It's the 21st century version of laissez-faire. Instead of the government raping our asses, it's the corporations. I'd rather have some form of regulation in capitalism than none. Notice how the areas that resembles libertarianism politics the most are the areas that are leeching federal money and relies heavily on manufacturing jobs. Way to take care of your population.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 20:48 ID:9zWk4Gwy
What's worse than trendy liberal fags in real life? Trendy libertarian cunts on teh internets. Look at me, I am a libertarian because everybody else on teh internet is doing it and it's the only third option. I get wet whenever someone mentions personal responsibility.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 20:52 ID:2EnNWUUd
Ayn Rand makes me happy in teh pants
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 20:52 ID:9zWk4Gwy
Libertarianism is a waste of time and brainpower. If I wanted a monopoly or an ogligarchy like the ones we had during the Industrialization Era, I'd move to a third-world country. The American Nazi Party has more street credz than Libertarians.
The difference between a corporations is that corporations can't attack consumers or unions(YES, FREE MARKETS HAVE UNIONS) so they can't rape us too much, or a boycott/strike happen.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 21:59 ID:fu2KOfRo
Rofl@same person posting to establish a sense a worth
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 22:15 ID:9zWk4Gwy
"The difference between a corporations is that corporations can't attack consumers or unions(YES, FREE MARKETS HAVE UNIONS) so they can't rape us too much, or a boycott/strike happen."
You wish that's how it would turn out, don't you? What you said is no different than communists saying communism would make everyone equal even though some people in the government will abuse their power. Same shit with libertarians and corporations.
Ever heard of vertical integration?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 22:16 ID:9zWk4Gwy
How about people posting examples of libertarian first-world countries, eh?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 22:23 ID:I0Iz5yul
The difference between a corporations is that corporations can't attack consumers or unions(YES, FREE MARKETS HAVE UNIONS) so they can't rape us too much, or a boycott/strike happen)
Y HELO THAR PINKERTON
Also, why bash libertarianism specifically? Why wasn't the title "Capitalism is a joke"? Libertarianism is just conservatism without the bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 1:48 ID:/Uxawazj
Because capitalism itself isn't a joke. It's an economic theory that works.
Unfettered capitalism is another story. Some people really do seem to think that more is always better.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 2:44 ID:Kq2U5pRs
"Also, why bash libertarianism specifically? Why wasn't the title "Capitalism is a joke"? Libertarianism is just conservatism without the bullshit."
Because libertarianism is an ideology and not just an economic theory, you moron. You might as well call everyone who is not a libertarian a terrorist-loving, freedom-hating, unamerican. Ironically, your point on bullshit-less conservatism is contradicted by your bullshit on trying to connect the two as one. You fail.
Cool your jets, faggot. He named this thread "Libertarianism is a joke" and his post was him bitching about capitalism. This makes no sense, American conservatism supports capitalism as well, so to pick on libertarianism specifically is illogical. I never said I supported capitalism specifically, but I implied it is better out of it and conservatism. And if you can't connect and discern between libertarianism and conservatism in social/economic views.. then fuck off. It's not hard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 7:25 ID:/Bmfy6XH
Capitalism has never existed in a nation state. The closest any system comes to capitalism are organisations within nation states such as that used by organised crime ranging from pirates to the russian mafia. Feudal lords were communist, the government controlled everything and forced all their serfs into collective farms which they were stuck in for life. The factory owners in Marx's day were fascist or national scoialist, a free market on the surface, but heavy corruption played out behind the scenes between people of economic and political power. Today's modern succesful economies are crosses between social democrat and free market, with varying levels of democratically authorised government intervention in an otherwise free market. Of these nations those closer to a pure free market have much lower levels of crime and poverty.
>>16
He was not bitching about capitalism, he was bitching about an unregulated exploitive market place.
American conservatism supports capitalism as well, so to pick on libertarianism specifically is illogical.
True, but he is referring to the manner in which the market is maintained (ie, not at all), not capitalism specifically.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:10 ID:Kq2U5pRs
"Of these nations those closer to a pure free market have much lower levels of crime and poverty."
Where are these places that you speak of?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:20 ID:Kq2U5pRs
Cool your jets, faggot. He named this thread "Libertarianism is a joke" and his post was him bitching about capitalism. This makes no sense, American conservatism supports capitalism as well, so to pick on libertarianism specifically is illogical. I never said I supported capitalism specifically, but I implied it is better out of it and conservatism. And if you can't connect and discern between libertarianism and conservatism in social/economic views.. then fuck off. It's not hard.
I don't know why you even bring up conservatism. I pick on libertarianism because it's the most annoying political trend on teh internets. The only thing librarians have in common with conservatives are their economic views. If unregulated capitilism were truly the shit, then we would see more first-world nations under this system that no one around here can seem to name. "Not giving libertarinism a chance" is not an excuse. You fail again.
Vote Islamic Political Party of America, it's teh bomb.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:34 ID:rnCSXQEc
>>17 Capitalism has never existed in a nation state.
Hmm, why does that sound familiar? Ah, yes, the typical far-left excuse: "Marxism has never existed in a nation state."
I hope the glaring parallel here isn't beyond you, Herr Ideologue.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:51 ID:F+AQ08p2
The word Capitalism is totally retarded.
