The "I Hate Libertarians!!!" thread

ITT All the reasons, rational, logical and otherwise, to hate libertarians. All different forms and colors, no discrimination.

I go first.
Libertarians suck because they think that clearly defined ownership rights is enough to stop crime.

Those that think Ayn Rand has brilliant insights suck.

The rest of them aren't too bad.

They suck because they believe that its more important to be free from taxes than to be free from starvation, homelessnes and bad health, and that all systems that take the opposite view are oppresive by default.

>>2

Yeah, objectivism ≠ libertarianism.

>>3
Well, they are, at least in that regard.  And as for freedom from starvation? I'll take the liberty please.  I'm not worried about starving because I'm a responsible person. 

I'm not worried about starving because I'm a responsible person.
Wait till you take a few hard knocks in life.

I used to think the only person I needed to depend upon was me, and usually that was enough. But not always.

It's not something I'd stake my life on.

Their environmental policy could start a fucking war

Libertians have an irrational and excessive disdain for governments and place too much faith in the private sector.

>>7
What is their policy?

You can bend the interpretation of property and the safety of the individual all kinds of ways. For example, if you dump shit in the air and water, doesn't that violate both for everybody else?

>>1
"All different forms and colors, no discrimination."

In making sweeping accusations about 'libertarians' like you did, you already started discriminating.

>>10
While I disagree with >>1's statement, I think you need to reread what he wrote a bit more carefully.

Copypastaed from some other libertarian thread:

But are you really free in such a society?

Let's assume you work 40 hours a week for $50k a year. Along comes someone with similar ability who will work 45 hours a week for $40k. Either you drop your price, or work more, or get replaced. Now consider that happening repeatedly across the entire market.

After a while you end up with many people working unhealthy hours for little wage, since there is always someone desperate prepared to replace them. You could decline, but then you'd have nothing to eat. Is that freedom?

>>12
"But are you really free in such a society?"

Yes.

"Let's assume you work 40 hours a week for $50k a year. Along comes someone with similar ability who will work 45 hours a week for $40k. Either you drop your price, or work more, or get replaced. Now consider that happening repeatedly across the entire market."

Yes? So what? The guy has as much right to compete for the job as you have.  You also both have the freedom of association - you can unionize to attempt to raise your wage rates.

"After a while you end up with many people working unhealthy hours for little wage, since there is always someone desperate prepared to replace them. You could decline, but then you'd have nothing to eat. Is that freedom?"

We had such a system for a couple hundred years in the United States, and, in the words of Milton Friedman: 

"We didn't live in a paradise, but there is no period in human history in which the ordinary man -- the ordinary man -- had as great an improvement in his lot in life as in the nineteenth century in the United States when the government was of trivial importance."  -Milton Friedman

>>13
Yes? So what?
You missed the thrust of the argument. There is nothing wrong with them doing that, but without minimum wage, what will fear do? Fear that you will be replaced and have no income. Fear of no food and shelter for you and your family. Given the choice between that and slave wage, what will everyone pick?

you can unionize to attempt to raise your wage rates.
Certainly. And employers can reply with Pinkerton.

Or the employees could vote for minimum wage and a social safety net. In fact, that's exactly what they did in the end, isn't it?

We had such a system for a couple hundred years in the United States, and, in the words of Milton Friedman:
Ah, so, you would like to live like that? You first.

"We didn't live in a paradise, but there is no period in human history in which the ordinary man -- the ordinary man -- had as great an improvement in his lot in life as in the nineteenth century in the United States when the government was of trivial importance."  -Milton Friedman

Thats because of technological improvements in sanitation and such, not because BIG BAD GOVERNMENT was letting corporations work 9 year olds 80 hours a week

>>12
If that logic was true we all would be working at minimum wage as of now.

I never thought of myself as a libertarian until I saw my professor stumble about why its wrong and not provide a coherent argument against it; even after me and a few others pushed him hard on the issue he still couldn’t muster a logical argument, just emotional ones. These emotional arguments satisfied most of the class but not me.

