Tfw everyone memed on libertarianism so hard that it'll always just be a joke now

I've also noticed they are violently hostile to any opinion that doesnt reinforce their own already established opinions.
Literally the same as bluepilled spherecuck leftists.

Milton Friedman's students took control in the 70s, removed most regulations, added others and for a short while Chile started doing well, until a fascist dictator took control and started manipulating the statistics. What you see from about 1985 onwards is a complete lie.

You literally can't, because economic libertarianism is supported by the greatest minds in economics and social libertarianism is the cornerstone of our society beginning with the French revolution.

It's the way everyone knows is best, but won't commit to it because socialism and stifling the strong to achieve equity of representation instead of equality of opportunity.

>Its time to ascend user
It's time to ascend TO WHAT? What is your alternative you Moe posting faggot?

In fact, libertarian is all about self responsibility and competition. If you want to criticise it, it's more like someone gets denied an opportunity because of something other than their merits and strength, then a socialist turns around and says
>well you're a libertarian, why didn't you take responsibility for yourself? Clearly you're a failure because of competition, how does it feel?
Which actually happens invariably for men who are very consistently told the only reason they're not successful is because they suck..
..but a black woman with a degree that just got fired for twerking and not working is clearly a failure because of institutional racism and intersectional sexism.

It shouldn't be too hard to find who exactly is blocking libertarianism, hint, they're not the people who would appreciate competing equally against people better than them. These are not honest people.

Libertarianism is good but only within a secure country that isn't easily threatened by outside forces or by traitorous factions from within.

Once we get America culturally assimilated and some strong borders, then we can live in comfy libertarian land. Until then, shitskins will continue flooding into the country and voting democrat every time.

Even better is where it was tried. Objectivists tried setting up communities separate from others. They hated each other (surprise) and failed.

Yes, I could imagine Libertarianism to fail in small communities. Libertarianism is for large civilisations with an abundance of workforce and productivity, that way competition can take its course and improve the economy.

Interestingly, for a small, homogenous community, something more like anarchical communism would be more appropriate. That way, it anyone is slacking off everyone knows and everyone can shame them and eventually eject them from the community. Libertarianism in this situation would actually have the same effect as communism on a larger society/community: people would become lazy, indolent, unproductive and hate each other.

No, you're simply mad we're supported by facts and won't let that down.

Do eyebrows violate the NAP?

> In fact, libertarian is all about self responsibility and competition
Roads how? Emergency services how? Police how? Public education how? Incidentally the people who maintain roads, teach in public schools, and provide emergency services are paid like shit. Precisely how in your model would these services even exist?

>it'll always just be a joke now
>now
>implying it hasn't been a joke always

But what is Aleppo?

>Interestingly, for a small, homogenous community, something more like anarchical communism would be more appropriate
You're inherently smart but you lack experience. You just described a kibbutzim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

>Let a fat naked guy dance on stage for three minutes at convention
>FUCK YOU GUYS YOUR STUPID MEMES MADE US A JOKE

My penis in your butthole violates the NAP.

>strawmanning ancap for libertarianism
Governments still exists in libertarianism, it's just accepted that it must remain limited, in favour of competition and ideally bottom up.

Literally nothing changes because the system Libertarians want isn't too far from the system we already have. Meanwhile, Sanders style demsocialists want an outright welfare state that basically obsoletes working altogether. This is intrinsically different to this society and any previous.

The NAP is what makes libertarianism a meme.

>More personal responsibility SURELY means that there is no government AT ALL

Libertarians allowed the ideology to get cucked by ancaps

shouldn't have allowed a jewish ideology infect and destroy yours, dumbass.

Yeah like when conservatives were jewed by the altright and now America is screwed.

Damn I've been killin' it on reddit lately. Got myself an additional 4000 comment karma in the last 3-4 days.

>libretardians posting on the internet
>which was developed and bootstrapped with public monies

Irony is dead.

Maybe you fucks should have learned a border is meant to be defended and anyone who's crossed it is not welcome.

But you just had to have cheap labor. You had to put money before your country.

The conservative party was cucked by jewish neo-liberal "neocons"; the ongoing reaction to that takeover is restoring some semblence of dignity.

checkmated again my abbo friend

>In fact, libertarian is all about self responsibility and competition.

Mainstream libretardianism is butthurting about paying taxes, butthurting about not being able to pollute at will. Libretardians want a society where you can shit in the street and roll coal just to piss off people who care about the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Libretardians fail to realize that the same laws that punish them for rolling coal also prevent me from killing them painfully for my own amusement.

Libretardians fail to realize that if they're not billionaires now, they will be nothing but serfs in a post-libretardian feudalist society.

Libretardians will get what they deserve.

Let's assume for a second that I'm catastrophizing and your approach is incremental. Should we legalize weed? I'm in Commifornia and actually have to vote on it in November. I'm inclined to say Yes just to stymie crime. Are you, as a libertarian, pro legalization of (((dude weed)))? You better be.

libertarianism = rocky road ice cream
conservatism = vanilla ice cream
liberalism = neapolitan ice cream
communism = moose tracks ice cream

>hero worship/cult of personality
>dignity

Pick one my syrupy friend

Not him, but the only answer to that question is to legalize and regulate marijuana. Continuing the failed policy of prohibition is something that only people who are clueless, boot-licking, or in the pocket of campaign contributors who oppose it would seriously advocate. Most of Cred Forums who oppose it fall under the boot-licker category because they believe government should be used to stamp out "degeneracy." Libertarians, obviously, should not fall under that category, as you said.

>Chile
I don't think a junta that kills dissidents could be considered a paragon of liberty

I'm sorry, but when you can't even pull debate numbers when running against the two most disliked candidates in history, you have to try some different methods for achieving your goals

You guys chose Gary "bake the damn cake" "don't call them illegals" "I'd sign the TPP" "what's a leppo" Johnson as your fucking rep in a national election

How the fuck is that our fault?

Nothing wrong with libertarianism in the sense of a small government that avoids interfering in the lives of its citizens, respects the free market, and steers clear of foreign interventions and entanglements.

Problem is that it really only works in relatively small societies that are made up of intelligent, hard-working people that can largely take care of themselves and is actively supported by a civic or religious culture that takes care of it's adherents without involving the use of the state.

It tends to get up it's own ass with it's autistic need to construct an inviolable set of principles that need to be applied in each and every scenario as if they were laws of nature.

>Not being a centrist or classical liberal

You are literally talking about laissez faire economics and ancap. Stop. This is a straw man.

Of course there'll be taxes in a libertarian society, but they'd be more along the line of the Roman republic or early Roman empire rather than modern day France or Sweden.

And damaging the environment for funsies has victims, so of course that's illegal.

Libertarianism is about preserving freedoms for everyone, not just some people.

Weed yes. Drugs no.

A libertarian is concerned about things that promote violence, crime, damage and poverty whether it's unequal employment policies (which are distinctly anti libertarian) or hard drugs. In fact, weed has little to no effect on crime.

For instance, no one has ever mugged someone for weed money, but could you imagine a heroin, meth or coke addict committing crime for their addiction? This is why even in a libertarian society hard drugs are not legal.

Yeah it changed, so what.

>citation needed

Oh yeah what taxes? Who are you to take my taxes I don't want to pay them. :^)

I'm a libertarian for healthcare.

I want to live indefinitely.

libertarians and libertarianism will live on, far beyond their party's candidate who is throwing himself under the bus to soak up Hillary votes.

Classical liberalism is libertarianism

Libertarians memed on themselves. Remember that walking meme who started dancing in his underwear?

We had some glory times here back in 2011 but I've grown out of it. It's stupid and borderline delusional

HEALTHCARE NIGGA

What about libertarian nationalism?

Libertarians might've had a chance if they nominated McAfee but instead they went full cuck and voted in Johnson.

