until it approaches something approximating anarchy.

...

>WHAT'S A LEPPO?

>>uses circular reasoning

>> freedom is good therefore freedom is good

>>freedom is what I define freedom to be because freedom is what I define freedom to be

not an argument

I asked you a question you fucking emu

So if you want to live a completely free lifestyle, why should there be laws that protect from me taking your stuff?

You were born smart and use your intelligence to make a lot of money.

I were born in bad conditons which caused antisocial personality disorder and therefor a lack of empathy.

Why are you free to use your skills but you want police to protect your things from me using my skills. Where is my freedom?

If you want freedom there cant be any law. then it is survival of the fittest in every way.
If you want to have laws then laws are for everyone. If I cant live to my potential and kill you you cant use your potential and make billions. Everything has to be balanced.

The State is subservient to the people so much as the people have a unified code. The disparate worldviews of the citizenry under libertarianism always end up in the dominance of those aligned with the universal laws which allow for the proliferation of power and then the group of citizens who have the means to acquire supremacy via political power do so and the government is hence forth implemented into a new State. Thus, libertarian societies can only exist in a transient stage because of their inherent removal from the unchanging and glorious laws of Nature.

Social control will always exist and it must be so, personally, I believe cannabis is a miracle plant and sodomy is abhorrent. Why is one illegal and the other protected by law?

>>freemarket is what I define freemarket to be because free markets are free isn't that great?

>>smokes weed, straps on fedora

not an argument

saying "not an argument" against an argument is not an argument. some of those were arguments. You're just a retarded lowlife who wants to hurt people for fun and you're cranky that the government won't let you.

If you remove all regulations from business you get plutocracy. Monopolies, trusts, price fixing, lax safety standards, etc.

Well, what _is_ your position?
also, wow, you're a lazy fuck.

I don't even know your positions, that's why I asked you a question.
Fuck you for wasting my time.

>>government is oppressive therefore government is oppressive. Get out government!

>>smokes weed, straps on fedora

not an argument

>saying "not an argument" against an argument is not an argument
Thats where your wrong kiddo

If you have regulations, then you still get all those things except also the government will shoot you for opposing them.

Do you think the emu war was justifiable?

Reminder that "not an arguement" is not an arguement.

not an argument

brainlet detected

>>Private enterprise is better than government because private enterprise is better than government

>>smokes weed, straps on fedora

2/10

I replied.

I made an argument you can't refute you faggot fuck go die in a fire and make a counter argument or else I already won.

T. Known Boss

Fuck off.

Not an argument.

Better than not shooting the fat cats.

Pending major technological change, defense against nations must be provided on a large enough scale to support retaliatory, and perhaps also defensive, nuclear forces. This makes it difficult to sell national defense on the free
market. An ABM fired at a missile a thousand miles from its target cannot distinguish warheads aimed at those who
have paid for defense from warheads aimed at those who have not. Even if defense is retaliatory and even if the retaliatory system is secure enough to hold its fire until it knows whether its customers have been hit, the problem remains. The citizens of New York, having paid their share of defense costs, can hardly look with equanimity on the H-bombing of Philadelphia, which has contributed not a penny. Not, at least, if the wind is blowing the wrong way.
So national defense—defense against nations—must defend areas of national size, whether or not they contain nations.
It is thus a public good, and one with a very large public.
Can this public good be financed by some variant of a noncoercive method? It is not obvious how. The size of the public is so enormous that a unanimous contract is virtually impossible, especially since one secret supporter of a foreign power could prevent the whole deal. Buying up most of the land affected by national defense might be less difficult than negotiating a unanimous contract among 200 million people, but hardly easy. The land must be purchased before sellers realize what is going on and increase their price. Raising enough money to buy the United States would be a hard project to keep secret. In addition, the transaction costs would be substantial—about $100 billion in realtor commissions for all the fixed property in the United States.

Well that is also not an argument.

Anarcho Capitalism =/= Libertarianism

Most libertarians believe in the state to protect private property

not an argument

yes but I told why that cant be because otherwise you are a faggot

Non Aggression Principle. Become a repo man if you want to steal shit legally.