How about you guys start using words that actually have meaning such as Laissez-faire?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:55 ID:rnCSXQEc
The word Computer is totally retarded.
How about you guys start using words that actually have meaning such as Universal Turing Machine?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 14:58 ID:F+AQ08p2
Good one.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-10 6:14 ID:kTYl4zIB
The word Faggot is totally retarded.
How about you guys start using words that actually have meaning such as Bundle of Sticks.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-10 7:53 ID:PIxJx1Wx
>>21
The difference is I don't support capitalism, whilst the far left support marxism or something like it. Also stop thinking in terms of left-right up down in your mouth, up the ass, it's retarded and doesn't go anywhere. Just use science to prove hypothesis logically.
if you go far enough right the far right will support capitalism, if you go far enough left, the far left will support communism.
you can't set up the same large-scale social experiment again and again and again, so it's hard to use science to prove an ideology. we have to rely on the empiricla knowledge from the situations we have seen, and from what we know about human beings in general from the studies of psychology.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-10 8:09 ID:PIxJx1Wx
>>28
Fold the left-right system in half and it will be revealed that the capitalists and communists are just marxists. Their obsession with peculiar and offensive sexual practices, love of tyranny, use of machiavellian extremist tactics to fool the poor into supporting them, their hatred of logic and relentless use of bigotry correlate perfectly into one another. They are 2 cheeks of the same ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-10 16:53 ID:9D7qFNkn
>>27 wouldn't understand satire if it gang-raped him repeatedly in a back alley.
The rest of the world calls it "capitalism". Stop masturbating, get off the drugs, and get used to it.
>>29 capitalists and communists are just marxists. Their obsession with peculiar and offensive sexual practices...love of tyranny...hatred of logic and relentless use of bigotry correlate perfectly into one another....
er, what?
Are you trying to describe some kind of politcal vampire or something?
You're making a textbook strawman argument.
GTFO of /newpo/
Libertarianism isn't about the economy, it's about personal freedom. The Libertarian Party happens to be very conservative economically, but Libertarianism in general is not. I am a Left Libertarian and I think laissez faire is a load of horse shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-10 21:50 ID:2YD5f7G9
I am a Left Libertarian and I think laissez faire is a load of horse shit.
That makes you Liberal.
Sort of, not really though. I am more extreme than most Liberals, I'm for the legalization of prostitution and all drugs, small government etc., and am against other traditionally liberal things like gun control and affirmative action. If I say I am very liberal people think I am a hippy and/or a Communist, which I am not. I've gotten many different results on political quizzes, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, it depends mostly on the quiz. But the best, most accurate political quiz in my opinion is the Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org./analysis2), on which I am a Left Libertarian, approximately the Dalai Lama. The problem is political terms are so muddled, Liberal can mean Left, Libertarian can mean Right, extreme Liberalism can mean laissez faire, there are so many differing opinions on what the meaning of each of the terms mean. I just picture like the political compass does, Libertarianism is only about personal freedom, Left-Right scale is only about economics, and the parties all fall within that plane.
"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-11 7:30 ID:KB+d8INB
Which is ironic considering that Mao kicked his ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-11 7:46 ID:wpwlQCnM
>>37
That Dalai Lama's country also has a marxist dick firmly inside it's asshole.
>>37
Dolly Llama will kiss anyones ass if they donate money to his terrorist war to overthrow the oppressive Chinese regime and reinstate the oppressive Dolly Llama.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-11 20:46 ID:xeheWz1q
fuck 'em all!
4chan is running the world now. time to do some house cleaning :)
"Libertarianism isn't about the economy, it's about personal freedom. The Libertarian Party happens to be very conservative economically, but Libertarianism in general is not. I am a Left Libertarian and I think laissez faire is a load of horse shit."
>>37
Again, it's just a quiz and not entirely accurate. It exaggerates being pro-regulation to being Communist, when I am more accurately described as a Keynesianist. But I do think they pinned me on the personal freedom scale.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 4:49 ID:OUL0ttqO
Libertarianism does not work nor has it ever work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 11:00 ID:T2/vB6Oq
>>47
Hong Kong has a free market economy, and despite the fact that they are a tiny island nation with litte resources, yet their unemployment and crime are both extremely low. All libertarianism is is a free market economy, with respect for civil liberties, both of which I consider to be good things.
Libertarianism is made of fail and aids. I don't see the difference between being raped by teh government and raped by teh corporations. Both sides needs to be balanced and regulated by each other. It's similar to the three branches of government. Get it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 16:14 ID:NfOmwhBV
>>50
The 3 branches failed aswell. One side just gets a lot of power and secretly controls the one that it is supposed to be dependant on.
The only hope is to give the power to the people, by expanding political, personal and economic freedom.
Also liberals < conservatives. Conservatives only hate economic freedom, liberals hate all 3.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 16:16 ID:NfOmwhBV
>>51
Oops make that conservatives don't hate economic freedom, liberals hate all 3, though conservatives to implement some socialist business practices behind closed doors
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 20:11 ID:Kf8DaO2Z
hey guyz so i hear theres some caricatures going on here
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 21:47 ID:T2/vB6Oq
>>50
Too bad that's all bullshit. The corporations just buy out the bureaucrats, and then you get double fucked.