>get in the helicopter ya bogan

It is a fucking meme. You know why the world is shit? Because the West went along with the US down the path of unfettered liberalism. Truth is our society is much more libertarian than anything else. multinational Corporations have free reign to do as they please, and under various trade agreements can even prevent countries from passing legislature that would affect their profits.

Libertarianism is a utopian meme just like communism or any other political ideology

Libertarian Party did that to themselves when they chose Johnson again

You guys should have gambled on Austin Memersen

Libertarianism is a meme. It would only be successful in a racially homogeneous society and even then your edgelord flavor of libertarianism would fail.

Whatever happened to Obamacare? Did that not work?? Am not surprised..

>Retards that don't understand libertarianism actually think this.

libertarianism is the more radical version.

And I told you even back then in 2011 it was stupid.

Libertarianism is the best system. Democracy is the worst.

Libertarian cities.

A free market would boost production massively so starting a business would be really inexpensive.

People would have to work a lot less and there would be much more technology.

>Truth is our society is much more libertarian than anything else

Why do you people constantly lie?

Our shithole economic is the result of central banks and corporate corruption.

All things YOU people support and we are fighting against, fuck you.

libertarianism tomorrow!

but wait. all the wealth is in the hands of a tiny handful of people and their pet corporations

no longer must they invest billions of dollars over the course of decades in order to have their way

they can just do as they like. bribing locals into making short sighted decisions or even hiring thugs to help make the locals come around at a fraction of the cost or time as they would have if there were a strong central government in the way. see: Africa; entire central american nations; maybe a third of Mexico

... the only way I'd give libertarianism a chance is in the aftermath of a cataclysmic action of statism, whereby the corporations were broken up and the wealth of established families redistributed six ways from sunday - such that they couldn't merely use their wealth in order to assume the power vacated by central governments

I'd like Libertarianism. It'll make bringing Fascism into power easier.

>roads
nice try leaf

Game?

>all the wealth is in the hands of a tiny handful of people and their pet corporations

LOL leftists do not understand what "wealth" means whatsofuckingever.

The economy is not a zero sum game.

If the rich gave every last penny to the poor and middle class, prices would simply go up and nobody would be better off.

You could have super rich people having quadrillions of fucking dollars and it wouldn't matter, if they gave this money to everyone else it would STILL only make prices rise and nobody would be better off.

The rich aren't exploiting you, in fact very little production in the economy goes to personal goods for rich people.

Fucking idiot

...

Filename, mate

>For instance, no one has ever mugged someone for weed money, but could you imagine a heroin, meth or coke addict committing crime for their addiction? This is why even in a libertarian society hard drugs are not legal.
this alone would get you expelled from any half-baked libertardian party, next you're gonna say "open borders are bad"

Cheers big fella

This guy gets it.

>Of course there'll be taxes in a libertarian society
taxation is theft and it violates the NAP, get your fakebertarian ass out of here

[citation needed]

Central banks and multinationals force libertarian principles on countries around the world (free trade agreements galore). They have the gov. in their pocket and can be bailed out when they lose at their own game.

KeK is not a kind god, but a fair one.

For the death of the Democrats he must take the reputation of the Libertarians

Anarcho-capitalism is a superior ideology, anyway.

I can't believe I'm the first one to post these on this thread

>all these idiots patting each other on the back for strawmanning the GOAT political ideology to death

>implying planet earth is not a closed system
>implying the economy is a sort of perpetual motion machine
>implying such machines can exist within a closed system

you can optimize resource management, but you cannot create resources out of thin air

not food. not humans. not metal. not plastic. not fuel or energy. not labor (see: humans+food; plastic or metals, rare earth or otherwise; fuel/energy)

you can just bankroll the shit via cash reserves or appropriation

no reset button, no support for libertarianism from me. otherwise, I think we'd just be shitcanning the only effective mechanism on planet earth standing between wealth junkies and them having their way in all things

Was this the moment the lolbertarian dream died?

...

>GOAT political ideology
You're thinking of Strasserism

>morons who don't understand sociopaths and tragedy of the commons beleive otherwise

that man is a hero

Does anyone have the meme where the guy is getting booed for saying he doesn't want 5yo's getting addicted to heroin?

When Ralph Nader took control

>lolbertarian
I read at first loli
I should stop browsing Cred Forums, /jp/ and /e/

I just explained it, no citation is needed.
It's up to you to refute me with logic.

>Central banks and multinationals force libertarian principles on countries around the world
They force anti-libertarian principles on countries around the world.

Managed and controlled trade, and central banks are NOT libertarian.

You're just lying at this point.

>They have the gov. in their pocket and can be bailed out when they lose at their own game.
LOL YEAH BRO THOSE ARE TOTALLY LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES YOU GOT THERE

pigovian taxes? require enforcement

only a sick fuck would dump a shitton of toxic waste upon a community and then claim that a community that can't afford to relocate obviously valued fripperies like clothing, food, fuel and shelter over not having flipper babies when they fail to hire an army of lawyers capable of effectively arguing their case to a (rather government like) cabal of arbiters likely hand picked by fabulously wealthy patrons

I'm pretty sure libertarians meme'd themselves.

what if a meteorite lands on earth with new materials? economics btfo

...

I'm here for the ancap memes

Does anyone have the meme where the guy is getting booed for saying he doesn't want 5yo's getting addicted to heroin?

Motherfucker it's always been a joke.

holy shit did this happen?

reminds me of the assholes that blamed regulation on the practice of adding melamine to shit like milk, pet food or ground meat products

if it weren't for the government going around requiring that milk and meat products have the protein content of, well, meat

then there'd be no incentive to cut those things with melamine!

amirite?

stupidity

>>implying planet earth is not a closed system
>implying libertarians aren't reaching outside of planet earth RIGHT FUCKING NOW

>>implying the economy is a sort of perpetual motion machine
Nobody said that.

>>implying such machines can exist within a closed system
>muh closed system
Nobody said that and it has nothing to do with what were talking about.

You can have technology that provides food and resources to the masses that constantly recycles resources in the future.

>no reset button, no support for libertarianism from me. otherwise, I think we'd just be shitcanning the only effective mechanism on planet earth standing between wealth junkies and them having their way in all things
My god you're stupid.

I can't believe you people still think that the paper or digital $$$$ they hold actually == tangible consumer goods

Same people who keep maintain a military to keep the Chinese invading and taking our resources for free instead of trading for them on a free market.

Are you done being retarded?

You mean being a moderate?

>Mexican intellectual

Again, you're strawmanning ancap with libertarianism. If not taxes, how else does a government raise funds for services that simply aren't better in the free market, such as national security and legal enforcement?

>iron cross tattoo
>actual libertarian
Reminder that fascists hate libertarians as much as Marxists do. I advocate tripartisan politics, there's the left, the right and the libertarians.

The libertarian party of America has been infiltrated by both the far right and the far left, Gary Johnson himself is a cosmopolitan which is usually a left wing issue.

SHHHHH
This is their "libertarianism in one country" moment.

>now

LMAO

It was always a joke you fucking retards.

Not an argument.

Libertarianism already worked during the gilded age.

It was the greatest increase in living standards for the poor and middle class in all human history up to that point.

We need to bring it back with the modern technology and economic production we have now.

Guess what... politicians aren't the ones laying asphalt, driving ambulances, walking a beat, or teaching schoolkids.

>aw, twenty dollars? I wanted a peanut!

>money can be exchanged for goods and services

>woo hoo!

eh, give it 8 years OP. if trump wins everything goes to complete shit guaranteed and the new wave of internet shitters will be anti-right like it was 8 years ago after bush (besides some nazis who are always around)

in 8 years (if trump wins) this board will guaranteed be libertarian and the rest of the internet will be back to being left besides stormfronts and random Cred Forums nazi threads

Open borders and the "blank check for jews" economic policies have always been jokes.