After further investigation (Milton, Nozick) I think ive become a moderate libertarian. Ive still yet to meet a professor (political, philosophy or otherwise) that could provide me with a moral reason why it’s wrong, or why it wont "work" both practically and theoretically (work as in within the moral framework set forth by libertarian esq. utilitarianism) without resorting to truly radical views that no person of common sense would accept as desirable. I expect no different in this thread, people will flood it with horrible arguments that satisfy to reinforce preexisting worldviews.

Go ahead; continue to lampoon a system that only wishes to defend moral guidelines that we all live by. Don’t believe we all live by them? Or that we should? Then head on over to soviet Russia, communism offers the only escape. Go ahead and try to label it impractical but remember exactly where you stand, as an enemy of a good and just state.

>>16
Lets not make a strawman. The demand for some skills is high enough that companies offer competitive wages. But for unskilled labor, will pay minimum wage if they can get away with it.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm
See that? You have millions who are working at minimum wage. Do you think the companies wouldn't lower the wages if they could? Are you familiar with the Progressive movement at all?

>>16
First, we don't live in a libertarian society, so your reasoning with regard to minimum wage is nonsensical. We have minimum wage, a social safety net, and some form of free healthcare and education.

But since we're talking the current system, you might want to ponder the gradual erosion of the middle class the past few decades.

Second, it's easy to out-argue a person if you catch them by surprise. Chances are he didn't care about libertarianism, so never bothered to do some research and think about it. If you bested him in a written argument, then it'd be worth something.

And lastly, many systems work (pick your metric). Not all are pleasant to live in.

P.S. Your state is both good and just? Where do you live exactly?

>>16
BIG BAD GOVERNMENT was letting corporations work 9 year olds 80 hours a week

Nyoro~n

>>16
Because letting the poor be poor and letting the hungry starve is in essence, unethical.
There, I just poised a moral counterpoint to your infallible theory, suck more cocks.
Libertarianism is so fucking air-tight because it has never been implemented in reality, because it is incongruent with human beings.  A political system that doesn't work with human beings and their psychological tendencies should really be ignored in favor of one that works, IE a mixed economy.

Libertarians are usually the white college-age male who likes to think they've got it all fucking figured out, who often have been raised in a upper middle class family with every advantage and privilege available to them.  Having little ethical grounding, they will seldom acknowledge how despite their "horrible, oppressive society of freeloading and government bureaucracy", they live in the freest, most luxurious, and nice country on earth.  Rather than bitch and moan about how "bad" we've got it, why not devote our energies to working harder, developing the sciences, and helping other human beings.

Last I checked, in America, we have millionaires and billionaires.  I don't think the system needs to be pushed in a pro-business direction, or that it even needs to be pushed at all.

The vast majority of libertarians support libertarianism because they have little vision or something worthwhile to devote their time to, since they already occupy the upper echelons of society, it makes more sense for them to justify their position and increase their wealth by curbing government influence.

The same could be said of poor people supporting socialism, but poor people get sympathy easier than rich people, so go cry more.

>>20
quit whining, bitch

hjhgfghjgfd

Libertarians should be more pragmatic, less theoretical, ivory-tower and high-n'-mighty.

And let go of Ayn Rand's skirt. http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm

>>23
Libertarians hate Rand already you idiot

>>20
"Because letting the poor be poor and letting the hungry starve is in essence, unethical."

Inaction doesn't equate to action.  The rich are not responsible for taking care of the poor.  Each individual is responsible for taking care of himself.

"Libertarianism is so fucking air-tight because it has never been implemented in reality, because it is incongruent with human beings."

We had a more or less libertarian society in many parts of the USA for quite a long time, and to great success.  During this span of time, as Friedman said: 

'We didn't live in a paradise, but there is no period in human history in which the ordinary man -- the ordinary man -- had as great an improvement in his lot in life as in the nineteenth century in the United States when the government was of trivial importance.'  -Milton Friedman

The point is that it was not a pleasant time in history, no.  BUT- nowadays? We are standing on the shoulders of the people who came before us.  Our economy is already developed thanks to the industrial revolution and the capitalism that helped move things along and created progress.  Your mixed economy, if implimented back in the 18th and 19th centuries would not only not likely have worked, even if it did, it would have resulted in a far lesser standard of living for the people today than was the result of our chosing to go with the more individualistic system that we did.

"A political system that doesn't work with human beings and their psychological tendencies should really be ignored in favor of one that works, IE a mixed economy."