FPBP

Maybe you need to tell use your position first faggot

Why the Fuck does everyone think Libertarians are Ancap.

How many fucking times are you going to do this thread?

The theft of others freedoms is not freedom. It is objectively wrong.

Not an arguement

Darwinism.
The unfit traits die off and fit traits live on.

Non aggression Principle kek
So I am a brainlet therefor I want a no intelligence principle.
Why should you deserve to use your intelligence which you got from your genes and didnt earn it and I cant use my antisocial skills

>got 2 (you) from this

do you guys understand logical discourse?

These aren't arguments, provide some.

So you wasted your vote on some retard.

>not an argument

Sup Forums is literally retarded enough to keep responding to a low-tier shitposting dingo fucker thread...

Assuming we're talking US style right-wing Libertarianism, isn't that the logical conclusion? If you circlejerk about "less government less government private business is much better" ad infinitum, you arrive at ancap.

until it stops being funny

because bitcoin is closing in on on 800 per and if anyone has a claim to their ideology actually working, its the people who own the majority of bitcoin (ancaps)

Okay so musicians sell their concert tickets on websites. How would you stop a third party company from buying a large portion of the tickets from the Websites to sell for a huge inflated price?

Like other social-political ideals, it's a good position in principle that doesn't work in practice.

Ultimately, an authority has to enforce our freedoms, otherwise groups will form to take them away. That authority will always be corrupted or eroded, and with that go our liberties.

There are also situations that call for a necessary suspension of liberties for the greater good. One might consider the Draft and the suppression of German/Japanese sympathy during WW2 an example.

I'd call myself a libertarian in values and principles, but no country can maintain a true and stable libertarian government.

There are 3 types of people:

People who want to be slave owners
People who want to be slaves
Libertarians

It was never funny.

If you take ressources I cant use them anymore faggot that is theft of my freedom nigger so you better pay me for using ressources which belong to everyone you thief
he really thinks he can make profit with my ressources faggot nigger thief

Too idealistic.

not enough explanation about the judge
trash

not an argument

flag

Artists can require id (already done in lots of places)
If they don't then they prove that they don't believe that buying a ticket entitles only you to use the ticket. Therefore it's ok to sell it on, and if people do so for a much higher price then it was clearly undervalued originally and the artists are stupid.

mate me and my two mates are in the middle of math class laughing our fucking asses off

Good job replying to yourself.

Ancap is removing all restrictions on corporations.
You will still pay taxes, corporations can't dump waste into the water. There are rules just the least amount that is necessary to run a country..

whoops, sorry man i was just clicking everything in the thread

You asked me to debate you without knowing your position. How am I supposed to debate something I don't know?

Clearly you are the one who doesn't know how a debate works.

fucking retard fits the clischee

Libertarianism's inherent flaw is the same of anarchism - it requires that all participants in society are all willing to work to earn their keep, that they're not going to interfere in the lives of others, and that everyone will be personally accountable for their actions and accept all consequences for them.

No nation is made up fully of individuals who can handle these concepts, so that is why neither option will ever work except in small, homogenous societies, and even then, both would still have shitloads of problems as people fail to be able to exist within such bounds.

>this thread

cliche

not an argument

>NAP

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which espouses the belief that the government should not be in the business of 'enforcing morality' and yet this is a moral statement itself: that the government ought not to attempt to force people to behave in some sort of moral matter.

Then there is the question of what is a human being or person. Then there's the whole issue of property rights......

Considering this is Libertarianism that you're defending here, you're doing a comparatively decent job at it.

False. I don't care if people think they're personally accountable for their actions and that has no bearing on my life. Libertarianism works as long as I can defend my property, that's the only requirement.

First half is some boring semantic argument.

>Then there's the whole issue of property rights
Show me a better way to allocate scarce resources. That's all property rights are.

so wait until my friends and I, which all grew up in ghettos, all have high iqs and no empathy choose your house and attack you fagget.

We will see how you will defend your property against a highly organised criminal genius bond

>cites a dozen legitimate arguments
>"not an argument"

WEW lad

>this is the libertarian idea of utopia

not an argument