Libertarians are not all nuts, but the people that make the platform planks ought to be shot.

I gave up on the libertarian party this year after watching their convention.
Maybe in another 8 years.

Who me?

>libertarianism in practice is the same as ideological libertarianism.

Fuck off molymeme

Regardless of your thoughts of libertarianism/ancap.

I know all of you would agree that the lack of political competition is upsetting.

You can not get a million people together and start a new form of governance.

No, we need it back to get white male STEM graduates back on the job. The greatest issue for economic libertarians is unequal employment, it's neither fair nor is it conducive to the free market that gender and race matter more in STEM employment than actual merit.

That's my "deal," that's my issue. I just want a job. In a libertarian society I'd have a job. If I had a job I'd have a girlfriend, a social group, I'd afford to do social things, I'd enjoy my life. These are things Marxists wish to deny me because I'm a white male STEM graduate and ultimately they want less white men in STEM.

This is the only libertarian issue that libertarians should argue for. Fuck open borders, fuck taxes, let's first focus on equal opportunities.

>Yes, I could imagine Libertarianism to fail in small communities
Switzerland.

>gilded age
>slaves working for scrip
>oligarchs prefer to hire private armies of headbreakers to paying to improve worker conditions
>bear traders crashed the world economy then bought it for pennies

You stupid cunt.

If what you are doing is blatantly against the law, dumping a fuck load of money on lawyers isn't gonna get you out of trouble.

Besides, you authoritarians have been getting your way with more regulations and more government intervention in the economy and yet STILL big businesses get to walk away with slaps on the wrist for causing major collateral damage in the name of profits. I'm sick of hearing the cucks who supported bank bailouts in 2008 talk about how protecting property rights would result in economic anarchy.

>>libertarianism in practice is the same as ideological libertarianism.
LITERALLY not an argument.

Trying proving me wrong, oh wait you can't.

LP is hardly representative of the movement

>don't tread on me m8 :^)

death squads are a service

labor is a service

materials are goods

consent from what passes for law enforcement, even when this consent comes at a direct cost to the financial or physical health of the communities they oversee, is a service

which brings me back to my premise: absent a reset, rich fucks would just go straight to having their way in all things it a fraction of the the time or cost as they would have had they had to spend billions of dollars on producing enough lobbyists, campaign donations and post office sinecures to corrupt an established and strong central government

Who's /pinochet/ here?

Lolbertarian cringe video

youtu.be/Tb8cErokGFs

Your just a loser

mises.org/blog/private-policing-isnt-fantasy

>which brings me back to my premise: absent a reset, rich fucks would just go straight to having their way in all things it a fraction of the the time or cost as they would have had they had to spend billions of dollars on producing enough lobbyists, campaign donations and post office sinecures to corrupt an established and strong central government
Which is anti-libertarian in the first place, which is why the people would fight against it.

Also the average person would have much more money now.

Fuck your lack of functioning roads

The "leaders" representing it are a joke.

>simply aren't better in the free market, such as national security and legal enforcement?
says who? I'll let you know I have a enormous book by the Mises institute here insisting the opposite is true.

Is taking people's money at gunpoint initiating force against them and a violation of the NAP yes or no?

If you can justify taxation as compatible with the NAP libertarianism is just incoherent and dies. I'm no ancap but Hoppe's and Rothbard's logic is far more concise and coherent than going all half measures when it comes to morally criticizing big government

WHERE ARE YOUR ROADS NOW?

DUDE

If you're genuinely concerned on whether or not you're perceived well, you aren't really in it for the cause of personal liberty.

t.snekker

>unironically says "not an arguement"

You're a meme. Economics is entirely unpredictable which is why any proposed ideology is inherently utopian.

>if only we did this, everything would be great!

All we can do is look at the history and the results of economic policies that have actually been implemented. The results of libertarian principles have resulted in capitalist totalitarianism we see today thanks to free trade, and financial manipulation that keeps less developed countries from industrializing. Banks and multinationals stay on top. Everyone else is a debt slave.

Welp i just saw the Libertarian candidate strip at the national convention.

What the fuck happened to the libertarians

You know what, you little cunt, I have been stepped on and that's why I actually care about this libertarianism thing.

All of you have argued against me, this'ed me, humoured me, but you haven't realised my only real issue. I want nothing more or less than equal opportunities. I want a chance to make my own way in life and this is exactly what I've been denied for no other reason than being a white male.

This is where libertarians save the day. Fight the Marxists and tell them no, no we do not need more women and minorities in STEM. That's hate speech.

Yeah, I guess I am.

Enjoy Hungary, because Melbourne Australia is a left wing shit hole.

Again, how else are they to raise money to imprison and charge Marxists?

...

>You're a meme.
You LITERALLY didn't have an argument and now you're trying to meme your way out of it.

>Economics is entirely unpredictable
This isn't true at all lol
I can't believe people actually believe this.

Economics isn't perfect but it isn't unpredictable.

>>if only we did this, everything would be great!
Yes, because of the logical conclusion of these policies would have on human behavior.
and the fact that these policies were tried in the past and they worked quite well

you don't have an argument lol

>The results of libertarian principles have resulted in capitalist totalitarianism we see today
LOL Holy fuck
Your keynesian central banker corporatist/social democracy bullshit society we have had since 1970 is a complete fucking disaster and yet you have the stupidity to somehow blame this on libertarianism.

You must be really mad right now, you have no argument at all.

>free trade
What free trade? All I see is heavily controlled trade. The past few decades of this system of heavily controlled trade has resulted in a massive increase in living standards for the poorest in the world, so at least it's better then a complete restriction in global trade which is what we had before.

>and financial manipulation
Thanks to the central banks you support giving bankers trillions of dollars to gamble with, fuck you.

>Everyone else is a debt slave.
You support the IMF. We don't.

...

>Still doesn't understand libertarianism.
>Responds anyway thinking he knows what he is talking about.
You should probably at least read a little about it before having a discussion on the topic.

absent massive redistribution, support for libertarianism is in effect support for feudalism

and even with redistribution, it would quickly become plutocracy, because most people are of average intellect

and once the ball starts rolling, chronic malnutrition would become a thing. and with it diminished intellect and empathy

I submit voluntary charity would prove just as insufficient to meet the needs of the population as it did anywhere else on planet earth in any other point in human history - the welfare state being a product of this insufficiency

I don't want planet earth to become modern day africa

the only alternative to the welfare state that I can imagine is genocide

what fucks me up, what keeps me up at night, is the knowledge that one day technology will obviate the need to pay half of the population to keep the other half in line

those jobs will inevitably be lost to automation

and science at that point will likely have obviated the need to keep the poors around for the sake of genetic diversity

so. chin up! your ilk are probably going to win

eventually

>switzerland
>libertarian
are you fucking serious? pick one mate, in switzerland if 50% of people want to ban kosher, they can, matter fact they did. Where's the libertarianism here?

Again, infiltrated.

The true libertarians are white men, usually between 24-28, sometimes older, who rally about equal opportunities because that was the first thing the Marxists went after. After they attacked meritocracy for being "problematic," they then did whatever they could to silence the people who would be more successful in a meritocracy. They called them losers. They told them to take responsibility. They demeaned them and denied they could be victims, because they're white men.

This is not what the libertarian party of America is about. This isn't even what the LDP party is about. This is what the "alt-right" is about and not even, because they were lumped into stormfronters to further silence them.

Libertarianism is the real revolution and it's ours, not the party's.

What's ironic is that this has more chance of being armoured septic or shoe in head than molymeme. Moly spends a lot of time in the USA, he's got an American flag a lot of the time.

You'll most certainly never get that chance in a libretardian society. In fact in a libretardian society your lot will be greatly diminished. Blaming other people for your lot is just just as bad as feeling entitled.

