What are the bad things and criticisms of Libertarianism?

Well, libertarians believe that nationality is a meme and we should unconditionally accept any migrant from any country at any time because why the fuck not. The upside of libertarianism is no handouts, but the sheer amount of niggers would easily topple any system. Just look at Calais. Also consider that minimalistic government with hardly any income from taxes wouldn't be able to maintain a satisfactory army.

Well all of the replies in this thread so far have utterly convinced me that Cred Forumsis is completely clueless about libertarianism. It's one of your few dark spots, sort it out guys.

he calls himself a libertarian, maybe you should examine the issues with your party that attracts all of these people instead of saying "well no TRUE libertarian..."

why don't you enlighten us, fuckstick?

oh wait no you'd rather jerk yourself off with your neckbeard

continue, please

Not all libertarians believe that, just a lot of them, it's not a condition of libertarianism in itself.

the party is literally the worst thing about libertarianism.

Other than that, it lacks foresight. It goes under the assumption that people will be generally nice and good. It allows for psychopaths to play their game easier.

Those who complain about Libertarian "no borders" don't understand Libertarianism.

In Libertarianism, every person's area of land is their own borders. Just as you can shoot somebody who trespasses without permission, you can take out immigrants who are threatening to you who try to move through your land.

Vanilla libertarianism is one thing, actual libertarians is another.

You expect me to sit here and reel off an essay about how wrong you are? I've got better things to do. If you truly want to educate yourself then read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.

Post yfw a national libertarian party will never ever exist

This is the big one. The "free market" is fair only if everyone is free to move everywhere (i.e. stateless) and all information is 100 % transparent. You need to get the whole world on board for it to work and not be a corporatist shithole.

Which is ironic, because the same flaw (necessity of the absence of more predatory governments) brought communism to its knees and turned china towards capitalism.

It would seem that national security concerns hamper the commerce of mobile populations and impede market functions to some extent.

If there is a version of "libertarianism" that doesn't give primacy to market economics, I'd love to learn about it.

What's wrong with the republican party?

Main problem with Libertarianism is that Cred Forums, like much of the rest of the world is too immature and stupid to understand it.

Libertarianism (or any individualistic philosophy of government) fails to take a moral or ethical stand against degeneracy and other societal ills.

Even liberals, in their own twisted ways, try to solve problems like hunger and poverty via government programs. And while not successful, they actually try.

The same applies for most socially conservative political factions. For example, even bible-thumping cuckservatives try to enforce things like anti-abortion laws and other pro-Christianity laws.

Libertarians on the other hand feel that it's not government's role to be involved in these sorts of decisions, and at least to me, that's wrong.

Libertarians believe free market can work for everything including education and environmental protection which is woefully naive.

All children have the right to a decent education, regardless of how wealthy their parents are.
Corporations have shown time and again they are willing to poison entire towns for profit.

tfw an anarchic, chaotic ideology that puts individual interest above collective unity and well-being cannot form a cohesive collective to get things done.

so, like Communism, humanity is too frail and too weak for your glorious ideology?

Bunch of cucks just like the cucks who support them. See trey parker and Matt stone.

well they've been neocons up until trump, have wanted amnesty up until trump, etc
since trump they've been supporting big government positions like his 6 week paid leave thing, etc

>Libertarians believe free market can work for everything including education and environmental protection which is woefully naive

Simplest and best answer imo. The rules of free market simply can't apply to some branches of said market, libers refuse to acknowledge it.

and I don't mean to imply that trump has turned all republicans away from neoconservatism. just that the figurehead has traditionally been that way

Communism brought itself to its knees.

I'm not entirely in disagreement with you, I'm not really sure how we can truly bring about libertarianism, but I think it will happen somehow. The only thing that really needs to happen is for enough people to realise that the state is a net negative and cast off the shackles. In fact people don't even necessarily have to realise that fact, they simply have to start acting that fact, realisation can come afterwards. I'm somewhat positive that technology will play a massive role in this ultimately happening.

...

It doesn't optimize towards the well-being of the people but rather towards efficiently and fairly distributing resources. This can be a good thing but also a bad thing.

