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?

>>40
In a libertarian society, every business will have driven wages down so low that there won't be any better options.

>>34
No you twit.
If you say that "Libertarianism is the practical use of logic and scientific method to determine the best type of government" I'd like to see where you have applied the scientific method to achieve this statement, and for the record, only einstein holds the reputation of thought experiments weighing as much as empirical evidence, if you want to scientifically prove it to me, I'd like to see some empirical evidence with isolation of possible independent variables.

>>41
Yeah, business is good in Libertopia, at least for the businesses.

>>36
So then todays US is less oppressive than the US of the 19th century? Todays sweden? 20th century Soviet union?

>>26
>>Only answer is eternal anarchy
This answer is only technical, since nobody has any rights at all, and therefore by extension there can be no tyrants

>>45
Correct. You must consider the practicality of what you are saying otherwise your head is still in the clouds. Come down from up there >>26, when you're ready (when your parents start charging you rent).

>>44
Yes.

>>43, >>41
But it is unfair that someone should be paid for doing nothing through other people's tax. You must logically define a criteria that solves both problems.

>>42
That's like asking me to recite the entire of human knowedge on physics. Where do you want me to start? You have no choice but to ask me a straight question at a pace normal for this web board.

>>39
This would be evil as those clones would be sentient. To a lesser extent the same applies to intelligent animals.

>>38
Not necessarily.

It would be legal if you explained to the judge that taking care of the baby what not what the free markted demanded.

>>46
So if todays US, todays Sweden and Soviet russia is/was less tyrranical than the olden US, why does libertarians claim that the wild west was the bomb? Or have i misunderstood libertarian Anonymous? Which country has had libertarianism, in any period? If there are no positive examples of libertarianism why then do libertarians believe it works?

>>48
From your abstract marxist perspective the wild west was the bomb because everyone was middle class. Everyone made decisions for the property they owned as determinned by how effective they were at it and did the work for it aswell. Not everyone had an equal share, but this was only because a person's share depended on how much they worked. The law wasn't some democrat more afraid of the people he is supposed to protect than actual criminals, the law was a sheriff who was a pillar of the community and permitted the people there to possess arms to aid in law enforcement. Every man was a policeman and every womancould defend herself. It was neither anarchy or communism, but it achieved both their objectives without sacrificing liberty or justice.

Happy?

>>49
In marxian class theory there´s no middle class, so fail on not knowing your enema.
Otherwise will i be happy when you answer the very simple question:  "So then todays US is less oppressive than the US of the 19th century?". Because in the above statement the opposite seems true.

"It was neither anarchy or communism, but it achieved both their objectives without sacrificing liberty or justice."
Here is where you say that slavery is not sacrificing liberty and justice. And this begs the question for the umphhhth time, is taxes worse than slavery? But please dont give a straight answer, just peddle some more truisms or slogans or simplifications or redundancies, i never grow tired of asking the same question again and again, its easy debatin!

>>50
In the marxian class theory there is the proletariat, the property owning middle class and the ruling class.

I was referring the wild west post 1865, not 18th century plantations.

Oh and I already answerred your question. >>36

>>50
Fucking loled. Are you becoming desperate on your arguments? You think society with slavery can't be free? Mind you that no single US citizen was slaved, ever. Blacks were widely viewed as inhuman animals and note that without US that would be still the case. Slavery in America is more complicated than you think. It's result of racial thoughts of that time and greed. Back then farmers wanted more workforce and thus they bought slaves from African slave traders whom many were blacks themselves. Eventually trade in slaves became big business, but ended on early 1900s when it became ethically unacceptable as blacks were accepted as human race in America.

>>52

Blacks were always human, you fucking moron. Society with slavery isn't at all free, because slavery is the polar opposite to freedom and justice.

>>53
Yes, blacks were always humans, but weren't treated as humans. Don't you see that we humans aren't perfect? We make mistakes sometimes as was case with blacks. Besides it was black inferiority was idea of British "noble" bastards. Society with slavery CAN be free for non-slaves. You think Ancient Greece that was essentially cradle our civilization sucked too?

>>1

Yes, cause the baby has no money and therefore no rights in the libertarian system.