>Where's the libertarianism here?
Not him, but the actual economy and economic policies of the Swiss are mostly free market.

you didn't need memeing for that

>support for libertarianism is in effect support for feudalism
This, in a nutshell, is why no one likes lolbertarianism. It gives far too much power to the wealthy and far too little to the less wealthy/poor.

It's so obviously retarded I can't understand why anyone would like it

>absent massive redistribution, support for libertarianism is in effect support for feudalism
>I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT LIBERTARIANISM IS

All this memery you didn't actually address a single thing I said.

If you think you can accurately, and reliably predict the human reaction to economic policies you are a retard.

>what free trade

You have to be kidding. You know about NAFTA right? You realize it gives corporations the ability to sue countries if it introduces any legislature that will reduce it's profits?

>the only responsibility of the corporation is to deliver profits to its shareholders!

And they enforce it by threatening to sue if any country wisens up and tries to change the rules. Even subsidies to native companies are not allowed because it's not part of their libertarian game. Like I said, everyone has to deal with libertarian principles but the guys at the top who benefit from libertarianism, but also get corporate welfare.

what memeing?

>tfw everyone shilled on National Socialism that it'll always be just a dream now

>It gives far too much power to the wealthy and far too little to the less wealthy/poor.
It would make the middle class/poor much more wealthier and shorten the work week because there would be less need to work an entire week.

Fuck you and your central bank bullshit.

In a libertarian society they're hungry for the best workers and don't really have any reason to demand women at twice the demand rates as men, since gender doesn't always impact ability especially in STEM.

You're just being mean. You know you are. You're a gross, mean, unfair cunt and I hate you. If I were a woman with the same skills and qualifications I'd already have a job and both you and I know it.

lel

not relevant, if you concede you can use the full power of the australian government to take people's money at gunpoint or else you throw them in jail you're already conceding the NAP is not binding and throwing your consistent libertarianism away. That's the ancap argument, and frankly I think they are right. If you want your NAP you either have to give up government or find some really fucking good way to spin taxation as compatible with the NAP. Or you just become a different kind of libertarian that grounds his ideas on more seriously thought out principles (which can fail as well, see social contract, etc) or a mere utilitarian who has nothing to argue about except for efficiency, and in that case all libertarian policies are open to discussion, including welfare. You could also try some form of jusnaturalism, but that's not as popular today (except if you consider NAPers to be this too) and you can't uphold it with moral relativism ruling the game

>supporting an untenable and fundamentally liberal political system
really tinkered with my thinker

Their combined results from 40 years of running presidential candidates still wouldn't have been enough to win in a plurality like in 92 and 96. They've always been a joke.

>All this memery you didn't actually address a single thing I said.
I addressed every thing you said nice try.

>If you think you can accurately, and reliably predict the human reaction to economic policies you are a retard.
Nobody ever said that LOL

I said:
>Economics isn't perfect but it isn't unpredictable.

Maybe if you had more than 2 brain cells you would be able to read my post.

>You know about NAFTA right?
Yes, managed trade.
NEXT

>You realize it gives corporations the ability to sue countries if it introduces any legislature that will reduce it's profits?
YES dumbfuck I AM AWARE
Managed/controlled/regulated trade.
NEXT

You didn't even respond to the rest of my post so why bother talking with you?

>everyone has to deal with libertarian principles but the guys at the top who benefit from libertarianism
Yes, the companies that have the lowest prices and provide the best products and services.
If you think this is bad then go fuck yourself.

also
>tfwngf because so utterly poor despite having a degree and a high GPA
I'm just lonely.

You have literally strawmanned me as someone who gives a fuck about the NAP. I'm not ancap. Only anarchists believe zero force is reasonable to expect.

youtube.com/watch?v=52uw5hwhfD0

ayn rand hated libertarians, nice try though

You don't have to believe the NAP to be an absolute rule to be a libertarian. David Friedman is a primary example of this.

Anti-libertarians can NEVER refute this.

Anti-Libertarians will NEVER EVER EVER EVER

be able to refute this.

You'd have nothing in a libretardian society. You claim to be a white man, but if you're competing with women and niggers, you're just a bitch. You're not even competing with white men! In a libretardian society you'd be eaten alive like the bitch that you are.

L O W I Q
O
W

I
Q

...

>wants the government to ban drugs
>calls himself a libertarian
Wew lad

>quoting Reagan

You know that even if a goy knocks up a jewish woman, the kid will still count as a jew. Jews are the original cucks and feminist this way. On the other hand if male jew knocks up a goy, kid will not count as jew by their measures, maybe so kikes can rape as they please without feeling the need to take care of their kikespawn.

>nafta, a free trade agreement
>i-it's m-managed trade!!

You are retarded

Reagan was against what I just posted.
Nice Try.

...

You memed yourself when your candidates were "What is Aleppo?" Weedman and a coke head who had his neighbor murdered.

>the government is 100% honest with the words it uses in it's laws and agreements

>the patriot act means you're patriotic if you support it

>the affordable healthcare act makes healthcare affordable

dummy

You don't need a 5000 page document to protect free trade. "Free trade agreements" like NAFTA and the TPP aren't free trade. They're written to protect special interest groups.

Wow I just realised why are kikes so afraid of that technology that makes female eggs unncesary, and the technology of artificial wombs, and sex robots. It is because if you cut women out of reproduction, what they consider race in their religion dies out, also with females losing the sex card, females will no longer have any say in politics, and jews control over them will become irrelevant.

he's an utilitarian IIRC, as I said above, weakens the position a lot

The vanguard of the movement is quite NAPist though, see Mises Institute (the only one I take seriously)
>who gives a fuck about the NAP. I'm not ancap.
Not only ANCAPs, the majority of so called libertarians. Are you really telling me that opposition to the selling of "hard drugs" and the slogan "taxation is theft" are mainstream positions? You're more like a conservatarian by opposing hard drugs. Let's remember libertarians are the movement that have to struggle to justify why it should be illegal to not feed your children (Rothbard IIRC right now, but others as well) and similar mundane shit, it IS pretty radical, even the mainstream. Fuck, I'd say there are more "libertarians" today who care more about muh open borders and mass immigration than even dude weed, freedom of association (nazi cakes anyone?) and freedom of speech (see how the cucks at reason struggle to defend "hate speech" nowadays)

which is not synony,ous with libertarian in any way. Singapure has quite a lot of free markets, yet the government is a nanny state that controls even the ethnic balance allowable in each neighborhood. Several small dictatorships are quite free-market oriented (see some of the emirates on UAE, Brunei, etc), yet hardly libertarian.

>he's an utilitarian IIRC
He's not.

Okay,
The Swiss are still more libertarian than all of those places though.

google says he's a consequentialist, very similar when it comes to what I said anyway

Also, Ludwig von Mises wasn't an an-cap, and didn't follow the NAP. Consequentialist libertarians like Mises argue for free markets on the basis that they result in prosperity, not because there is no coercion involved.

It was inevitable.

After the feel good candidate Ron Paul was bullied into non-existence, cynical attitudes about libertarianism was inevitable.

I'd disagree. They're not even the most economically free according to the heritage index, etc, and they are the best example of tyranny of the masses in the world. If enough people want they ban something, and they do it a lot (wikipedia compilled some of it). Most libertarians I know tend to worship either Singapure (with less nanny-statism) or Lietchenstein or something, although switzerland is high up as well, but still not libertarian at all to have a mob ruling over others. It's a very nice and free-minded mob, but still a mob and with the right to infringe on everyone's liberty

>libertarianism
>with a preference for small business over large business
>With incentives for small businesses

That's like saying, "Communism, with private property to incentivize people to work hard," you stupid nerd.

I know he wasn't, but his Institute is (should change it's name to Rothbard Institute desu)

You're so mean! Why are you being so mean?

But seriously, when employers stop giving me reasons and areas to improve or give infamous excuses like "not a cultural fit," it starts getting obvious. I have not been fairly treated.

