Libertarians Part DEUX

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?

yep
can't you do that anyways?

You can do it, but it is illegal.

>>1

Nope. That'd be taking away its shelter, and since it can't do anything to find its way back or give consent to do it, it'd be illegal

>>4
So apartment owners couldn't throw out tenants who couldn't pay? ITD BE DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR SHELTER LOL!11111

How about selling the baby on the free market? Nothing more libertarian than that!

Libertarianism is for teenage boys who are too prissy to play anarchist.

OF COURSE IT WOULD BE, IN A LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY EVERYBODY IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES, IF THE BABY IS TOO LAZY TO TAKE CARE OF ITSELF, THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM.

>>5

Way to compare a baby to an adult! They obviously have the same capabilities.

>>7

Libertarianism works and the other doesn't.

>>9
Libertarianism does mot work. If you have evidence for teh contrary, please present it, i am very curious.

>>9
How about selling the baby on the free market? Nothing more libertarian than that!

>>1
>>2
>>5
>>6
>>7
>>8
>>11
Freedom hating socialists.

>>10
Libertarianism doesn't solve all the problems in the universe in less than a quantum second. If you have evidence for teh contrary, please present it, i am very curious.*

fix'd

>>10

Libertarianism does work. If you have evidence for teh contrary, please present it, i am very curious.

>>10
Look at early America. There's your evidence. That wasn't technically libertarianism, but classical liberalism of Old West was close enough and it worked awesomely. Pre-WW1 times. By WW1 there were too much people. Cities and companies got too big. Lots of people leads only to fascism/communism and great suffering. If we somehow could preserve classical liberal rural state forever without having to resort into oppressive measures or losing any technological advancement it would be greatest thing ever.

>>13
how do i proved negative

>>12
How about selling the baby on the free market? Nothing more libertarian than that!

>>15
The same way you fucking shot web, spiderman

>>14
The old west was also lawlessness to the extreme, murder was something you easily got away with, and could rob several banks, killing scores of people before the marshals finally caught you, (if they did at all).  Tell me how society was just in that sense?
What it was was borderline anarchy, and because of the nature of capitalism to justify expansion, the rural/agrarian state will never stand when commercial agriculture stands to crush family farmers.
If you earnestly believe that people prefer such a society to our "socialized oppressive market-hating commie land" I think you need to stop reading fiction and/or go to Russia.

>>18

More bullshit comparisons from /newpol/, nothing new.

>>18
Eurofag whose only knowledge of Old West comes from movies. GB2/Gonna read me a book/, westerns are entertaining, but they're fiction.

>>19
I agree. This conversation is going nowhere because these morons can't be botherred to think things through. They just repeat the same shit over and over even though they've probably seen it crushed in front of their faces several times.


Libertarianism isn't an ideological utopia, it's the science of getting rid of tyranny. Oh, so democracy doesn't eradicate all instances of tyranny and crime, well tell me which ideology does?

"ANARCHY DUZ!!! ANARCHY IS PERFECT AND STOPS ALL OUR PROBLEMS IN A NANOSECOND AND TURNS EARTH INTO HEAVEN!!!!!"

Go live in Somalia then.

"Libertarianism [...] it's the science of getting rid of tyranny."
Lol since slavery is not seen as bad as taxes heheheheeee
So man of science, in which peerreviewed publication have your papers been published?

>>22
"Lol since slavery is not seen as bad as taxes heheheheeee"
You are mistaken. Libertarianism opposes tyranny.

"So man of science, in which peerreviewed publication have your papers been published?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/democracy

>>23
You are mistaken. Libertarianism supports the tyranny of the corporation.

>>24
Then you are not referring to the "libertarianism" described in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism

>>24
Every capitalistic system supports tyranny of corporation.
Big corporations just have got too big nowadays. It's not about free market anymore and it's not even about money as those corporations make it too much anyway. They have been driven over the edge long ago. There is answer. Nuke all cities with more than million residents. Then tyranny is stopped for a while, but it will be back in about 20-50 years. There is no way to prevent tyranny from forming in any system. Organization and growth will always bring tyranny. Then it will all end into wars and revolutions, but new tyranny is formed soon after only to be consumed by it's people in future. It's endless cycle and truth of humanity. Communism is not answer, fascism is not answer, socialism is not answer. Only answer is eternal anarchy, but it's impossible, since people are collectivist bastards by nature.

>>23
Libertarians claim that the founding fathers were liberatarian and that the society they formed was libertarian to some extent, no? And that todays mixed economies are all variants of some bolshy state socialism, because of the oppresion of taxes? So, in the former society slavery existed, while in the latter it does not (i  exclude wageslavery here, comrades). This begs the question that taxes seems to be graver oppression than slavery, does it not?

And a wikiarticle on democracy does not prove that libertarianism is a science, does it?

>>26
Youre analysis is interesting, but it leads to the conclusion that its best to do nothing, or rather that nothing we do matter? Then what actual utility does your analysis provide, except for being a reason to become an hero?