Over time the cost of education goes down like with every other commodity, while the government has been in charge of education in the west for almost 40 years and it has led to more unemployment, massive drops in quality increased politicization, and lower national IQs across the board. So it's not really the best example.

america was founded upon libertarianism. the constitution is a libertarian law of the land. it was built this way for religious freedom.

so all you fuckers saying libertarianism is naive etc etc.. you either have no faith, or faith in the physical world, which will ultimately cease to exist in your minds. so why can't a government exist for its sole purpose to protect the freedom of each individual? mofuckers

that goes against the constitution.

we need strict constitutionalists regardless of race

Libertarians are essentially those who seek a destruction to the host state and themselves without actually thinking or saying it along those line. They want the government so week and so helpless that something happens within the state that will take it over and start an authoritarian styled state again. Essentially heirarchy is essential to humanity, unless your society is 100% following Christ which still goes to shit...see 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi.

taxes aren't against constitution

>that goes against the constitution.

Your right to vote for whomever you damn well please for whichever reason is against the Constitution?

Why don't all the libertarians decide to move to a small/low populated state and vote en masse to elect libertarian candidates so they can get as close as possible to a libertarian society?

I mostly view myself as a libertarian and I suppose it's a hard one. Libertarians kind of sit on a spectrum like the left and right. Also Jackass Johnson is just pandering as he sees the ability to pick votes pretty much disabandoning tonnes of libertarians for socialists. I personally don't think libertarianism will ever be able to take off as its own political force personally as there's just too much inside of it that if it were to gain power you'd probably see those within it suddenly associate left or right and we'd be back to square 1 or 2.

...

Some of them do that.
freestateproject.org/

well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

i think there's a lot for reasonable people to not let taxes become a thing

Authoritarianism did play a huge role, don't get me wrong - but those failures were exacerbated by the efficiency of neighboring capitalist governments. Access to goods and services fostered dissent, arms races caused food shortages - the most efficient government usually wins, I think that's what ultimately killed communism. I digress though.

I used to think the state was a net negative. But then I realized that people were really causing the net negative. The corporate influence, the corruption - libertarians say that, without the monopoly government provides, this effect will be lessened - but how much is the government keeping at bay?

Lead in paint? Consumers should buy paint that doesn't have lead. Food without nutrition information/ Consumers should buy food that has it. So on and so forth - this only works if consumers have both the time and the ability to gather information about the market. The poorest people often have neither. If you're wealthy, this isn't a problem.

Look at the thousands of products on the market that are identical, but still sell due to advertising or lack of knowledge. Now remove all regulation for quality and safety. Obviously companies don't want to poison their customers, but what if it's over decades? What if it's just the poor customers?

This lack of information parity is what kills libertarianism for anyone that isn't wealthy enough to have time to research or contract a researching firm. The government is basically this entity, and I think we need it unless, as you said, technology fills the gap.

...

Already built. Keep a trillion dollar state for muh maintenance?

I think a lot of libertarians, especially young ones, are used to living in an entirely peaceful and orderly societies made up of well educated working people who always follow rules and behave in a nice way.
A weak state to them simply means the removal of tax burden, the inefficient bureaucracy associated with it and state subsidized welfare leaches.
The fact that it opens a way for a tight group of militant degenerates to take power and exploit the people is not considered. In the current system, our rulers are at least mostly harmless. Tax burden might be a fair price to pay for that.

no, but someone saying he'll give you all their stuff can be perceived as unconstitutional. like i said the majority of the people have to

i grew up in the hood, currently live n work here now. i am libertarian.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/nlpd-non-libertarian-police-department/360224/

>but someone saying he'll give you all their stuff can be perceived as unconstitutional

But welfare is pretty much that, and I've never heard anyone say welfare is unconstitutional.

Libertarians naively believe that most people will do good without restrictions, when historie has shown that left to their own devices, enough people will chimp out, enough to turn a country into Somalia.

Are you relatively poor? How do poor people become libertarians anyway? Do you have a strong sense of justice, or do you believe a free society will somehow benefit everyone?