If objecting to this makes me a bitch, then I am a bitch.

Leave her alone she's just on the rags.

Just the really addictive ones or that provably do societal harm. I'd also legalise roids, mdma, some amphetamines and most psychedelics, and also completely legalise codeine, atm you have no give your name up to the chemist which is bullshit, because if I'm in unbearable pain (like getting shot or some other injury I'd avoid a hospital for) I think I'd CWE the whole packet and sip that throughout the day. Codeine isn't very effective for pain relief even if other opiates are. As a legal (and weak) opiate you need more than a packet a week.

But heroin is bad. It makes people commit other crimes when money gets tight. That's a good reason to criminalise it. There's a similar argument for meth and coke. They're just not drugs that benefit society, the less neurotoxic stimulants at worst make you better at your job.

Then they are not moderates.

I'm only a conservative so far that a late 18th century political commentator would probably take this position. I'm not too great at economics or economic libertarianism but my consensus is that regulations have the reverse indended effects half the time. They're not very effective and since ancient China this has been obviously with some explicit references in the Tao Te Ching.

And no, I don't like open borders. It disadvantages the lowest of your locals. The newest immigrants take resources from the homeless, and the immigrants who've already received their free Australian university degree compete against the newest of the local workers. In a time of out group preferences this is disastrous.

It's hard to explain, it's basically neoliberalism.

>regulate
You release weed, to cut the narcs legs and you allow employers, health insurance and any private enterprises to discriminate against drug users if they want to.

If they stopped running shitty candidates like Gary, they'd be okay, but the lolbertarians failed hard trying to give us an American version of Trudeau with fewer diversity quotas.

>They're not even the most economically free according to the heritage index, etc,
Yes but they're in the top 5. That's pretty close.

Libertarianism already incentivizes small businesses over large.

>Then they are not moderates.
Libertarianism isn't moderate mate, one of the reasons why no one really likes it although they pretend they do.
>I'm only a conservative so far that a late 18th century political commentator would probably take this position. I'm not too great at economics or economic libertarianism but my consensus is that regulations have the reverse indended effects half the time. They're not very effective and since ancient China this has been obviously with some explicit references in the Tao Te Ching.
>And no, I don't like open borders. It disadvantages the lowest of your locals. The newest immigrants take resources from the homeless, and the immigrants who've already received their free Australian university degree compete against the newest of the local workers. In a time of out group preferences this is disastrous.
literally a conservative, even Russell Kirk could write what you just wrote, or someone like Ropke (disowned by some libertarians because he turned into some weird libertarian distributist later on, but still apparently more libertarian than you are), or maybe a Frank Meyer.

The hard drugs issue is really the dividing line here, I've never met a single libertarian author who'd be against it. Every libertarian argument for legalizing soft drugs work for hard ones too. The only arguments that don't are the comparative advantage/harm ones, far more based on prudence than any other principle

Look m8 you might be slightly less authoritarian than the average "conservative" but you're no libertarian.

I wish I could be a libertarian, but it isn't going to work when Norway becomes Islamic.

libertarianism is so stupid is makes karl marx sound reasonable

of course, any kind of "ism" is retarded since it always promotes ideology getting in the way of results
see: literally every society to date being eventually swallowed by perversions of their ideals

>What is A.L.E.P.P.O.?
>Well, whatever it is I sure am glad no one got hurt.

Nope, you have to thank Gary for that, not us.

>libertarianism is so stupid is makes karl marx sound reasonable

>I HAVE NOOOOOO ARGUMEEEENNNNTTT

Fuck off cunt I'm the Australian voice of libertarianism, equal opportunities was literally taught to us in primary school which the Marxists have widdled into equity of representation.

Except the argument I gave about crime. No one sucks dick for weed. Actually, that's not even an original argument.

This is my issue with some people, they can't believe my brilliance and instead disregard me via appeals to authorities that no one has done what I've done. Yeah, no shit cunt, that's the point.

And stop name dropping, you're Brazilian, how are you not a socialist?

I like how you call him out for strawmanning and then strawman Sanders' arguments by saying they make work obsolete

Don't blame us blame that giant cock Johnson.

I think a libertarian society could work but is only possible if every member of said society has a very (very) high IQ.

Thoughts?

A free market economy might work and be beneficial in general but the only way you can put it in practice is by force like it was in chile. No current system will ever just secede power voluntarily. This is why a lot of the people that were big Ron Paul followers moved to fascism after witnessing how unwilling everyone was to do it the easy way.

Arguing against lunacy legitimizes it.
I could go and take Libertarianism apart piece by piece, but I think the non-aggression principle is the single most absurd in a huge ball of insanity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Society already has laws that essentially forbid what the 'NAP' entails, but libertardians still came up with a way to create insanity out of it
see "le not an argument man" acting like a complete deranged lunatic here
If a child came up to me and started rambling on about inane bullshit and I told him to fuck off, I would also have 'no argument'
It wouldn't make the kid any less of a stupid rambling brat.
youtube.com/watch?v=lXjQgecd1gs

True or false, Sanders advocates for higher welfare.
True or false, Sanders advocates higher minimum wage.
True or false, Sanders wishes to fund this via higher taxes for some groups.

True or false, Sanders is democratic (populist) socialist?

If so, Sanders is not advocating a society that strictly rewards hard work and moving up in the world. By a SLIPPERY SLOPE, I'm pretending that there's no reason to work in a Sanders society.

Clinton isn't much better, in a feminist society women do not need to compete as hard in fields they find preferable, which at the moment is STEM. Likewise, this society obsoletes working hard but only for women at the expense of men. They'll get paid more for less effort.

>Arguing against lunacy legitimizes it.
>I STILL HAVE NO AARRGUMENEETTTT

>but I think the non-aggression principle is the single most absurd in a huge ball of insanity
I'm not totally for the NAP myself since I'm just a moderate libertarian and more of a nationalist.

But you still have no argument against why we should have a free market.

Libertarianism is the ideal American political ideology minus Gary Dudeweedleppo Johnson. This election is embarrassing beyong belief. Who doesn't like low taxes, heavily enforced property rights and essential liberty?

> Marxists, that's who.

libertarian = free market
false equivilancy straw man is a hell of an argument
Like I said, you're a retarded child
youtube.com/watch?v=L4nWoOmMTXo

DUDE COCK XD

What is a liber tarianism?

>libertarian = free market
lol I never said that.

Why do anti-libertarians NOT KNOW HOW TO READ?

Probably bad genetics leading to lower brain mass and thus lower IQ

Why is he such a retarded stoner?

Oh god he set libertarianism back 100 years.

Its ok m8, it'll be better once the redditors leave after the election

>But you still have no argument against why we should have a free market
You got this out of
>libertarianism is so stupid is makes karl marx sound reasonable
Therefore, you are equating "libertarianism is stupid" to "we shouldn't have a free market"
which is
NOT AN ARGUMENT

When it revealed itself to be a fetish to the almighty dollar with no consideration or respect for the nation-state it soiled itself.

On the contrary, it doesn't have no respect for it - it has disrespect for it. Mister "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT?!?!?!" What is aleppo is more interested in profit and philosophy over the well-being of the nation.

Why do people who dislike libertarianism always bring up the NAP as a talking point when virtually not a single libertarian on Cred Forums adheres to it? Literally picking the low hanging fruit no one claimed to own.

>Bottom up libertarianism
>With incentives for small businesses

true libertarianism means NO government meddling

>rejects the priciples of libertarianism
>still calls himself "libertarian
>of course, any kind of "ism" is retarded since it always promotes ideology getting in the way of results
>see: literally every society to date being eventually swallowed by perversions of their ideals
If 'libertarianism' doesn't mean anything, just don't call yourself a libertarian, retard.

see:
I said I'm not fully in support of full libertarianism and NAP.