I've had it with you anarchists and your overly abstract non-utilitarian pseudo-scientific outlook on the world. What is wrong with having a police force heavily divided and regulated to ensure they don't abuse their power?

>>26
That's completely insane. Don't you realise that human nature is a factor as much as anything else? If you plug that into the equation you will find that democracy is the best system of goverment we have since it prevents any minority from having too much power.

>>27
If you are the kind of person who judges a science on the actions of people who claim to support the science then you need to grow up because...

Spoiler: People lie.
Spoiler: No one is perfect.

The founding father's possessed both libertarian opinions and some tyrannical opinions. Just because they didn't ban slavery, it doesn't mean we should get rid of the freedom of speech. You make the same mistake as >>26 in assuming everyone is perfect. If you are going to base your entire political philosophy on a fantasy world you are wasting your time.

Democracy is a widely accepted system of government and fundamental to the entire of human culture. Democracy is a means to achieve some of the principles of libertarianism to a high degree, especially when compared to tyranny. Through history is has been vehemently supported by libertarians and anyone with the slightest hint of sanity who sees reason to be free.

YoURE WITH LIBERTARIANISM ARENT yuo?!?! IF NOT oYoR FOR TYRANNY LOL

>>29
Correct.

>>28
How is libertarianism a science? Examples of qualities of other sciences is that they use a scientific method, they are peerreviewed, and that  conclusions is drawn from experiments that are repeatable. Libertarianism is any of this? Or do you mean it like a metaphore? Please explain.

"The founding father's possessed both libertarian opinions and some tyrannical opinions."
Yes, of course, and that is also true for every state today that has freedom of speach and demands taxes. So are the founding fathers society better or worse than todays society (omg this is the third time im asking exactly the same thing, god youre dim).

Libertarians are not the only supporters of democracy, as it is commonly understood, neither is freedom of speech etc. But as  >>29 so clevery points out, libertarians claim that everybody whi is not for unregulated childprostitution and courts run by the market are for tyrrany and are no better than hitler. But then again, libertarians also believe in pixies.  

>>31
Science doesn't require repeatable experiments in a lab, this concept contradicts many contemporary and useful sciences like forensic science which must draw conclusions from one time events. Libertarianism is the practical use of logic and scientific method to determine the best type of government to generate the most happiness in sentient human beings.

Where have you asked me "are the founding fathers society better or worse than todays society" before >>31? I'm not going to answer it now, you'll just have to cry.

You've got it the wrong way round. Libertarianism is the epitome of correct knowledge that humans have ever gatherred on political science anywhere, so anyone who is not afraid of reality will be agreeing with certain libertarian principles by default.

>>32
"Where have you asked me "are the founding fathers society better or worse than todays society""
In >>27, esp:
"Libertarians claim that the founding fathers were liberatarian and that the society they formed was libertarian to some extent, no? And that todays mixed economies are all variants of some bolshy state socialism, because of the oppresion of taxes? So, in the former society slavery existed, while in the latter it does not (i  exclude wageslavery here, comrades). This begs the question that taxes seems to be graver oppression than slavery, does it not?"

But if you are not able to give an answer i will just assume that taxes and stateowned policeforce are seen as a graver tyrrany than slavery by libertarians. Looky here, i used logic to defeat you, that must mean communism (since i am a commie) is a science, no? If not, how then is libertarianism one?

Btw, which scientific method did you use to determine that staterun healthcare is less efficient than private health care? I am curious about this since present data seems to point to the opposite (eg http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf). PROTIP: Repetition of slogans is not scientific method.

>>33
You see, it isn't logical. You are pretending that I am saying things that I haven't said. So there is no factual basis to your argument and it will all have to be abandonned and you will have to admit you are wrong and start again from scratch.

Ask me straight questions and I'll answer.

>>34
Is a country with taxes, state owned police force and labor laws but no slaves more or less tyrranical than a country with almost no taxes, private police force and no labor laws but with slaves? They are the same in all other matters.

>>35
Depends on how extreme the said policies are. Though the society with slaves is highly likely to be more oppressive.

>>35

Libertarians do NOT advocate slavery, it would be a very basic violation of the libertarian principle itself.

Libertarians are for wage slavery though

Since we're discussing slavery, here is the solution to the inherant evil and unfairness of this world: Create clones of every person. Everyone can only have one clone. The clone is treated as your slave, it does work instead of you and all money it earns is transferred to its original, except the amount it needs to eat and shelter itself. Clones are marked prominantly so they cannot be mistaken for real people. They are fed a hormone cocktail that will keep them docile and obedient. Meanwhile, the real humans sit around and watch TV and play videogames all day. This, my friends, is the solution to the human condition.

I look forward to the day when technology has advanced far enough that this system will be implemented and I lament its demise around 400 years afterward when clone's rights movements begin to arise.

>>38

Slavery is not volunteered.  If one does like the pay, then they simply quit the job.