>>9

Libertarianism doesn't work, it's fucking stupid, in a pure Libertarian society, the logical conclusion is one where EVERYTHING is turned into a commercial commodity from life to the quality of air and that's perfectly fine for people with money but for those who don't have it (the aforementioned baby) are reduced to wage slavery or being raped.

There's always a need for government and basic human fucking empathy in dealing with certain matters where services and utilities should be run without concern for profits (libraries, health care, emergency agencies) so that people without money are not denied basic human rights. The world pure libertarians imagine is one where people have to pay to use a road someone has built or you can sue people for the noise or pollution their car makes.

'Libertarians' (i.e. ones who think that being libertarian makes them fit outside the 'liberal-conservative' false dichotomy and don't even know what the fuck their proposing)  have try to compartmentalize this into anarcho-capitalism but most libertarians (notice lack of inverted commas, these are true economists and capitalists, not some teenager who has just read Ayn Rand is acting like an asshole to everyone) really desire such a system, 'libertarians' want some kind of middle-of-the-road system still realizing the need for regulation because it's fucking obviously needed and the lack of it is causing major problems (pollution, corruption and government influence, human rights abuses by transnational corporations (in third-world countries so we'll never hear about them (because what if a parent company owns both the abusing company and the 'watchdog' media); hence people can't 'vote with my wallet' like libertarians suggest they should)).

I fucking hate libertarians... still I wish drugs were legal and regulated (yes because we need an FDA-style institution for standard pharmaceuticals) and there was less government intervention in personal matters (two people should be allowed to get married regardless of what a government says and they should be able to choose to end their terminal suffering through euthanasia), but most 'libertarians' don't care about that... they just care about guns and being able to pollute forthwith; fuck the environment and hooray for profits!

>>55


but given to the free market, companies WILL do all things the best way for people, because otherwise people will use another company :OOOOO

>>46
OOOO ITS "EVIL!" EVIL! WE CANT DO IT NOW! LOL

>>56

Not at all, look at the present world how companies exploit workers (the overwhelming amount of major clothes retailers and brands) and the companies which directly interfere with their local political climate to further exploit them (the pre-1970's business practices of the United Fruit Company) or to further line their own pockets (the oil industry) or pollute the environment (any petrochemical company) or engage in unethical business practices (most).

Yet the companies who commit these acts are the richest in the world in spite of their crimes, you also have an assumption that people will be informed of these things (through a fair, unbiased media which isn't owned by  parent corporations which also own the company or businesses in question) or through their own investigation, you also assume there is no monopoly (for example Microsoft is one of the most unethical corporations in terms of business practice yet still control 90% of the desktop market), you further assume the other company is not committing these crimes, what if they both commit such acts or what if the whole industry is corrupt?

You phrase your comment in a quite unspecific manner; the public is already quite apathetic in general to the unscrupulous behaviour, but saying that people will change to someone who does things 'the best way for the people' begs the question who? The consumers who aren't affected by sweatshops or deforestation and probably don't care or the workers who cannot buy the products and thus cannot 'use another company'.

>>58


But... But... But...

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>57

No shit?

THIS WOULD BE EVIL AS THE CLONES ARE SENTIENT! IT IS EVIL! BAD BAD BAD

>>56
Unless all the companies decide to get together and screw the people.

>>55
Bu*cough*llsh*cough*it

Morality discussion: on MY 4chan?!

>>51
"In the marxian class theory there is the proletariat, the property owning middle class and the ruling class."
No, thats wrong. One could say that the petite bourgeoisie is a middle class of sorts, but that is not in any case the same middle class as is usually intended.
Okay, post 1865 there were no slaves. Wild west was quite nice, a lot freer than today. No tyrrany. But systematic genocide though. So instead of slaves being better than taxes, i must ask if genocide is better than taxes. Is genocide not sacrificing liberty or justice?

>>65
Ok now you just reaching, or trolling.

>>66
What, you dont see the indian wars as systematic genocide? The society which had a lot in common with your ideology (or science against tyrrany) almost exterminated another race, for economcal and rascist reasons. That is not tyrrany?