Also, your face isn't an argument faggot.

you're a retarded child

>People who reject the NAP aren't REAL libertarians
Not an argument

>of course, any kind of "ism" is retarded since it always promotes ideology getting in the way of results
See pic related.

your face is a retarded child

:^)

I'm not a centrist, and I do hold serious convictions and beliefs
I'm just not an ideologue
You're a retarded child.
that's you

Poverty was 50% because of jewbertarian policies and shock therapy. It wasn't until Pinochet started regulating the economy that it recovered.

We've not even begun to tap into all the enrgy available on earth, not o mention energy pumped into earth from the sun.
With all the energy we can make from nuclear and even damn solar we can manufacture hydrocarbons from fucking seawater.

Yes, which is why I'm a moderate and not a trvkvlt pure libertarianism.. which is ultimately an ancap. Quite unfortunately larger corporations have advantages in a perfectly unregulated market such as disruption strategies. This is not ideal for optimal workforce participation nor for competition in general, at least in ensuring there are as many players involved and jobs for offer as possible. When you limit the players, such as shaming people who consider hiring white men in STEM, you limit the competition. Back about companies, smaller companies deserve the chance to compete for larger companies. With this in mind, progressive taxation is not a bad idea especially for corporate tax.

Such, newer companies do deserve incentives and that's all I'm proposing. Large companies do not. End corporate bailouts, but only for companies older than 5 years and that hire more than 1000 people. A small business of 10 people deserves to exist on the off chance someone intelligent in their hierarchy gets the idea to take a loan and hire 90 more people.

See, jobs. You know I'll fix society if given the chance.

Yes, I don't like poverty either. Things such.

>that's you

Not an argument.

:^)

>le shock therepy meme
Seriously kill yourself Naomi Klein, kike bitch.
Countries with the freest markets have the lowest poverty levels.

You probably want Venezuela to stay socialist because implementing a free market would cause "muh shocks".

It was literally led by a marxist before Pinochet.

that's not an argument either, you retarded child

>that's not an argument either
Not an argument.
:^)

>literally just calling each other retarded children

you're both retarded children
Especially the retarded american posting retarded memes

>Quite unfortunately larger corporations have advantages in a perfectly unregulated market such as disruption strategies.
They wouldn't exist in an actual free market. Collusion and overpricing never works long term and most monopolies (at least in US history) were ones that were protected by government from competition.

this

Fuck off.

>:^)
;^)

Hello, friend.

Keep up the good fight. May we battle in Valhalla at the end of times.

Have you ever played monopoly? How many players are left at the end? The government can halt monopolies but yes it can also create monopolies. Just because almost all monopolies are government sponsored, some actually aren't, could it not be possible that part of their creation was dodging anti monopolisation laws? Think Microsoft and OEM and hardware manufacturers that make Linux difficult to install? That technically isn't against the law but fucks in the ass all competition for other operating systems.. until we get Ubuntu with unity. Eughhh.

Be retarded elsewhere.

Valhalla seems closer friend, corporations aren't people and should be treated differently. Chopping the big guys legs so the little guy seems to run faster will be better for people in the long run, even if chopping the legs off of real people is unethical even figuratively.

10/10 argument.

>some actually aren't
Name one.

Microsoft.

what happen to dis party holyshit senpai

>Communism, with private property to incentivize people to work hard
We actually had something like that in Stalin's USSR in form of artels. The only catch was that you couldn't make prices higher than 110% of the price of the same goods sold by the government.
By the death of Stalin artels were producing up to 40% of all consumer goods in the country. Then Khruschev came to power and outlawed private sector altogether, turning us into a meme commie country with food shortages.

Lol. I dudnt do nuddin.
_ _
UU

>By the death of Stalin artels were producing up to 40% of all consumer goods in the country. Then Khruschev came to power and outlawed private sector altogether, turning us into a meme commie country with food shortages.
That's hilarious.

Also
>The government can halt monopolies
No it can't. Anti-trust laws don't work and hurt good trusts. See United States Vs. Alcoa where the government stifled a successful business for being a successful competitor and selling aluminum for a low price.

don't you worry

it always comes back

just have faith

Google.

Infiltrated by both Marxists and far right nationalists. Interesting how hard bipartisanship decided to fuck the libertarian party.

In the end, 100 companies can supply better than 10 companies can supply better than 1 company. I'm sorry you had to experience that.

Then why does my country explicitly have anti monopoly laws? How could they if that's impossible?

And they were probably being predatory, I don't know the case.

>just be a joke now
>Now
Dude come on it was always a joke

Anti-trust laws fail to account for real competition. Let's say I'm the only supplier of soda in the entire world. According to anti-trust laws I am a vile monopolistic entity that is abusing the public. They fail to account for the fact that I face real competition from other substitutes for soda like water, tea, juice, or milk.

Meant for

>Roads how?
Private services
>Emergency services how?
Already got them
>Police how?
Unnecessary
>Public education how?
>Implying before education parents never taught children necessary skills
Either way, libertarianism does NOT bar all of these. Rather, libertarianism limits the encroachment of the government. If the community wants to build these roads, this education, this police force, they will.

So why have government at all?

I mean, if you cannot defend your property then it is your fault, why somebody else should do it (probably in an inefficient way)? Aren't you incapable of it?

So lets disband police, army, destroy jails.

You know what is the problem? If someone says "lets tax this, lets forbid that by a law" they always crie "bolshevism", "inefficient", "will slow down the economy" but they themselves are allowed to say "keep it reasonable, say keep army, police".

You know, communism was idealistic and brought madness and the same goes with neoliberalism.

You shout and do not let to have a discussion because you know you would lose.

>yeah, it changed. So what?
Exactly. The inevitable result of anarchist or near anarchist societies is that they are changed because someone who wants to change them has little to no opposition keeping the status quo.

Founding fathers of America style Constitutional Libertarian Republic with a few adjustments to ensure subversion is dealt with properly is the best system of government that isn't at risk of being changed by opponents

Microsoft is protected by copyright laws and intellectual property protections. Not that it matters much because I don't see how microsoft or google have monopoly power. They face competition at the moment, especially google with people becoming more dissatisfied with their policies.

also, if you want me to become extreme egoist, why should I obey your NAP and not my other egoistic needs?

yes, I will lick your toilet

>Libertarianism is about preserving freedoms for everyone, not just some people.

You know well it NEVER works that way. People with money have a HUGE privilege in screwing everyone else. And I have to obey the NAP so they feel safe in robbing and cheating me.

Hashashin order, which was originally hunted by governments.

I am trying to be creative, else I'd just list tech companies. New technologies are easy to monopolise you see.

That's dishonestly assuming there actually are laws against being the only producer.

Three responsibilities of government are
>enforcing security, both locally and internationally and maintaining both forces
>enforcing contracts as well as laws through a legal and judicial court system
>enabling a dynamic legislative system that fits the need of society at any one time, hopefully for the effect of other libertarian principles such a equality of opportunity.

This correlates with the three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative.

>I mean, if you cannot defend your property then it is your fault, why somebody else should do it (probably in an inefficient way)?
This isn't an argument and although it's not a fallacy, it's what I'd call the tortured stoic argument. Basically, you torture a stoic or deprive him of everything and then demand he accepts it's his fault or responsibility.

And then you expect that the stoic accept only the moon for himself.

Please. Go fuck yourself.

My main issue is equality of opportunities, taxation is something I begrudgingly accept as occasionally useful.

You're unfortunately correct, the system itself needs to oppose this. I hate to sound statist, but statism for the sake of anti-statism actually could work.

Please research OEM.

You shouldn't be an aggressive douche because you have an ego that insists you're a good person and rational actor, therefore to be genuine to that you should follow whatever ethical code you believe defines goodness or else you'll be disingenuous to yourself and your ego shall be a false delusion.