Mixed economies 'work'? I guess if enormous amounts of corruption, foreign intervention, and warfare statism equates to what 'works' in your mind, well fine. :)  Such are the consequences of abandoning libertarianism for your mixed economy you revere so dearly.

"Having little ethical grounding, they will seldom acknowledge how despite their "horrible, oppressive society of freeloading and government bureaucracy", they live in the freest, most luxurious, and nice country on earth.  Rather than bitch and moan about how "bad" we've got it, why not devote our energies to working harder, developing the sciences, and helping other human beings."

Our standard of living that we have right now is NOT because of the mixed economy.  Our standard of living is because we went through a few centuries of capitalism in the past.  Again, we are standing on the shoulders of our forefathers who lived in a libertarian society and provided what was necessary for us to have the standard of living we enjoy today.  Had we implimented a mixed economy to the extent that we have it now, do you think it would have provided the standard of living we have today in 1850? Get reasonable.  I am not saying we are worse off now than people were in 1850 - that isn't the argument.  If you still don't understand what is being argued, gb2 high school.

"Last I checked, in America, we have millionaires and billionaires.  I don't think the system needs to be pushed in a pro-business direction, or that it even needs to be pushed at all."

Removing regulations on business would likely allow smaller businessmen to compete with larger and already established businesses more effectively.  Allowing companies to establish themselves, grow large, and then establish all kinds of complex and often expensive regulatory measures and taxes is a recipe for punishing small businesses and eliminating competition for the millionaires and billionaires you despise so much.

>>25
"Removing regulations on business would likely allow smaller businessmen to compete with larger and already established businesses more effectively.  Allowing companies to establish themselves, grow large, and then establish all kinds of complex and often expensive regulatory measures and taxes is a recipe for punishing small businesses and eliminating competition for the millionaires and billionaires you despise so much."

If regulatory measures and taxes are really meant to prevent small businesses from competing with their larger corporate counterparts, it's only because the government allows itself to be a tool to the corporations who want to prevent small businesses from competing effectively with them. Preventing them from using it doesn't stop the richer, more powerful, larger businesses from having their way, it merely denies them a tool.
Removing regulations on business won't stop companies from buying each other, merging, and forming large conglomerates that own everything related to a field so that small businesses have no hope of competing, if anything it makes it easier.

>>25
"Inaction doesn't equate to action.  The rich are not responsible for taking care of the poor.  Each individual is responsible for taking care of himself."
If you ever catch on fire, I hope nobody pisses on you to put it out.

>Inaction doesn't equate to action.

Yes it does. If you drive by a car wreck and do nothing to help like call an ambulence, etc., that's pretty immoral.

>>28
Yeah, seriously, >>25 just proved what a immoral and unethical shithead he is. Thread over.

>>26
Libertarians will deny this on the nebulous "only government allows businesses to monopolize".  You're banging your head against a wall here.

I do agree with you though.

Our standard of living that we have right now is NOT because of the mixed economy.
Yeah, let's just ignore the past century and something, where we've had the biggest leaps in technology, education, life expectancy, infant mortality, basic science...

Next time you make a very BOLD assertion, think it over first, mmkay?

Also, I'd like to state that libertarian states are probably inherently unstable. If a large number of people in a democracy are pissed off, they vote. Or are you planning to force people to remain in a political system at the point of a gun? (tee hee, I mock thee)

How do you think today's society came about? God said "let it be so?"

>>28
You can say whatever the fuck you want, inaction does not equate to action.  In not taking an action to help other people, you are not taking an action that hurts them. 

>>28 & >>29
In debating libertarianism, you should also consider:  is it moral to use violence, force, or coercion to achieve ends that you percieve to be moral at the expense of other people?

For example, if one person has a lot of food, yet produced it legitimately and fairly without harming other people in the process, and another man who has nothing to do with person A is starving, is it moral for you to stick a gun to person A's head and force him to give his food to person B? Is it moral to vote to stick a gun to the head of person A?

>>26
Name me a single monopoly that has ever been formed without government intervention. 

>>31
If we had had a mixed economy of the sort that we have now for the last two or three hundred years, do you think we would be in the same situation, a worse situation, or a better situation?

>>36 rather than a generally capitalist economy, I mean to say.