It's not just tax burden, it's that most of them are getting forced into using these crappy inefficient government programs and welfare lines and want to actually get the good stuff.

The poor have been taken care of by the democrats for AGES, like 50 years or such and are still poor. Most of them just gave up on the idea of the government helping them out of poverty and now just want it to get out of their way while they actually climb out.

soft on pedophiles, don't understand that a functioning state can't make deals with every fucking landowner when we need to lay pipe and rail and road.
Drugs and abortion.
Public services that we all need, need to be paid for by all.
Just off the top.
They are getting a bit better though.
I'm a registered (L), because nobody's perfect.

read these arguments

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

i think it is unconstitutional

yes i'm poor. i've seen my dad work from dirt poverty to a decent income. i have very strong faith in God..i believe he is very real, and that his plan ultimately wins out. christianity is a largely libertarian religion. you need some form of law (God) but other than that, you are free to live how you see fit, and God will judge. i believe the people in power should be people of strong faith. but i understand people lie and have corrupt policies, which IMO people of strong faith will still win out.

i believe you should be able to protect yourself by any means also

>enough to turn a country into Somalia
I think that's what the "well regulated militia" was for, written by your founders.

The problem with libertarianism is that most people are either too stupid or too brainwashed to understand it, and to unimaginative to entertain alternative ideas to how things could work or be funded. This leads to tons of idiotic strawmen arguments, the most prominent one being 'muh roads'.
The other problem is that libertarianism is an individualistic ideology that is also not seeking to gain political power, but to reduce the power of politics. Because of this, it is inherently weaker than collectivist ideologies who seek to expand political power.

Libertarianism or even anarcho capitalism are most obviously the most logical and moral systems to strive for. But the majority of people are not capable of logical thought and don't have a shred of morality, so there is little support for such systems.

God!!

The only thing about libertarianism pol hates is that they don't hate minorities. Pol would rather be bootlickers who need a government to tell them what to do so they can avoid the dangers of being.. oh no.. "degenerate!"

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

That's all well and good, but how exactly do you see a government functioning with no taxes at all? There are some extremely valuable services only an organized government can provide, and I say that as someone who is fairly libertarian-leaning.

Which is ironic because libertarians believe people should be free to discriminate as long as they don't tread or harm others rights.
In a libertarian society, Cred Forums could literally build white-only towns and refuse to bake cakes for niggers and nobody would give a shit

Wow you are absolutely retarded. How come libertarianism, an ideology supportive of private property rights, comes to term with "egalitarian" and free migration (forced integration)? There can be no such thing as a right to free migration, for on whose property do you have a right to trample? A libertarian society would absolutely demolish the anti-discrimination and egalitarian policies that statists have introduced. If all land if private owned, there can be no such thing as a public road or public border where people come and go free of charge and without the property owner's consent.

Read Hans Hermann Hoppe.

>There are some extremely valuable services only an organized government can provide

Like what?

Libertardianism = free movement of labor = open borders.

>this triggers the libertardian

voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-end-of-comparative-advantage.html
voxday.blogspot.com/2016/06/free-trade-debate-podcast.html

Exactly. Just another advantage of pol nazis converting to based Libertarianism.

i see any form of government intervention in the lives of people as unnecessary and an enabling of authoritarianism. unless the majority of the people vote for it.

i believe people should be left to their own devices. sink or swim, and don't let anyone sink, just keep afloat. people have to learn how to swim

Yes, you can be as racist as you want. Calling niggers niggers, and feminists and sjws will be gone, because no state that supports them.

Why don't they just take the money that they were going to pay in taxes and pay it to the appropriate private company? Everyone pays for their phone subscription, you don't need to pay a tax for it for instance.

Open borders does not mean that you can't control them or vet people. Free movement of labor can also grow the economy and provide jobs, because not every would be immigrant is some poor mexican. No welfare would also mean less incentive for leeches to come.

If all land is privately owned how the fuck would you move from one place to another?