Read the fucking thread:

>I am trying to be creative, else I'd just list tech companies. New technologies are easy to monopolise you see.
They never last.

>That's dishonestly assuming there actually are laws against being the only producer.
In the case of United States Vs. Alcoa that's exactly what happened because they were one of a few producers of a certain type of aluminum and had a large control of the market for that good. The judge said "It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel." They were punished for lowering prices to the point where other aluminum companies could not compete. This is not a bad thing, consumers benefited from these lower costs.

Libertarianism is a joke ideology because it's not an ideology.

Think about it: what are the actual principles of libertarianism? It pretty much boils down to "minimum government."

That's not a fucking ideology. Every single ideology that has ever existed has advocated for minimum government. Minimum government goes without fucking saying!

"But," the lobertarians say, "what about the USSR? Nazi Germany? Was that minimum government?"

That doesn't change the fact that what the ideologies that supported those states argued for was conceived as the minimum possible government. The Nazis would say that a state that large was necessary, and that the Nazi state was the minimum possible government. The Communists had a whole doctrine based around the dictatorship of the proletariat that conceived of the all-encompassing Soviet state as the minimum possible government. Nobody has ever walked out into a political rally, in this century or the last, and said "I am going to govern you more than necessary!"

Minimum government is not a basis for an ideology because it is the basis of all ideology. What constitutes minimum government varies wildly by ideology, but all ideologies still strive for it. Ironically, libertarians are LEAST positioned to have decisive arguments for a finite amount of government because they have no conception of what that would even look like or be like.

Libertarianism is either a slow march to anarchy as the libertarians become ever more shrill in demanding less and less government, or a failing middle-ground before the resurgence of social democracy as libertarians fail to deliver decisive arguments. What it is not is a system that can be maintained indefinitely, because it is not designed as a system. It is designed, from the ground up, as a fucking complaint. Libertarianism is just putting a name on the "FUCK YOU DAD" style of American 'patriotism' towards government.

THAT is why it's a joke.

I'm not American so I'm not keen to comment about American governments or American companies I haven't heard till today, but I doubt Alcoa is the only American aluminium company.

Focus on my issue instead of redirecting with more information about the case.

>They were punished for lowering prices to the point where other aluminum companies could not compete.
>other aluminum companies
So there were actually other American aluminium companies? How interesting.

>This is not a bad thing, consumers benefited from these lower costs.
But price floors are predatory, just because they don't always work doesn't mean they don't sometimes still actually work.
>And they were probably being predatory, I don't know the case.
How interesting indeed, really fries those nerve endings into a fit of dopamine to know... I was right.

Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.

YeaaHa.

I will fuck your shit.

well, you know, rich like it

it will probably end with the top of the society genociding the rest when they have robots, AI, science to make genetic modifications

for now, you are "nice" to the plebs because it can fuck you good but when you have no incentives then....

so what would be the best survival strategy for the poor like now, huh?

>Wants a Libertarian to be in charge of foreign policy
>No foreign policy
>What is allepo?
>Gun industry collapses
>Russia and China grow huge influence in the world
>US becomes number +20 in the world

Gary Johnson is pretty much an idol for pussies.

...

Hard NAP cuckery is the worst form of self-entitled degeneracy.

>I will fuck your shit.
Please do :3

Size of government isn't subjective, you can measure it just by looking at government spending as a percent of GDP.

>I'm not American so I'm not keen to comment about American governments or American companies I haven't heard till today, but I doubt Alcoa is the only American aluminium company.
It wasn't the only one and the case is from the 1940s.

>So there were actually other American aluminium companies? How interesting.
It didn't matter to the anti-trust laws.

>But price floors are predatory, just because they don't always work doesn't mean they don't sometimes still actually work.
The lower costs weren't a result of artificial price fixing but were a result of Alcoa voluntarily lowering the prices to outcompete other companies.

Also my last post, night aussies.

>furry and gay.

opinion immediately invalidated.

>Size of government isn't subjective, you can measure it just by looking at government spending as a percent of GDP.
The necessary size of government is.

A constitutional restriction of government spending as part of GDP to a fixed percentage is going to be repealed the second it becomes inconvenient, and the justification for this repeal will be that "it's necessary."

This is the face of libertarian academic rigour?

Any excuse to avoid legitimate critique, I see.

A-a-all I wanted was for everybody to have the right to live as they wish, without bullies treading on their freedoms.
I couldn't take the abuse any more.
I took the libertarian flag I had hanging in my bedroom down out of shame.
Why are you so c-cruel?

Aussie, cunt. Singular, not plural, there are like two other decent Australian libertarians and one of them definitely isn't on. The rest are shitposters and bantzmasters.

I watched a bearing livestream and oh god the shitposts coming from that chick who's such a fan of him it's her avatar. I mean, how fucking pathetic can you get?

Freedom is a spook.

end the welfare state

Cred Forums is libertarian fascist the memes are just banter lad

pic unrelated

>F-F-Freedom is a . SPOOK
Sure Stirner, did you realise this before or after Engels got his hand out of your ass?

Me too user. Me too.

And make enough money to raise a family of Aryan children with masterrace intelligence.

Your "critique" was nothing more than stating that extremist libertarianism is essentially anarchy. Good work cunt, 10 points but moderate libertarianism simply means less government in some but not all areas and even means a little more government in some areas, like ensuring equal opportunities.

For instance, I'd like to see 10k-50k fines for companies that implement hiring policies based on race or gender. It actually won't be enforceable, but it would dissuade the practice.

You know, there is nothing wrong with those borders besides Greece not possessing Thrace.

I'm libertarian as far as Googles go. I don't want to pay for Google roads.

which is where fascism would be applied. there wouldn't be any niggers

It seems I made you mad. Maybe there is a reason for that.

>t axation is something I begrudgingly accept as occasionally useful

define occasionally?

your ego - good
my ego - bad

your values - reasonable
my values - shit

Now please, be egoistic "my way".

What liberals do is literally: I can do whatever I want to you but you should obey me. Hear, we are all equal people and should have equal opportunity.

I can see results of this, results of an experiment, not a blatant theory.

>Your "critique" was nothing more than stating that extremist libertarianism is essentially anarchy
Incorrect.

My critique focused entirely on the central point that "minimum government" or "less government" are not the basis for an ideology. Libertarinaism is just fucking complaining.

>For instance, I'd like to see 10k-50k fines for companies that implement hiring policies based on race or gender.
This is EXACTLY the problem. Real ideologies do not react to specific policies on whims. The policies develop organically from the system that the ideology explains. Libertarianism is a frankestein ideology where people like you attempt to band all their stupid ideas into a package and it ends up being contradictory, lacking guiding principles, and fucking stupid.

You even said yourself that the very fucking fundamentals of libertarianism are contradictory:
>libertarianism simply means less government in some but not all areas and even means a little more government in some areas
a.k.a. libertarianism means fucking nothing, because it only means what you want it to mean because it is merely a label for your complaints, not a system.

The great United States of America was libertarian until 1913

In a way, you shouldn't, but if you're using that racist meme then I can't condone that. I'm a nationalistic libertarian, but I'm not a racist.

I don't believe blacks deserve affirmative action, that's making you pay for it. A welfare state that unequally benefits foreigners is also not ideal.

But whilst free market roads work (in one or two ways), it does get potentially abusive. I could imagine it getting bad in areas that honestly couldn't crowd fund a road (which is essentially how fences actually work in Australia).

To buy pew pew guns for my mate getting sent to the middle east, kurva.

Libertarianism is an interesting ideology in that it becomes moderate when things must be done, rather than extreme such as left wing or right wing ideologies, both of which become authoritarian and extreme when they want things done.

>just fucking complaining
A good portion of politics is negative campaigning, such that opinion poll usually invert each other during campaigning.

>Libertarianism is a frankenstein ideology
No, it's the purest, dating back to Taoist monks who opposed the rise of Confucian authoritarianism.