Charity is good.  Extortion is bad.

>>36
Difficult to say. This isn't an experiment where we can just alter one variable. :(

However, if I go out on a limb, judging by what my colleagues in the pure sciences say, and the way that big pharma often behaves, I suspect we'd be worse off. We owe a great deal of out quality of life today to the sciences, which are being horribly gutted by market forces. The free exchange of information has been strangled in biology, and physicists and chemists just aren't getting any funding for blue-sky projects.

Also, the health of your parents and their education, as well as their parents also play a role. The uneducated and unhealthy don't leave much space for great leaps forward.

Also, I really ought to add that what worked in the past may not work today, and what works today may have not worked in the past.

The biggest asset people had a few hundred years ago was muscle. Today it's the mind. The situations are completely different.

Is it moral to force what you believe is morally right onto other people?

If yes, the religious fascists are morally right in forcing their morals on the rest of the population.

>>41
It becomes necessary when the actions (or inaction) of others produces objective harm. Christians/Muslims/Whatever might find homosexuality immoral, but it has no effect upon them. Whatever two informed, consenting adults do is their own business. People have an obligation to consider the effect of their actions upon others.

"Each individual is responsible for taking care of himself."
You are a product of many people taking care of you. Your parents provided food, shelter, and clothing. The public school system presumably provided you an education, although I can see it was a bit lacking. Law enforcement is responsible for keeping people safe. You have an obligation to more than yourself.

The public school system presumably provided you an education, although I can see it was a bit lacking.
Burn.

>>25
"Mixed economies 'work'? I guess if enormous amounts of corruption, foreign intervention, and warfare statism equates to what 'works' in your mind, well fine. :)  Such are the consequences of abandoning libertarianism for your mixed economy you revere so dearly."

Ive said it before and i will say it again. US healthcare is the most expensive in the world per capita while the quality is subpar. Sweden costs a third and has double the quality. So, if you would be so kind, present any evidence for your broad claims?
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Isn't it obvious that socialism is a more corrupt version of the capitalist dystopia socialists envisage?

They complain that fat cats bribe the government to interfere with the economy. Which would be next to impossible under a libertarian government since they are strongly against subsides and tariffs, in fact if there was a conspiracy by fat cats to control the government and maintain their monopolies they would fear libertarianiam more than socialism, but anyway.. They then ignorantly support a system whereby the state IS the economy. Despite the absurdity of this they give about as straight an answer as they do when questionned how exactly they will get people to work hard in a communism if most of it will be taken away to be given to people who aren't working as hard.

Isn't it obvious that socialism is a more corrupt version of the capitalist dystopia socialists envisage?
Possibly.

Which would be next to impossible under a libertarian government since they are strongly against subsides and tariffs
Yeah, of course, because the government is so weak the corporations can do anything they want. What kind of reasoning is that?

Repeat after me: mixed economy.

>>46
Think. There is more to the world than "OMG EVIL CAPITALISM" and "HUZZAH SUPER HAPPY WORKER'S PARADISE UTOPIA HEAVEN!!".

A mixed economy means that the government subsidises it's own businesses pushing out any possibility of market alternatives. A mixed economy will inevitably consist of pointless monopolies.
 
"BUT MIcs'D AKANOMI IS TEH ONLY WAI pH0R POOR PEOPLE TO GET FREE STUFF!!1 YOU EVIL CAPTLIST OMG..."

No. That has nothing to do with anything. If you had the minimum of logical ability, this is how your thought process would develop.

You would first identify these 2 major factors.

1
State control over a sector of the economy.

2
State subsidisation/tazation over a sector of the economy.

You would observe the mathematical properties of factor 1 and see that there is a minimum and a maximum amount of control the state can have over a sector. You would observe factor 2 and see that there is a conceivably infinite amount of subsidisation and taxation the state can levy on a sector.

You would see that there are 3 general ranges which represent *actual* state subsidisation/taxation policy ranging from high tax to subsides.
Over-taxation (such as the tax used to deter consumption of alcohol), average taxation, subsidisation (expenses paid), over-subsidisation (kickbacks, corrupt bidding).

There are also 3 major policies the state can have in controlling the economy ranging from no control to total control.
No control (privately owned)(except for the regulation needed to preserve justice of course), regulated (beyond that which is needed to preserve justice) and nationalised.