1. You get fucked because you have to pay for the bureaucrats and their cushy jobs and shoddy work.
2. You get fucked because the bureaucrats get corrupted by big money. (The little guy gets fucked in this situation as well since he doesn't have assloads of money to insure any regulations imposed are suitable to his situations.
>>51
Conservatives hate economic freedom? This is news to me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 22:20 ID:3Qmaiwgg
>>54
he corrected it >>50
government can freeze prices, change inflation, unemployment, wars, resources, and have a huge army.
believe me in a free market people would still would be like making 5 dollars an hour.
Exaggerate much? Some govt officials may get bribed but there are at least regulations that prevents some abuse from the corporations. Otherwise, we would see snake oil and lead paint on the shelves. Ironically, the most corrupted govt officials are either conservatives or republicans who claim to be conservatives.
I'm not for a bigger govt but I'm also not for the elimination of the govt's role in capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-14 23:09 ID:OUL0ttqO
>>55
"government can freeze prices, change inflation, unemployment, wars, resources, and have a huge army.
believe me in a free market people would still would be like making 5 dollars an hour."
>>55
"government can freeze prices, change inflation, unemployment, wars, resources, and have a huge army.
believe me in a free market people would still would be like making 5 dollars an hour."
The government can indeed change inflation. It can change it by not causing it to begin with. Inflation is largely the fault of the Federal Reserve and its monetary policies. Regarding wars and resources, the government can't just pull resources out of thin air. When the government acquires new resources for whatever reason, be it to bomb some random country on the other side of the world or to raise a 'huge army,' it typically gets them by taxing - coercively extracting these resources from those who have earned them legitimately.
As for your notion that we would all be worse off in a rather free market economy? I find that notion dubious at best. It would be fair to say you could expect decreases in the wages of workers in the United States under such a system. However there are many benefits to be had from such a system. For example, in east asia, China specifically, around 300,000,000 people have been lifted out of poverty, and there is a developing middle class in the region, thanks to trade and commerce. While it is understandable that people would be upset over decreased wages, you must also weigh in this benefit, as well as the many others.
>>56
I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating not having government at all. I am simply advocating less. Hopefully you won't get your panties in a bunch over it. I wasn't exaggerating, I was making generalizations. When I say: "we need to get rid of these government regulations because they hamper the economy," I don't mean to get rid of ALL government regulations. It is just a general statement, and you are apparently taking it far too literally.
"Ironically, the most corrupted govt officials are either conservatives or republicans who claim to be conservatives. "
Yet the regulatory agencies that house the bureaucrats that are then corrupted were, in most cases, initially created by democrats.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-15 18:53 ID:JWBy00Sc
"I find that notion dubious at best. It would be fair to say you could expect decreases in the wages of workers in the United States under such a system. However there are many benefits to be had from such a system. For example, in east asia, China specifically, around 300,000,000 people have been lifted out of poverty, and there is a developing middle class in the region, thanks to trade and commerce. While it is understandable that people would be upset over decreased wages, you must also weigh in this benefit, as well as the many others. "
What a retarded example. Anybody could come out of poverty by having a job that pays 1.00 an hour over no job. The problem is that most people will be stuck at those low wage jobs and they would not be able to afford a decent education that could give them the skills to work at a higher paying job. This is a huge problem since most libertarians advocate a private education system with little government involvement. Did your ass not learn anything from the Industrialization Era?
Keep in mind that China is not completely libertarian in their economy and that people over there are fighting for better pay and conditions like the Americans back in the early 1900's that would help them in the future.
"I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating not having government at all. I am simply advocating less. Hopefully you won't get your panties in a bunch over it. I wasn't exaggerating, I was making generalizations. When I say: "we need to get rid of these government regulations because they hamper the economy," I don't mean to get rid of ALL government regulations. It is just a general statement, and you are apparently taking it far too literally."
And I'm arguing that we would be worse off if there are too little government involvement in a free market economy using red states as my example.
Libertarianism = more freedom on paper.
Good luck trying to enjoy your extra freedoms while working 13 hour work days.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-15 18:55 ID:JWBy00Sc
Still waiting for someone to name a country that runs successfully under libertarianism. I'm sick of countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, and all those other Eurofags that are topping the quality of life list every year.
Switzerland is not libertarian.
The free market died before WW2. AFAIK Chile is the only libertarian country right now and it's #1 in South America.
Anyways, >>62 is an idiot for not knowing how the situation in the said countries looks right now.
"What a retarded example. Anybody could come out of poverty by having a job that pays 1.00 an hour over no job."
Well then oh shit, the free market is pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty? FUCK WE GOTTA GET RID OF THAT FUCKING FREE MARKET DON'T WE?
"The problem is that most people will be stuck at those low wage jobs and they would not be able to afford a decent education that could give them the skills to work at a higher paying job."
Only if the Chinese government squashes private development and economic growth. And again, plus, were it not for the evil capitalists stepping in, they would still be wallowing in squalor, misery, and poverty. I have strong confidence that if the Chinese government were to roll back its rigid control of personal activities in China that China would develop its economy at an unprecedented rate, and that its people would experiance a huge increase in prosperity and personal freedom.
"This is a huge problem since most libertarians advocate a private education system with little government involvement."