>established companies that would regulate free travel that people would subscribe to because land owners would allow their land to be used for travel for a fee
are you fucking kidding me?

libertarian is nothing more than allowing for the establishment of corporate mini-governments and monopolies

>america was founded on libertarianism
>the constitution

Im going to have to stop you right there pal. The articles of confederation are more libertarian but wait THAT FAILED because the lack of government and taxes

>not understanding an argument
>angry reaction
>strawmen

Like I said above, people are too unimaginative.

yes, and conversely us brown folk can have our own communities since you just wanna call us niggers. it's unforced segregation.

and we can be ally cities and states, ahh my idealism

>Like what?

The military and the police, for one. I absolutely would not want to see two such powerful forces beholden to private corporate interests.

And yes, I do realize that they mostly are beholden to them right now, but "mostly" beats "completely".

>i see any form of government intervention in the lives of people as unnecessary and an enabling of authoritarianism.

Now that's just immature and childish. There are cases where the government must interfere in the life of an individual to protect the lives and well-being of many other individuals. Such cases are rare, but they do exist.

sounds like trump to me

>EXTREME VETTING
>implying people cant cherry pick specific ideals from various ideologies and shun the rest

yeah i said keep afloat till they learn to swim . i'm a hardcore motherfucker

how about strict constitutionalism. still pretty libertarian

Anything in moderation is good.

Why would they be any worse under businesses than under the government? At least in a regular free society they would only get paid if they did their job well, things like the NSA or a patriot act would never fly, let alone things like the holocaust.

There is a fundamental difference between people inside your border, and outside, especially if those outside will restrict freedoms, cough, sharia, cough,

>yeah i said keep afloat till they learn to swim

But that's the problem with full-blown libertarianism. Most people won't learn to swim, they'll drown.

And worse still, they'll drag the actual swimmers with them.

Corporate interests such as providing good service to gain more customers?
I would love a private police force that would actually care about its customers instead of arresting people for internet comments while thousands of women get raped irl.
The people can be the military, supplemented by private military contractors.

Ughh... To say all land is privately owned does not implicate you would have to go through a biometric scanner every time you wanted to switch roads or enter a building or street. There would of course be "free" movement of people in some streets owned by certain individuals or corporations, and there would not be "free" movement in others. The former would have to come to terms with the fact that undesirable people would be harder to find and physically remove after they are inside the premises. The latter would perhaps suffer losses in business because of the added costs for checkpoints, guards, private policemen, etc. An equilibrium would have to be achieved. But the point is that there would be towns, buildings, communities and covenants with varying degrees of discrimination. We can hypothesize that most private property would have provisions against welcoming people that society in general finds to be disgusting (homeless, beggars, street performers, lunatics, rudes, ill-behaved, etc.). And, of course, there would be specific places where the private property owner(s) would specify further requirements for admittance (e.g. "no muslims" or "no whites" or "no gypsies, etc.)

>implying highways wouldn't become natural monopolies
You can't suggest that private property solves immigration problems without solving the problems private property presents.

>At least in a regular free society they would only get paid if they did their job well

No, they would get paid if they enforced the will of those who pay them well enough. That's nowhere near "freedom". Basically, instead of Stalin having the police drag you out of your house into the gulag for saying something anti-government, you'd have a McPolice doing the same because you said something bad about the owner of McPolice.

I don't understand what you are saying.

everyone can learn how to swim. i also said keep aflot till they learn to swim. if you allocate rescources ONLY to helping people stay afloat and maintaining a national defense, country will be rich

It's about the freedom to call someone anything you like, not doing it per-se. I think most libertarians are not racist. They just don't want to be forced to PC.

Who would hire a police acting like that?
Their business model would literally be to be impartial and just, and if they violate someones rights they will lose business and be held accountable in other ways.

>Most people won't learn to swim, they'll drown.
>And worse still, they'll drag the actual swimmers with them.

only if you start shifting from a libertarian society to a more liberal-leftist society in order to care for those who start to drown

could either be the swimmers intentionally keeping the weaker swimmers down and forcing them to drown, or, the weak swimmers just aren't pulling their weight and want to free-load

>Corporate interests such as providing good service to gain more customers?