There are 9 possible combinations of the 2 sets. And these aren't the only possibilities in the real world since there are more than these 2 factors.

Just saying "LOL MIXED ECONOMY", is too ambiguous. It could mean anything from totalitarian communism except for the swapping of a tomato for a roast turnip in a school playground in petrograd, to a hardcore coorporate republic except with a tiny defacto government which owns a newspaper stand.

I could go one and explain the best uses and policies concerning the 9 possible combinations of those 2 factors and prove how a libertarian government would work and be more efficient than the current "mixed economy", but I can't be botherred.

>>47
You would see that there are 5 general ranges which represent *actual* state subsidisation/taxation policy ranging from high tax to subsides.*

There are 15 possible combinations of the 2 sets*

I could go one and explain the best uses and policies concerning the 15 possible combinations*

fix'd

I think libertarianism is the product of people who don't believe that social connections exist between people and that every person can live in their own bubble.

I would like to pose a question: In a truly libertarian society, would it be legal for parents to leave their baby on a sidewalk because they don't feel like taking care of the baby? Inaction is nevar immoral guyz!!

Libertarianism is a fine ideology for those who can live in a sustainable and comfortable way without any safety nets. And there are some people who can. The problem is that most people can't; most people need state subsidised healthcare and education or they don't get any.

For people that struggle to pay for food and housing, how are they going to react when they are paid less because their boss is an ass, or when little jimmy gets a broken arm or two because some driver didn't break any speed limits (because they don't exist)?

For the non-elite, libertarianism actually takes away their freedoms. Their freedoms to live comfortably and sustainable. Hardcore socialism isn't any better, but social democracy under a mixed economy (PROTIP: mixed means both nationalised and privatised education & healthcare exist so people use whatever fits them best) is invariably better

>>1
shut up.

>>51
They only reason they can't is because they have become dependant on the state. Long ago the state monopolised these sectors of the economy and since we now believe we are dependant on them for it and have never learned the responsibility needed for us to be independant from it.

Firstly law enforcement will still exist, enough of this "LIBERTARIANISM = ANARCHOCAPITALISM" bullshit, srsly. A libertarianism is just a democracy with major libertarian parties, if criminals cannot pay for the damage they've done a small amount of tax will be levied to pay for it. Little Jimmy will get free medical care as it was not his fault his property was damaged. As for the parents they need to think of a way to make a living, quick.

If you were a hunter-gatherer would you curl up in the fetal position and lie crying like a demented cunt in your own faeces and urine whining "SOMEONE GIVE ME MY FREEDOM TO LIVE COMFORTABLY AND SUSTAINABLY BAAAAWW"? This is social democracy.

Libertarians are inherently anti-democratic.

They are motivated purely by their own self-interest and have no cares for anyone else in society or society itself. The Libertarian model of society is that of cold logical automatons, operating independently with no thought to human psychology, dreams or natural justice.

Read any Ayn Rand novel for proof of this. Pure revenge fantasy, which is why Libertarianism appeals so much to the nerds on the Internet. They live under the delusion that if everyone was forced to fend for themselves, they'd become kings rather then the peasants they are now.

Game theory suggests that though a single malevolent individual may accomplish more then an equivalent benevolent individual. However that breaks down when a group of benevolent individuals can accomplish far more then one or many malevolent individuals. Libertarians don't acknowledge the concept of "Society" exists, and hence can't see the forest from the trees.

Could man have travelled to the moon under Libertarianism? After all, there are plenty of fields in science such as astronomy, theoretical physics and environmental studies that benifit mankind as a whole despite little or no profit motive.

Libertarians love to claim that people are held captive to a "Nanny State", which they believe their own "rugged individualism" can replace. This is outright false. Libertarians state "Why should someone else care for me, I can care for myself!", yet every day they benifit from infrastructure paid for by other people, businesses that employ publicly educated people and defence by volunteer police and military paid for by other people.

>>54
son of a bitch where do i sign up

>>54
Liberty = democracy.

They are not motivated by self-interest, they merely factor it in when deciding how best to ensure an efficient just democracy. The libertarian model based on legitimate empirical science, factorring in the human capacity for both selfishness and altruism.