Being a moderate libertarian, I don't advocate a completely privatized education system. I *do* advocate experimentation with a voucher system, and then following this an evaluation of the merits of such a system. But of course, your definition of libertarianism is probably pretty much "zomg anarchist!1", so you wouldn't know shit about us moderate libertarians to begin with, would you?
"Keep in mind that China is not completely libertarian in their economy and that people over there are fighting for better pay and conditions like the Americans back in the early 1900's that would help them in the future."
And the Chinese government is getting in the way. Good pay and conditions result from a capitalistic society that is technologically advanced and, thanks to their market-based economy, has the tools, technology, and competitiveness necessary to create an abundance of wealth availible for anyone who will work for it. Combine this with workers' unions to help organize labor and negotiate good deals for workers, and you have a potent combination to bring people personal freedoms and a growing economy. Most of the advances labor has made in the United States were not made through government action, but through the action of unions of private workers.
"And I'm arguing that we would be worse off if there are too little government involvement in a free market economy using red states as my example."
LOL? The areas of the United States that lack development tend to lack development because most cities developed near rivers, lakes, oceans, major waterways, or other conditions that are conducive to trade, commerce, industry, and production. This is what attracted people and industry to these areas, not their left-leaning tendencies. Sorry, but you fail for complete ignorance of history. What a fucking retard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-21 23:23 ID:5EbTuYNt
WILL TONY SOPRANO DIE BALD?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-22 0:14 ID:FrbM5Llu
"And I'm arguing that we would be worse off if there are too little government involvement in a free market economy using red states as my example."
LOL? The areas of the United States that lack development tend to lack development because most cities developed near rivers, lakes, oceans, major waterways, or other conditions that are conducive to trade, commerce, industry, and production. This is what attracted people and industry to these areas, not their left-leaning tendencies. Sorry, but you fail for complete ignorance of history.
"Well then oh shit, the free market is pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty? FUCK WE GOTTA GET RID OF THAT FUCKING FREE MARKET DON'T WE?"
Why don't you point out where I advocated such a view you fuckface.
"Only if the Chinese government squashes private development and economic growth. And again, plus, were it not for the evil capitalists stepping in, they would still be wallowing in squalor, misery, and poverty. I have strong confidence that if the Chinese government were to roll back its rigid control of personal activities in China that China would develop its economy at an unprecedented rate, and that its people would experiance a huge increase in prosperity and personal freedom."
I have strong confidence that you're full of shit with nothing to back up your claims. No one in this thread has yet to point out a country with a completely unregulated capitalist system that lead to "a huge increase in prosperity and personal freedom." All successful capitalist nations have some sort of intervention by the government which you can't seem to comprehend. But don't let that stop you from getting a huge increase in your boner from your bullshit political ideals with no practical results in the real world.
"And the Chinese government is getting in the way. Good pay and conditions result from a capitalistic society that is technologically advanced and, thanks to their market-based economy, has the tools, technology, and competitiveness necessary to create an abundance of wealth availible for anyone who will work for it. Combine this with workers' unions to help organize labor and negotiate good deals for workers, and you have a potent combination to bring people personal freedoms and a growing economy. Most of the advances labor has made in the United States were not made through government action, but through the action of unions of private workers."
Did you just advocate worker unions? FAKE LIBERTARIAN IS FAKE.
Also, I never advocated for the government to run our economy stupid.
"LOL? The areas of the United States that lack development tend to lack development because most cities developed near rivers, lakes, oceans, major waterways, or other conditions that are conducive to trade, commerce, industry, and production. This is what attracted people and industry to these areas, not their left-leaning tendencies."
Ever notice the connection between red states and education? They rank low in education. Red states pay less tax dollars on education because they pay less taxes overall along with less money being allocated to education. If most of the population were highly educated, they would be able to create a better economy in their area regardless of their surroundings. All those factors you mention gives that area an advantage but it in no way the only necessary means to achieve a good economy. Ever wonder why a small island with little natural resources like Japan was more technologically advanced than a huge country with tons of resources like China during World War 2? Because the Japanese put more emphasis on education and almost their entire population had some form of high school or college education.
If it was up to the libertarians, education would be completely privatized and poorer people would not be able to gain a decent education. Just refer to the red states for example.
So far, you have brought nothing but jibberish to this discussion. You and your libertarian peeps are an embarrassment to mankind. Kindly shut the fuck up and get the fuck out my internets.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-27 0:35 ID:EGYdYfkA
^ Meant to put butt buddies instead of peeps. My bad.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-28 23:37 ID:5SWZ82JS
Libertarian societies are the most advanced societies in the world. Just look at __________ and ___________ for example.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-29 0:28 ID:QP9KmdAl
>>80
Just look at the standard of living in the west and free market asian nations for example.
like what? singapore?
first of all, singapore has been rich ever since it was a colony, a center of trade for the entire region, this of course helped give singapore the resources it takes to get a proper society running. Huge industrialization processes funded by the government. Public housing made affordable for all. Strict regulation of behaviour and dicipline. focus on technological and computer education from the governments side already from 1980.
Singapore may have slack laws regarding trade and taxes and such, but it's DEFINATELY not libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-29 12:15 ID:QP9KmdAl
>>82
Unlike soviet communism you don't need pure libertarianism to see the benefits, you need but employ a few principles. The west and succesful asian countries implemented the libertarian principle of giving economic power to the people instead of just a few evil capitalists as in the case of fascism or even worse handing it over to state control as in the case of socialism, communism, national socialism and other marx derived forms of government.