>>58
The thing is most "evil coorporations" (which do exist, but are far and few between) are also dependant on goverment intervention to keep them afloat. Coorporations depend on the perceived benefits of collective ownership, if these benefits become non-existant as the coorporations are forced to compete on a fair basis then major shareholders will get angry and force them to split from downsizing companies so they can evacuate their capital without losing some of their shares in more succesful firms.

Also libertarians are just as keen to ensure justice abroad as democrats, even more so in fact due to their obsessive hatred of tyranny. Any foreign government that supports the exploitation of it's people will be branded a tyranny and lose public support.

It wouldn't take much for libertarians to connect the need to preserve justice with institutional morality and give penalties to governments that do not represent the people they rule.

>>65
The wild west was more of a naturally formed society in isolated communities. People embued with the american dream and liberty formed societies based around that and discoverred it's tangible qualities. The devastated paranoid hateful ex-confederates to the east on the other hand had an emotional basis to by-pass the logic of libertarianism and continue to terrorise freed slaves. Liberty would take another 100 years before it began to eliminate this hate, not a good record by any means but liberty was the only positive outcome possible. Many blacks moved from new orleans and became cowboys. They were paid low wages and worked 12 hours a day, which by our standards would have a liberal screaming his head off, but they were treated like any other cowboy.

People embued with the american dream and liberty formed societies based around that and discoverred it's tangible qualities. The devastated paranoid hateful ex-confederates to the east on the other hand had an emotional basis to by-pass the logic of libertarianism and continue to terrorise freed slaves.
Hahaha, holy shit. Lemme guess, you come from the Arts faculty, amirite?

I'll wager you believe that verbiage too.

>>68
Yeah, big corporations and big goverment are good buddies. You know one name for fascism is corporatism as it's fusion of corporations and government. Same thing could be said of communism. Both nationalize corporative entities as part of government though through different ways. Also note how good buddies government and corporations were in Hitler's national socialism and are in scarily similar(without race or darwinism theories) European style social democracy.

>>69
Im not >>68 but I don’t see anything devastatingly wrong with that statement. Care to elaborate?

>>1
"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?"

Of course not.  Well, not in my personal brand of libertarianism - and I consider myself a libertarian.  As I see it, the parent is then responsible for the fact that there is another individual present who is dependent upon them for sustenance & parenting.  To this extent, I am absolutely for holding parents accountable.  From my standpoint, if you create a baby, it is then your responsibility to provide a reasonable degree of care for it until it can spread its own wings.  Anything less would be a violation of the rights of the child.

>>71
Oh man, there's so much wrong with that quote I don't know where to begin. Orwell said it best: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

It doesn't matter what your own political inclinations are, if you see that kind of verbal waste, don't bother trying to reason it through. The writer certainly didn't.

>>73
This is a discussion about ideas; ideas in the abstract. It is not about how they are presented as long as the argument contains some coherency. Im assuming that your main criticism against >>69 is his manor of argument, however this is a /newpol/ thread focusing on politics and not on literary theory. Your reply (and mine as well sadly) is no more important to the discussion then pointing out a grammatical error.

Hi, >>74. It's >>73. Nice meeting you again. How have you been doing?

Say, did you read that link I gave you last time?

>>69 , >>73 , >>75
>>68 here
So you are telling me that freedom of speech, everyone being equal under the law and being free to worship whatever religion they want isn't good for society? My use of language was for the purpose of communicating rational arguments, I fail to see how libertarians are not supporters of liberty or why assuming so is wrong.

Maybe when you can rationally define what was wrong with that statement we can assume you are not a troll. I would think George Orwell would be on my side in this argument since you exhibit the totalitarianist trait of avoiding direct rational debate.

>>75
Yes I did...in 11th grade. The essay doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.

Im not even sure why im responding, its obvious your a troll

>>77
You bet it does, but apparently your original reading lacked comprehension. Read it again.

>>76
No, my argument is that until you can clearly and simply state your argument, you're full of it. Grandiose language is the refuge of weak arguments.

>>78
Then attack the argument? Thats what this thread is about.

wiat... i dont' get it, what was this thread about again?