Ayn Rand was an anarcho-capitalist, just another type of marxist, nothing to do with science and thus nothing to do with libertarianism.

Game theory is just some abstract mathematics and claiming that it represents all of libertarian political science is absurd. Libertarians lean towards more empirical treatises for insights into human social systems such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill whom include more variables. Of note is the fact that many non-market based government institutions use game theory heavily.

There are more mature profitable sensible applications for investment instead of just "AHAHAHAHAHAHAA IMMA PUT MAI FALG ON TEH MOOON FERST". Investment in theoretical physics, environmental studies and astronomy would come from the private sector if the state did not monopolise it. Billions are spent on research and development and investment in new technology every year, by far the most by US corporations because the government interferes less there.

You are not being held captive by a nanny state and it requires cooperation in the democratic forum of your nation in order to replace the nanny state with superior market alternatives. Libertarians explicitly believe that the state's only purpose is to equalise power, this means a libertarian state would exist to pay for an army, courts and police. As for the supposed dependance on state funded infrastructure and public education, we are inly dependant on them because by law the government can steal money from us and make us pay for them. There is nothing we can do about it except evade tax and vote libertarian and I do both so don't look at me and claim I am dependant on them.

I like them because they take care of large collections of books for the general public, and believe in the freedom to read.

Libertarianism is a disease spread by the internet

Disease is an internet spread by libertarians.

>>56
apparently libertarians don't believe in social contracts either, unless it benefits them.

Game theory is not just abstract mathematics, Game theory deals with how to make rational decisions given a wide variety of choices, how it is most likely outcomes will be in different situations. These are important factors for finding out how the oh-so-holy market works.

Machiavelli was cynical historian, cynical as in unemotional and calculating, in order to be calculating you need tools to calculate with, one of these tools are game theory. Thomas Hobbes was the 'founder' of utilitarianism, another dicipline which requires you to somehow calculate and precisely determine peoples actions.
There are of course other facts in libertarian political science is of course not true, but to claim that it is not a MAJOR part of the whole basic libertarian idea is just silly.

True, corporations spend millions on R&D every year, but all corporations are bound by their quarterly/bianually profits, this prevents most of them from investing enormeous amounts of money in incredibly large and maybe not financially profittable projects. Of course when corporations become large enough they will be able to do it, but it is one of the areas of research/development where the government may be more fitted than private corporations.

and btw, liberty != democracy, you achieve democracy by giving up some personal freedom. we vote on people, pass on to them our power and let them represent us to vote for and suggest what they think is best, and then we accept the outcome of this, even if it's not exactly what we wanted it to be. Well, that's representative democracy, but even if we talk direct democracy you still give up your power to the majority.

>>60
Libertarians believe social contracts should not be forced on people by the state, this doesn't meant they oppose social contracts.

All mathematics is abstract, that's what it is by definition. Game theory merely provides hypothesis to find and explain patterns seen in economics and political science, it's utilisation is a cause not an effect of conclusions by libertarians.

The stigma of Machiavelli being the master of intrigue is not entirely true, if you believe he was a cynic it is only because his works are a reflection of reality and this contrasts with your own perceptions. Thomas Hobbes and many utilitarianists never pretend to know more than what could be told from the facts.
The idea that libertarians worship game theory is absurd, very few libertarians overstep their bounds and claim game theory is anything but a hypothesis for explaining decision making in very controlled circumstances.

Corporations need to think about quarterlies in the next decade as much as the next quarter, they are also well used to funding projects which can last a decade to fulfil the long term investment criteria, old companies tend to do this. Companties calculate whether to follow a venture by multiplying the possible profit by the risks involved, risky ventures become more appealing as opportunities for further growth decrease so under a libertarianism the profitable ventures are done first and the risky ventures done later. It's the 60s and you have $10000 to invest, Apollo program or Microsoft?

I believe any restriction of freedom is an injustice, thus you cannot have freedom without justice and you cannot have justice without freedom. Freedom = justice. You don't achieve democracy by permitting injustices against yourself, you achieve freedom by enforcing justice and you enforce justice through democracy. Pretty deep stuff isn't it, maybe you should read the constitution some time.