*sigh* so because there some economic principles which have proven succesful, and these principles are shared by libertarians, we should become libertarian?
*shakes head*
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 1:01 ID:JaCsS3Wh
>>1
I FUCKING LOVE YOU! finally someone who isnt a fuckface libera.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH YOU FREEDOM HATING, TERRORIST LOVING, BUTT FUCKING, FETUS ABORTING, ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSING, FRIED CHICKEN EATING, JEWISH NOSE HAVING, SON OF A BITCH FAG?
>>102
i always get "stupid" and "drunk" mixed up...
Name:
sumarugatu2007-05-01 1:06 ID:LuEiAdMa
why dont we give an AK-47 and 3 magazines full of ammunition, a couple grenades, and some MRE's, then become Anarchists and let things go from there.
its a good plan right?
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-01 1:09 ID:LuEiAdMa
i fucked up... you need to give those things to civilians for the plan to work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-01 7:22 ID:s3hq8CzL
Americans arent stupid. Just arrogant.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-01 8:09 ID:ngbBG3Mn
americans are well fucking stupid
.. and arrogant
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-01 9:14 ID:2V0TZexb
>>107
Oh yeah? Show me "man trapped in glass box" grasshopper.
Stupid frenchman.
America during the Industrialization Era and the events leading up to the Great Depression.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-03 22:48 ID:tp36zHN7
>>113
America during industrialization era = socialism. Events leading up to the great depression = new president who favoured a new socialist direction for the US economy.
>>114 America during industrialization era = fascism. Events leading up to the great depression = new president who favoured a new fascist direction for the US economy.
Please discredit any Anonymous with ID:tp36zHN7 for your own sanity.
Of course capitalism exists in a nation state. It's always existed. Until recently, however, it's been considered dirty, mean, unfit for the ruling class and their ideologies. That's all.
The current problem is not an excess of capitalism. It's an excess of corporatism. Capitalists invest their own money, so they have a personal stake and reap a personal reward. Corporations gather large amounts of money from disconnected stakeholders and put them in the hands of a third party, the manager. That person's interest is often not aligned with the interests of the shareholders, because the manager doesn't have either the discretion or the caution that comes with investing your own money.
A lot of corporations have become exercises in shifting and thus avoiding blame. The structure allows for those responsible to avoid taking responsibility. The buck doesn't really stop anywhere, unless it's turning a profit in which case everyone wants credit or, in less scrupulous countries, a cut. The irony is that the same thing occurred in another institution - the Soviet Union.
The Management is to Libertarianism what the Party was to Communism. Its corruption and downfall.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-10 23:07 ID:Q5Bk0bLG
>>114
What the fuck are you talking about? We have never had a Socialist economy. gb2 US history.
>>122
Yes it is. Free trade within the constraints of justice. If no country can ever do anything 100% perfectly, then what the fuck do we classify them as? The US is 100% free market and the law is decided by the people through an efficient method of representation. Not 100% efficient because this isn't a fantasy world, but 100% as efficient as possible given the factors.
Go ahead, criticise me. I can just say that your criticisms are merely more factors which have already been coverred.
"lol, china has 100 free market given their constraints"
"lol, france is 100% free market given their constraints"
100% free market is utopian in it's essence, saying anything we have in the world today is 100% free market, is a lie. Sure a place may have a more free market condition than other places, but this doesn't make it 100% free market.
Furthermore claiming that the US is the one that has the conditions most like a free market, requires a bit more argumentation than just "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!"
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-12 13:56 ID:lxaUX8Nx
The US is a fucking socialst shithole. The market is not even 50% free. You guys suck... but less than anyone else.
I like how Libertarians operate. When Oil goes up to 60 a barrel like it has been lately, they act as if the producers in Texas aren't raising their prices as well and it's just the "sand niggers" making a buck.
Unregulated Capitalism + Inheritance = Monopoly + Huge Division of Labor resulting in two classes - Haves and Have Nots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 7:43 ID:zbCql9Ow
>>131
So you say that no country is ever a 100% free market, then you claim that the entire west is occupied by unregualted capitalists? Do you work with livestock? You're absolutely soaked in bull shit! Unregulated capitalism never occurs in reality, it is Karl Marx's wet dream. Where as free markets do occur, even if there can never be 100% perfect free markets where no one commits crime, they are the objective of many political parties.
Regulated Capitalism + Inheritance = (99.99999%) Free market + huge unity of all classes into people who both own property, work and have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For some reason marx didn't mention this. I guess he hated freedom aswell.
I joined the thread a little late and I was not the one who claimed the United States or even any capitalist state is 100% unregulated. Nothing can ever achieve 100% free market, the state ALWAYS and will FOREVER ALWAYS maintain a role in economics.
In regulated capitalist systems, there will be people who strive to have 100% free markets. You have your Forbes, Gates, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushes and they will always try shilling their worth is justified. Never could they be so wrong in their assumptions.
When you say "Life Liberty and the "Persuit of Happiness," consider it was never the original intent of the statement. Happiness is property, and consider that property is determined by people with money. There exists freedom in America, but it will go to the highest bidder. You can claim that this is the innate quality of man, and you'll be wrong. For there exists the possibility of changing the system.