Lets assume for a moment that the military is completely a private-owned entity. You, as an owner, have all the big guns at your disposal and are responsible to nobody: not the public, not to any governing body, nothing.

Do you really think you'd care to provide satisfactory service for a fair price with all that power in your hands?

yes i know. i understand. i believe i should have the freedom for knocking you out if u call me spic or nigger and i also believe the governemnt shouldnt punish you for calling me a nigger if i dont feel like knocking you out.

There could still be charity and various insurance companies in a libertarian society. Nobody would be left to drown anymore than they are now. In fact, you could argue that less people would drown because of less entry barriers into the market.

>only if you start shifting from a libertarian society to a more liberal-leftist society in order to care for those who start to drown

Bullshit. This is the basic premise that libertarians start from and it's fundamentally wrong. Most people aren't swimmers. Most people are drowners. And no matter how good the swimmers are, they'll be overwhelmed the sheer number of drowners.

o ye of so little faith. i think most people can swim.

Why would I not be responsible?
Where would I get the money for my guns if I didn't provide a decent service?
Why would people not simply pay a different contractor?

They suck on the most important issues that we face today: immigration and trade deals.

eh, i think the US needs to stick to the philosophy of the founding fathers instead of the philosophy of political parties so let the constitution be as the founders intended it to be with maybe a little tweaks to fit in a modern frame (lets be honest the US we all want is long gone but can be fixed). i know George Washington wished for no parties to rise but it was inevitable so if libertarians can read up on the founders and what they stood for then I would be okay with that. What I mean is that with a lot of libertarians I interacted with they believe this country was meant for ABSOLUTE freedom but the freedom given to us correlates with what we didn't have or weren't able to have as a colony. Another issue with freedom that is absolute is that it assumes the modern population is full of people of good character. I know I'm going to be mocked for that but the founders put emphasis on needing a country with virtue. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

You shouldn't be offended so easily in the first place. It's just words.

I think it's pretty telling that the only times there was ever progress in any given society, it was when authoritarian "no, you faggots can't swim on your own" leaders came into the scene.

Post-WW2 America is the only exception I can think of at the top of my head.

i agree...read my comments about serving God.

yea, and it's just fists. learn to fight pussy.

nah but i really am not that easily offended but i get very angry at racism. why would u call me that? i know im a good person so if u call me that i'll get mad cuz ur just wanting to start some shit. how can we let something like race get in the way of being people? like i said im an idealist.

>Why would people not simply pay a different contractor?

Monopoly is the key word. With absolutely zero government oversight, there would be nothing stopping you from eliminating competition simply by murdering/blackmailing them rather than providing a better service.

And yes, current monopolies are formed only with the help of the government, but that's a 21st century thing that didn't hold true before.

so how the fuck is that an argument for statism? By definition we would be giving ultimate power to a group that is "mostly drowners"

that is a very strong argument AGAINST statism

The 19th century was the biggest economic and societal progress boom in history and it was almost literally created entirely out of the french revolution and Code Civil, american war or independance, and other anti-authority laws So, not really.

define progress. to me prosperity and peace is the only progress. if you are prosperous and peaceful and you want to progress from that, it isn't progress.

this type of thinking just enables people who are hungry for power to come into power.

Only a German cuck could rationalize open borders and free movement.

so to be clear, you are AGAINST monopolies, yes?

Nah someone that doesn't feel an insult is true won't care. Which means you're a nigger-spic lmao

I sense its also telling that America is the only instance where it occurred with people being a whole lot more free, especially from a entrepreneurial standpoint, earlier in its history the better of course

You would literally have to murder every single one of your competitors AND scare all of your would-be competitors all on a global scale(because free trade, you know) AND still terrorize people into buying your goods rather than boycotting you and making shareholders and your board of directors and other overseers rip you up.

i am. but why would that matter to you

>Do you really think you'd care to provide satisfactory service for a fair price with all that power in your hands?

Do governments care? It has a lot of power in its hands, and it asks (or forces you to pay) for a price through taxation.