>>61

enjoy your anarchy then, and fuck your constitution, we're talking libertarianism as a political ideology/direction(just for those of you that insist on libertarianism not being an ideology) here, not american constitutional-woshipping. Justice to some is Injustice to others, in a democracy the justice of the majority may very well seem as injustice to the minority, if the minority did not accept this it would not be a democracy, it would be anarchy/war, that's what the social contract is all about, the state is there to ENFORCE the social contract, that is force it upon those who do not follow it.

when did i ever criticize machiavelli? His works are primarily of historical value, but if you look at the prince which is what most people think of, it talks of how a ruler should rule, both by giving and exploiting and doing whatever is necessary, to stay in power, this doesn't contrast with my own perceptions, but it's certainly not something i can condone, but maybe libertarians can?

That's right, utilitarianism is based solely on facts, but some factors that you need to calculate when figuring out the facts are somewhat untangible and if you actually want to predict anything you'll need game theory.

Sure, i'd rather invest in microsoft, but would we ever have reached the space-age then? alot of the very practical things we have today are by-products of major projects launched by governments around the world because it wouldn't be profitable for companies to be the first to do it.

>>62
Libertarianism is not an ideal as it is flexible under criticism. The idea that everyone's social contract is 100% different from each other's is absurd, we all agree that theft and murder should be illegal, we just disagree on things like gay marriage and levels of alcohol taxation which are personal decisions and not decisions which affect other people.

You said...
"Machiavelli was cynical historian"
His works were also of scientific value, so if they do not contrast with your perceptions you should realise that the basis for the libertarian stance on the state and it's power is justified. Libertarians seek to eliminate sociopathic psychology in the state whilst not affecting it's practicality, the phenomena outlined by machiavelli is a foundation for doing this.

You also need scientific method to do make succesful predictions, game theory is just another hypothesis. Game theory works in very set controlled circumstances, like games, reality is of course much more complex with many factors the presence of which can only be uncoverred by testing the hypothesis first and even then more experimentation is needed to find out what exactly those factors are. Welcome to statistics 101.

Granted the space program did aid satellite communications and placed a lot of investment in aeronautics, engineering, programming and computer science, however most of this was achieved through military R&D in order to compete with the soviets which libertarians generally approve of. However the fact that the private sector is more economical with it's R&D spending and will eventually get around to more risky technologies once the less risky more profitable technologies have been uncoverred remains.

>>35
Microsoft.

>>64
Linux.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.
It has a lot of competitors in all sectors it's involved in.
However, the average user is ignorant of this and that's a good thing.

Here's a well reasoned opinion -- I'd rather be fucked by the state at the cost of political support than be fucked by corporations at the cost of an unchecked out of control laissez faire monkey zoo of an economy.

See example: Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis

>>67
The sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of mishandling of interest rates by the federal reserve in response to the dot com bubble.

>>68

It had NOTHING to do with predatory credit agencies acting out of their self-interest. It was the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CONTROL that caused them to push these sub-primes on their customers.

>>69
That's right.

>>69
After the dot dcom bubble they kept interest rates low to prevent a recession, but this only made people more likely to make risky investments, like buying a home. What they should have done is worked to privatise currency and let interest rates and inflation be decided by market forces.

>>68
The tired refrain of a libertarian.

The answer to everything is always "it's the government's fault". It is never the fault of private interests. They can do no wrong, just like the government can do no right.

The only way to disprove that is to test it on a grand scale, which no sane person wants to do.

So, in the meantime: tl;dr

>>72


you seem to forget that libertarianism is science, so it can't be wrong. the government is not science!

>>72
But it was the government's fault.

Libertarianism is a Science.
Adam Smith was Jesus himself.
Privatization and holding private entities to standards is silly.
Government and Government regulation is BAD.

FINAL DESTINATION.

FUCK YEAH!

Libertarians think that the market will magically regulate itself towards environmental protections loooooooooolll

>>76

Hey man, my tire factory is doing all it can to diminish environmental impact. I even hired a guy who said he was liberal.

Libertarianism is a Science.
Adam Smith was a major benefactor to economics.
Privatization and holding private entities to standards is justice. Pointless regulations are silly. If someone diposes of mercury by putting it in baby food they will cause damage to the bodies of people who ingest that baby food, which should be illegal.
Government and Government regulation is BAD if it has unjustified amounts of power.