I'm going to make a generalization, but I feel it's justified. I bet you've been born into the right side in the division of labor, consider what it's like to not be in a good state of affairs. What exists for these people without proper education, without proper health care? Are we to forget them and act as if what you've been born into is entitled to you? That they were just unlucky, stupid or don't work hard enough?
Consider what the capitalists say when they talk about the "greater good," for their greater good is always them above others forever and always. (Viva Reaganomics)
I'm 133. I also wanted you to define Freedom. I hear it get thrown around a lot and I don't quite know what anyone means when they say Freedom. Is freedom just a concept? Or is it a tangible and real property?
Express and defend your answer.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 8:59 ID:qICOiups
Hey guise, I'm curious: Will the trolling ever stop?
I'm hanging around in /newpol/ for like 3 months now and still didn't see any serious politics debate.
Sure, this board is much further than any other politics forum but it's still a huge gay flame war.
I'd expect that in a thread with 134 posts the people would finally start talking about something worthwhile but the summary of the last 20 posts is: WE'RE GAY AND WE'RE HERE TO STAY
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 8:59 ID:zbCql9Ow
>>134
Well it's many things, I'll give you an example.
Not being executed for disagreeing with the government.
Yes. You take politics as a delicate affair, and why should you be exposed to any pleb ramblings on the matter? Why you're a Political Science undergraduate and you're very informed on the matter. Why, we can't have a political discussion without you can we? You're the be-all-end-all of political discussions, you know the correct protocol and procedures when discussing politics.
preface: libertarianism won't work because there are too many retards who would use their freedom to do dumb shit and there wouldn't be enough prisons/electric chairs for all of them. libertarianism assumes the average person isn't a retard, but they are. I don't know what would work, but it sure as shit isn't lolbertarianism.
that said, a shitload of people don't realize that the reason most big businesses are so big isn't because of capitalism, it's because of government subsidies that wouldn't exist under libertarianism. also, the whole goddamn basis of the movement is to protect/empower the individual, not corporations. read:
>The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
authoritarian includes corporations, fyi. the only arguments thus far against it have been "you'll work 13 hour days" which is flat wrong, and "lol it's trendy", which isn't even an argument.
>>33
that'd put him on the left 90 degree angle. US libertarian party (and a lot of the trendy internet libs) are on the right side. that isn't a tough concept. even the dumbfucks over at wikipedia understand this.
>>147
The state needs to run every element of everyone's lives because they are too stupid to make their own decisions amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 11:20 ID:EzGUSPp0
>>147
Many Chinese work 13 hour days and only make $5000 a year.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 11:21 ID:D1RCC/0M
>>149
no, retard. the state should be less involved than it is now, but if you went as far as libertarians wanted you to go, you'd have prison population problems.
read -> comprehend -> reply
it seems you missed a step, chief
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 12:48 ID:ekuGjUDL
>>151
libertarians who want prisons to be a part of life aren't libertarian enough yet.
If you think that Libertarians are against corporate authoritarianism, you're in the wrong party. They're for it, as they see the corporations power is limited to who buys their shit.
Wal*Mart is the perfect example.
Lolbertarian: Why do Socialists and COMMUNISTS haet Wal*Mart so much!?
Average Joe: Well, because they see their business practices as wrong. They don't like how they treat their employees, and they don't like multi-national corporations working in conjunction with 3rd world governments to set up labor camps.
Lolbertarian: WELL IF THEY DON'T LIKE WAL*MART THEY SHOULDN'T SHOP THERE!
This is the error in the Libertarian thought. Wal*Mart offers commodities that the minimum wage laborer can buy at a lower cost than he or she would normally pay. "Personal responsibility" in this consumption model doesn't work -- Some people are limited in their options. Libertarians don't know the power of their own creation -- Tyrannical rule by monopolies and private ownership of the means of production = Fucks people without ownership of the means of production.
Once the means of production are secured, and inheritance incorporated, you get the same families in control over commodities and you get the same poor class working the same jobs to support the corporate families which then re-sell the commodities back to the poor.
The process of labor steals the time of the poor to produce a commodity that has surplus value. This value of labor is then re-sold for profit to the poor. Marxian translation = The rich get richer and the poor continue to be fucked. Why are the poor fucked? The means of production are in the hands of the capitalists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 13:33 ID:EzGUSPp0
>>151
That doesn't make any sense. First you say there is not enough regulation and now you are saying the state should be "less involved than it is".
Make your mind up. The choice is hardcore communism or libertarianism.
Go!
>>153
Let me guess, the rich = jews? gb2 stormfront
I didn't mention the word Jew once in my post. You're the one making associations.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 14:21 ID:EzGUSPp0
>>155
You mentionned marx and fascism is directly derived from marx, so what do you want me to expect? It's like saying you think hitler is great and expecting me not to think that you are a socialist.
I mentioned Marx, yes, but I did not mention fascism. Fascism is not "directly derived from Marx" it's derived from Leninism and Bolshevism through collectivization, Marx never explicitly mentions how to get to Communism but gives a 10 point guideline in the Manifesto. None of which state it should be done through fascism. And, if I were to think Hitler was great, that would not make me a socialist, it would make me a National Socialist, which has nothing to do with socialism. National Socialism is a fascism, not a socialism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 15:45 ID:VUW2+J1h
Jesus, this new fag is highly annoying.