>so how the fuck is that an argument for statism?

But I'm not arguing for statism, I'm just arguing against the 100% purist libertarianism.

>The 19th century was the biggest economic and societal progress boom in history

I'm not sure which data you're basing this on. Post-WW2 period is largely regarded as the biggest boom as far as I'm aware.

>to me prosperity and peace is the only progress.

I agree. And never in the history of mankind has peace and prosperity been achieved by following the tenets of purist libertarianism.

It doesn't as long as you don't chimp out. Chimp out near me and I'll just magdump on you.

'Course. I just don't see how it's possible to stop them without some kind of government oversight, but seeing as how governments nowadays are actually helping monopolies thrive, I'd say we're fucked.

This "consumers need to be smart and informed" argument would make sense if you could demonstrate that consumers can be smart and informed. Could you tell me with a straight face that this is the case?

When was the last boycott that drove a local monopoly out of business?

Removing the welfare entitlement, and making it known in Africa/Middle East, is the most important step toward resolving the immigration crisis.

Promises of stronger border protection are just a diversion. Smugglers will always rise up to the occasion, even if they have to up their fees. The EU socialists know this.

well i said the only law should be God's law, but that's left up to parents to enforce, with local police being the force protecting against things like murderers and robbers. and the law should apply to the people in power. they should protect people's rights to follow God's laws.

>How do poor people become libertarians anyway?
By having to face the shitty patronizing welfare system that treats people like animals. When person manages to escape the welfare trap he is going to be hating the system like nobody else.
People who think welfare is humane, 'the caring', don't know what they are talking about, they have never lived that life.

i just adhere to what jesus says.

>Monopoly is the key word.
Oh come on.
First, how would I get or maintain the resources and manpower to wage an illegal war against other contractors? Why wouldn't those just get together and push my shit in? What would be my economic incentive to do this in the first place?

Also you are suggesting that we should have a powerful monopoly paid for by coercion, to prevent the off chance that PMCs competing on the free market for voluntarily paying customers could maybe decide to go rogue to achieve a monopoly.
Do you realise how absurd this sounds?

>Removing the welfare entitlement, and making it known in Africa
And that you cannot get away anymore with rape as an immigrant.

>Do you realize how absurd this sounds?
...said the libertarian, with a straight face

>NAA

>I just don't see how it's possible to stop them without some kind of government oversight

then you aren't actually against monopolies. you've just been brainwashed to think your monopoly is correct

Over 80% of small businesses fail just because they aren't turning up a profit just because of shitty practices leading to too high prices for competitors. Have you not seen say, walmart? What are you on about?

>First, how would I get or maintain the resources and manpower to wage an illegal war against other contractors?

Simply by being around longer than them. You accumulate wealth and resources for so long that nobody else can hope to compete against you.

>Why wouldn't those just get together and push my shit in?

Because human beings are not 100% rational 100% of the time.

>What would be my economic incentive to do this in the first place?

A completely one-sided dominated market seems like a good incentive, brah.

>Also you are suggesting that we should have a powerful monopoly paid for by coercion

If you're referring to the state-funded military, then it's not entirely "paid for by coertion". You still have some, albeit quite small, say in it, via the voting ballot, which is more than you'd get with a 100% privatized military.

>But I'm not arguing for statism, I'm just arguing against the 100% purist libertarianism.

what do you think statism means?

It'd be nice if you could elaborate, because I've no idea what the fuck you're on about.

Wealth is not really a function of time. I can not be around longer than anybody if I provide a bad service. And if my services is decent enough that I can outgrow the competition, why would I risk that prosperity for some more market share?
There is no way to dominate the market unless you want to wage a global war of aggression. Your premise doesn't make sense, it's the same argument as 'but what if I bought all the water sources and replaced the water with feces'

Everything funded by taxes is entirely funded by coercion. It's still coercion even if I can pretend to choose who gets to steal my money. With a privatised military I can choose 100% to simply not buy their service.

WHAT IS A LEPPO???