>libertarianism are contradictory
All moderation is, nothing can be perfectly consistent. It's the principles that matter and in general less government is a good thing, especially in economic matters although not always. For instance, employment is technically an economic thing that generally the free market would solve but instead someone decided fair play wasn't the "right thing."

This is where libertarianism steps in and because some amount of aggression is demanded it becomes moderate libertarianism instead of pure libertarianism.

Read the damn thread. I've dismissed the NAP and admitted I'm moderate.

>It's the principles that matter
"Less government but sometimes more government" is not a principle, that's a joke.

Libertarianism is pathetic because it provides no grounds to actually prevent the things that you want it to prevent. You want to prevent hiring quotas? Too bad, I think that's the minimum necessary government and I am just as valid a libertarian as you because you cannot PROVE that it's outside your ideology.

>b-b-but you can't prove anything in philosophy
Fucking wrong, you child. Communism, for example, has very specific guiding principles - lighthouses, if you will. There are many courses you can chart through and in and around them, but you cannot fucking ignore them and if you do it becomes incredibly easy to point out why your "communism" fails as communism. Libertarianism has no such academic rigour because it is literally. just. complaining.

"I don't like thing! If I slap a label on my complaint it will sound more academic! Therefore, I'm a Libertarian! :D:D:D:D" - you.

It's a spastic blend of neo-liberal economics applied to the social sphere, at BEST, and even a schoolchild could see how retarded it is to try and order things that aren't economic with an economic theory.

>"Less government but sometimes more government" is not a principle, that's a joke.
That's not what I meant and you know that. In some cases we do need more government, but those cases are few at the moment.

>Libertarianism is pathetic because it provides no grounds to actually prevent the things that you want it to prevent.
Libertarianism doesn't mean no government. The government prevents unfair hiring for women and minorities, my issue is it should prevent them for white males as well. Therefore the established grounds to ensure better competition in the workforce is in fact government.

You just seem deluded man. You know fairness itself is just right for everything, why argue against it? You say I'm deluded, I reply I'm moderate and still nothing changes.

>That's not what I meant and you know that.
No, I don't know that.

It's up to you to express your ideology in a way that makes it sensible, and the reason you struggle with doing that is because the ideology doesn't make sense. What are the principles of libertarian thought? What are the lighthouses by which all systems ought be designed? What is the system of libertarianism that will deliver me a measurable improvement in my living standards?

>In some cases we do need more government, but those cases are few at the moment.
Good political philosophy does not require an appeal to the current state of affairs to define itself. Communism is worker control of the means of production and the natural conclusion to Enlightenment rationality resulting in replacing government with the administration of things. Libertarianism is "like today, but..."

See the difference? Communism is a system entire that can be explained in isolation. Libertarianism is a bundle of complaints.

>You know fairness itself is just right for everything, why argue against it?
"I'm right, just accept it dude :) :) :) it's self-evident!"
That is not a compelling reply. You fail. You are obviously a teenager who has no experience with formal political philosophy and think that just vomiting shit on the internet is the equivalent of making an argument. Libertarianism fails as an ideology because of people like you, who think that sufficient whinging constitutes philosophy. You don't have a system to replace the one you dislike, you're content to just cry about specific policies that trigger you and then cry harder when you get called out for it.

For me OP Libertarianism is a good idea, in a vacuum. It starts from one economic principle: private property. But then it adds all sort of economic principles on top which may or may not be a good idea. But that's its weakness.

Lolbertarians treat these principles as if they're holy. It doesn't matter if they'd work in the real world. The truth is some of it is unrealistic. It doesn't account for human nature. In a petri dish, libertarianism is perfect. In the real world it doesn't pan out. This unfettered belief the free market will work things out is nonsense in the real world.

If you got everyone to dedicate themselves in Country A: to libertarian principles and they abolished the government, Country B which did not could raise an army to destroy or take in part or whole Country A.

National Socialism works the opposite way; they start from a moral principle (do what's best for the volk) and builds from there.

We need a fusion of the 2 in which private property is respected but items which meet a certain threshold of "greater good." The problem is in determining what constitutes that threshold. If we could determine what it is we would have the perfect system of governance imo.

The issue is I've already outlined the principles, I've already talked about what I want changed, it's the current state of affair I don't like. Libertarianism is what naturally evolved out of human economic systems, it's what's naturally observed through understanding what works and doesn't. If it seems like complaints that's because it's a very reactionary movement especially if the alternative leaves behind victims.

>who has no experience
I have experience applying to hundreds of jobs without success despite being a high gpa student, the experience of a few contracting joba and having decent projects.

Your ad hominem aside, I'm not a teenager. I have multiple degrees.

The only system I want is the one I feel Australia is actually remarkably close to except for some reason they decided to stop enforcing the rules for certain people.

Tell me why what I want changed or passed as law shouldn't happen.

>it's
>human
>nature
Take a pol sci class as an elective, my dude. You sorely need one.

>I've already outlined the principles
Yeah, "less government but sometimes more government."

>I have experience applying to hundreds of jobs without success despite being a high gpa student
Don't get a music degree next time. Or did you fall for the mining boom hype?

>Tell me why what I want changed or passed as law shouldn't happen.
I don't care about policy specifics. The arguments for and against are complex and nuanced and neither you nor I have the information or advice required to make a final decision one way or the other. Making a decision based on principle alone is fucking stupid and I won't entertain that specific type of mental damage in my conversations, so don't try it. In the absence of that shortcut decisions require data and consultation, which neither of us have/have done. All that's left is to debate philosophy in the abstract, which is what Cred Forums really ought to be about.

QandA starts soonish. You should drop by the aus/pol'/ watch-along. You'd probably enjoy it.

>start from a moral principle

All this moralising lmao. Typed from the keyboard capitalism built.

Keep bumping the thread and link it so I don't have to find it.

I'll keep this thread archived for purposes, it has some decent material.

In the meantime I got to get a feed. I'm east coast and cbfed making dinner now I'm famished. BTW if you or anyone else lurking enjoyed my bs, think about writing a letter to your MP. Please use my arguments.

Thank you for your insightful and constructive post. It was valuable to this thread.

we can talk about libertarianism again when we have a secure white population

>shitting on moralising
Moralising > all

The craziest thing about libertarians is how immensely insecure they are. I've never seen such wide gaps between how smart someone actually is and how smart they think they are.

>when you launch an amateur rocket into orbit and accelerate it to insane speeds over the course of 10 years using an EM drive and solar power, then give it a quick course adjusting boost of rocket fuel reserve to send it on a collision course with Earth, where the explosion will be the equivalent of several high yield nuclear bombs going off at once in a major metropolitan area, because your neighbors violated NAP

I'll leave you socialists be then.

libertarianism has always been a joke

>You literally can't, because economic libertarianism is supported by the greatest minds in economics and social libertarianism is the cornerstone of our society beginning with the French revolution.

It was a complete and utter failure when the French tried it, and it's a complete and utter failure now.

Too late OP, you had your chance in 2012. The globalist agenda is clear now and NATIONALISM is the hot new (old) thing. Deal with it.

Chile isn't libertarian at all you stupid fuck

probably with a little twist, we will see

for now, thank you globalists, the old thing was pretty unbearable

I just hope it won't go off the hinges like the last time.

Wasn't ancient Rome during the height of it's power basically a Liberterian, minimal government Republic? Their taxes were absurdly low, like a rate of 0.01% of income per year. Then the jews started inflating the currency and it all went downhill from there.

wait what is this thread.
libertarianism is a jew's wet dream. you really want schlomo to open up the borders and have big companies like coca cola or apple dominate virtually every sector of life because any regulation is evil? kill the kikes and make it homogenous, but libertarianism will still be a transitional ideology.

also it is morally bankrupt, heroin markets towards kids, etc.