You've already been told to lurk more and I urge you to do so, motherfucker.
But if you're serious about being a retard then go to /n/. The news board is the breeding ground, where the newbies grow up and learn basics.
EzGUSPp0 or me, CMSjR+fa? Regardless of who you're asserting is a "fag" and "annoying," you're not really contributing anything. You haven't made any posts in the thread with your current ID and I don't even know who you're talking to. Maybe you should heed your own suggestion?
Oh, *I* am the one who's not contributing anything.
Heh, yeah.
Since you suck at understanding text I'll make it plain and simple:
You is stupid newbie.
You is writing bullisht.
Your bullshit was written a thousand times before you by a thousand other yous.
You better shut up and learn.
If you desire to repeat what the other thousand monkeys said then do this in /n/.
"You is writing bullisht."
It's you ARE writing bullshit. Learn some syntactic rules.
How am I a stupid newbie? I substantiate my claims? I engage in discussion? Yeah, these are pretty noob behaviors on a politics board you know that? I mean... Who discusses things and substantiates claims these days in political discussions? Yeah.
Don't like Communism? Don't like Socialism? That's great. I'm all for your opinion... but if you don't substantiate why these systems are inadequate you're a capable person capable of coming up with substantive reasons. I'd like to hear those reasons, there is a lot of them, for instance communism's practicality, yes I've heard it 1000 times before just as you've heard my rhetoric a 1000 times before. But at least that offers an objection and not ad hominem attacks you seem ever fond of, you mentally destitute abortion of a human.
Oh what am I kidding? You're probably in High School and cannot conjure -- no even fathom -- even the simplest of justifications based in logic as to why you believe whatever shit-brained ideology you believe in is gospel. You just call others noobs. I've seen this before -- it was on a server of a video game -- called Counter-Strike. It was full of pretentious teenagers such as yourself.
Get bent.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 17:15 ID:VUW2+J1h
>>161
>"You is writing bullisht."
>It's you ARE writing bullshit. Learn some syntactic rules.
Whoops, you lost the game.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-13 17:16 ID:ekuGjUDL
Guys, guys! Come on now. You can both march your sorry asses over to /y/ pretty soon.
Yeah, how thoughtful and substantiated your thoughts are. They're considered so carefully and so delicately. You're the bad ass of politics you know that? You're brimming with intellectual capacity, why, you're a political savant aren't you? You fuck up grammar, and you contribute nothing to the discussion. You insist your grammar is correct without accounting for tense and plurals. You're a regular trainwreck who was beset by the realization you cannot justify or substantiate claims in a clear and concise manner, instead you cannot, so you act as though you've done something of merit, although you have not.
The laissez faire economy of the United States in the early 20th century made America the most powerful nation in the world. Also, the unregulated US economy had better wages and working conditions than the unionized UK economy.
>>187
US was not the most powerful nation until after WWII. And not undisputedly so until the fall of the USSR.
And it was the good old tide of blood and steel that brought this to pass, not laissez faire.
Your trolling is weak and transparent.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 12:41 ID:61U7vsuB
Yeah, steel. Allowed to prosper not because of strict regulation. Imagine instead of the railroads of the gilded age we had Amtrak. Still a world power? unlikely.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 14:46 ID:0msKDvQN
Because, as we know, every industry must be heavily regulated if we aren't living in lol libertarian paradise.
Besides, the US was almost destined to be a superpower as long as the society remained stable. It sits on a huge isolated continent filled with resources and a decent climate.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 16:12 ID:61U7vsuB
How's Amtrak doing? They are great government success story, right?
it's toy trains in a rectum in love with insertions
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 19:00 ID:C3LhpwAv
Part of me hopes the lolertarians somehow gain power and implement their laissez-faire 'utopia' just so I can laugh in their faces when they're starving to death after they cause Great Depression II.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 19:44 ID:61U7vsuB
the libertarians wouldn't starve to death, fool. we are the rich ones, the poor liberal suckling on the nanny state would die.
Anyway,libertarianism will never be in power because no one will elect a libertarian. Who would vote for someone who would take away benefits.
You don't know what you have till it's gone. I cannot wait for some Libertardian utopia to spring up, just so the workers can overthrow your asses faster than you could say revolution.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 20:36 ID:vr7HhVTl
>>198
The workers would finally be able to own property instead of having to hand it over to the state, would no longer need you to beg for it to be given back to them and I would be laughing ass off in the office of a succesful business providing high paid sophisticated jobs and education to 100s of your ex-followers.
ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE ECONOMIC POWER TO THE PEOPLE
WOOOYAH!!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 23:49 ID:D5Awj9Jn
>>199
instead of the government fucking people over, corporations would be fucking people over! Great idea!
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 23:57 ID:xWqZd3AY
>>200
So you admit the government fucks people over?
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-15 23:58 ID:xWqZd3AY
>>200
Isn't it preferable to have the law makers and the overfuckers seperate so it is easier to spot suspicious activity?