Governments are by definition monopolies in that you can't do anything against them and don't have a say in what they do, AND they can force you to pay for their things even if they aren't good.

There's basically no difference between the government having an army and only exactly one business having an army but you also HAVE to buy from that business, and no difference between a government run company or government program and a business that you have to buy from whether you want it or not.

>Gary johnson
>Libertarian

> With a privatised military I can choose 100% to simply not buy their service.

Unless, of course, they choose to FORCE their services on you.

Libertarians often make the same mistake as communists - they assume people are just, moral and uncorruptable. That's just not true.

If the military were 100% privatized with no mechanism to keep it in check, what makes you sure they wouldn't simply force you at gunpoint to buy their services? You still get coerced, but this time it's by some guy named Schlomo Shekelburg who is completely unaccountable, as opposed to the public.

>if you could demonstrate that consumers can be smart and informed
You are correct that that is an obstacle, must people are dumb and uninformed. You cannot just vote a libertarian in office, and all will be fine. There needs to be a change in mindset of all people. Maybe will happen after a big (economical) crisis that will get people out of their think boxes.

Also, libertarianism is a non-interventionist ideology, so the only job for the military would be defense.
There would be no demand for huge standing armies with global power projection capabilities, so the potential of aggression would be quite low. Libertarian warfare doctrine would likely revolve about decentralised insurrection groups, militias and guerilla tactics, maybe lots of nukes and small, highly technological special forces.
There would not be 'the military' or 'the army', there would be various forces or maybe there would just be militias that pooled money to buy a tank or two.

But I don't see any incentive or potential for such groups to attempt hostile take overs of similar groups.

>But I don't see any incentive or potential for such groups to attempt hostile take overs of similar groups.
There's a certain irony to a kraut saying this.
Enjoy Muhammad.

>Unless, of course, they choose to FORCE their services on you.
>what makes you sure they wouldn't simply force you at gunpoint to buy their services?

user, you just described a modern state.

I expected a reply like this so I wrote this >Libertarians often make the same mistake as communists - they assume people are just, moral and uncorruptable. That's just not true.
You're wrong here. The only thing libertarians assume is that it is immoral to initiate violence against a peaceful person and that voluntaryism and freedom are the cornerstones of prosperity. Libertarians know that people are not always just or moral, and that they can be corruptable. That is exactly why libertarians seek to limit collectivist / government power, because a corrupted individual is bad, but a corrupted powerful collective is infinitely worse.
Libertarians don't strive to create an utopia either. They know that there won't be a world without suffering, but they understood that rights and freedom are most effective at facilitating prosperity.

Also I gotta sleep know
Thanks for the good discussion

I would imagine that most government spending on military would be focused on creating a lasting effect which would make the nation harder to invade. Some examples could be training civilian militias in military tactics and strategy, altering the terrain in order to make it more suitable for these militias, and creating an infrastructure such that, if necessary, it could be rapidly be utilized to massively militarize the economy in a short amount of time (like America in WW2).
There's no reason to have so much of our funds go towards building things we don't need right now just to spend another fortune maintaining them until we do need them.

That being said, research as a result of military spending is actually very important for the civilian population. Several things we use today are because of the military

Are you implying fundamentalist Islamic terrorists or refugees from authoritarian collectivist cultures are companies trying to make a profit in the free market?
Because if so, that might just be the dumbest thing I've read today.

I didn't even read that far in his post. That's fucking hilarious

Governments are NOT accountable to their people, they've killed over 200 million people in the last century alone and enslaved who knows how many under communism or socialism all over the world. If you're worried about massive accumulation of power you should be worried about ANYONE having that power, not aiming to centralize it in the hands of governments.

SJW - Everyone should be FORCED to believe in marxism and multiculturalism. We must eliminate everyone who disagrees.

Naziboos - Everyone should be FORCED to hate nonwhites and "degeneracy." We must eliminate anyone who disagrees.

Libertarians - Do anything you wan't that doesn't hurt others.

>Well, libertarians believe that nationality is a meme and we should unconditionally accept any migrant from any country at any time because why the fuck not.

That's been changing lately.

It must ignore human nature to work. It requires biological egalitarianism, which isn't real, to work.
It ignores all the scenarios of humans banding together in anti-competitive groups (e.g. bandits, corrupt corporations, groups along ethnic, racial, gender lines...), in the absence of a state/strong state, to gain advantages by forceful, violent or anti-competitive means, other than legitimate competition.
They think people are atoms and will not band together for material advantage into competing groups and throw NAP in the trash right from the start.
They have not the slightest conception of game theory.
It also ignores the tons of historical evidence against it and for economic nationalism.
They can't point out a single example of a libertarianist economy working.
"Hurr, REAL Communism hasn't been tried yet! Durrr." Substitue "communism" with "libertarianism". Except that it has. EVERY time it has been tried it leads to the rise of an oligarchy, the destruction of the middle class, the impoverishment of the people (outside the oligarchy) and nation.
It is morally and philosophically bankrupt and lazy and defaults to lowest-common-denominator-thinking idea of the "automatic system" taking care of everything which, as I have said earlier, has amply been proven false. Even Adam Smith said the market doesn't take care of everything and there is an area of human life governed, and that should be governed, by morals.
It oversimplifies concepts. It lumps all laws, good and bad, into one group: "regulation". Similarly, it believes in a falsse dichotomy of "small government" and "big government". It is one-dimensional thinking with a slider going from small to big government. The real solution is neither. It is "right goverment" with the correct mix/set of regulations.

[cont]

[cont]

Un-intuitively, small and big government are not mutually exclusive. You can have too small government in one area, and big government in another. For example, the US too small government when it comes to regulating Wall Street and the financial industry. And it has too big government when it comes to welfare programs, especially in terms of wealth redistribution along lines of gender and race (from male to female, from white to non-white).
Another way small and big government are the two sides of the same coin is this: one leads to the other. Prior to the 2008 Financial Crisis, Wall Street had successfully lobbied to deregulate the financial markets (especially housing loans and securities). This is small government. According to the libertarians, this should have led to continuous growth and prosperity that keeps going up. It didn't and it doesn't. It creates a bubble. Now, following the bubble and bust of small government, the people are then faced with two options: follow libertarians' moronic promises that "the market will take care of it" and let the full damage of the deregulation and ensuing fraudulant business activities be done, or ask for government to step in and stop/reduce the pain, suffering and damage that has been done by small government. In this way, small government generates big government.
Libertarianism requires people to have astronomically high pain thresholds and patience, and blind faith that the market will take care of it. Why should the people suffer, lose materially (and possibly lose life) indefinitely when all this massive damage could have been prevented right from the start for the cost of a few drops of ink in the form of a law.

Libertarians are ideological purists. Freedom works 98% of the time. The remaining 2% you need regulation against known harmful behaviors. But libertarians can't accept that. They need freedom to work 100% of the time.

[cont]

[cont]

The difference between a libertarian and a national socialist/fascist like me is they worship freedom as a end in its own right. It's not. Freedom is a means to strength. Strength is the end. Strength is the higher value. In the few cases where freedom does not lead to strength, it should not be instituted.

The fight is not between small government and big government, it is between right government and both small and big government.

Also, under libertarianism / ancap, everybody will be optimizing for short-term gains and for narrow personal interests. If optimizing for longer term benefits and/or broader public interests means you are less competitive in the short term, as is almost always the case, then it won't get done.

They'll also trash anything useful government did do because they know a libertarian society/market wouldn't be able to do them?
NASA, Space exploration, advanced physics research, astronomy, the Internet, pretty much everything that came out of DARPA... all that is trash according to them.

They're dogmatists who fell in love with the means of freedom to the end of strength.

After this election is finished, I plan to take over the Libertarian Party the way Frauke Petry took over the AfD.

I may need to rename the party after it's mine. The Libertarian brand may be too tarnished to polish up.

I see the Libertarian Party as poorly programmed prototype. If some anons from Cred Forums can take it over, we can re-program it into an anti-immigrant, anti-PC party, and maybe even add some nationalism and patriotism to the mix.