Free market causes so many cluster fuck problems, sure, you Friedmanites heckle a whole fuckload about how it corrects itself on its own, but if I've learned anything by being observant and that's you cannot place faith in any system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 1:06 ID:GIWB7A1+
face it. money = death of human species
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 1:07 ID:VWjPDBba
>>203
Ok so one system is 0.1% perfect and another system is 0.2% perfect. They are both less than 1%, but one is twice as good as the other.
Proof = history. South Korea and North Korea were both equally autocratic during the 50s, except one employed a communist economic system and the other a free market. Who gives a flying fuck if the South Korean government isn't 100% perfect, at least children don't have to filter through trash in order to cease starving to death.
>>202
Except when a business does something unethical, its just business, when a government employee does something unethical, we can throw them out for committing the CRIME of fucking around in a public office.
Sorry, the privilege of being able to pass legal sanctions against the offending party is much preferred than "vote with your wallet, lol". How many successful boycotts have ever happened that have enforced change? Please, list them, the scarcity of them is a telltale sign of the weakness of the public to punish private interests for behaving unethically.
Count the number of business heads and CEOs that have been "reprimanded" by their consumers, and compare that to the scrutiny politicians recieve.
Of course, the lolbertarians will say "well thats because the public is dumb", which allows you to position them squarely with the corporate interests, and all their altruistic FREEDOM facade falls away.
Libertarians claim about all the "self-correction" of the market, but they either are ignorant, or simply ignore that many of the magical counter-balances don't exist in our society.
In order for a libertarian system to work, you need:
A very well educated and informed populace (Some people think Barak Obama is a terrorist)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvtFaPslA_o
An objective, and honest press (COUGH FOX NEWS, This is a particularly interesting one, as purchases don't pay the bills for broadcasting the news, advertisement does, and how is the press to be objective when they stay in business saying good things about the companies that keep them on the air?)
A consumer populace that changes their buying habits in response to news events (How many studies tell people to stop smoking, lose weight, stop eating at McDonalds, etc, and they continue doing so?)
One thing I can argue about liberals, is that they have a much wider demographic through racial, income, and religious boundaries, and their support for the state and higher taxation, seems to be derived from an altruistic viewpoint. You can't say the same about Libertarians.
>>219
"Except when a business does something unethical, its just business, when a government employee does something unethical, we can throw them out for committing the CRIME of fucking around in a public office."
Conjecture. I could say the exact opposite and it would make as little sense. We are discussing which is more corrupt. People who wish to commit corruption have a much easier time intriguing within their own familiar organisation than attempting to influence another organisation without being ratted out.
Succesful western countries already have core libertarian principles in their constitutions, freedom of speech, some rights to own property etc.. Before these rights were permitted the stereotypical fat cats who exploit workers AND criminals in the government opposed such rights by saying pretty much the same shit you are saying now. All I'm seeing here is another extremist zealot convinced that everyone else is inferior for not being part of some statist ideology.
Effect: Some people are irresponsible.
Cause: They never had the responsibility in the first place so they never learned to be responsible.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 15:05 ID:f5yCMa0I
When businesses do something unethical? Like what? Libertariansism is suggesting we should let businesses do whatever they want, there are still rules. Also, many libertarians oppose the concept of corporations.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 16:46 ID:2MBgUIq3
would you libertarians PLEASE stop saying that freedomm of speech and right to own property and the like is "your principles". lot's of other people share those principles, and they're not libertarian. Maybe when you talk about your libertarian core values you should refer to what makes you different from everybody else, not, what about 90% of the people in the western world agree with you on.
>>221
All I'm seeing here is another extremist zealot convinced that everyone else is inferior for not being part of some statist ideology.
Free speech is a libertarian principle. The people who supported it in the late 18th century were coined libertarians because they loved liberty. That's what libertarianism is, it's about liberty, this is why it is called LIBERTarianism. How did you fail to notice the connection? You can say that a person is not really a libertarian, but you can't say someone who supports a libertarian principle is not supporting a libertarian principle. It's like saying 1 does not equal 1.
Libertarianism is practically the polar opposite of statism. Not to mention you have no proof that I am a statist or being bigotted towards your beliefs. I didn't say you were inferior, I said you were misguided. I used to believe stupid shit aswell but I realised my errors and realised that libertarianism is correct. What's so hard about doing the same?
>>224 Free speech is a libertarian principle. The people who supported it in the late 18th century were coined libertarians because they loved liberty.
That's classical liberalism.
Good one on calling your own fail like that.
Libertarianism is practically the polar opposite of statism.
Not really, there are more extreme anti-state ideologies. Statism is not a philosophy either, it's a strawman.
I said you were misguided.
Get a grip. Remove the plank from your own eye before you point out the sliver in someone else's.
I realised my errors
So you admit to being wrong in the past? How do we know you are right NOW?
realised that libertarianism is correct.
You have a long way to go yet, kid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 21:13 ID:VWjPDBba
>>225
"That's classical liberalism.
Good one on calling your own fail like that."
Wow, you really feel strongly about this, well I can'tchange reality for you, sorry about that. Why not write a letter to every dictionary company and related academia on the planet? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarianism
Sorry I just can't read anymore, the first 2 sentences were so fucking stupid I'm going to have to spend a few minutes re-evaluating my faith in humanity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 21:25 ID:GIWB7A1+
none of you fuckers have a clue about the real world.
you're all in for a very fucking rude awakening...
>>226
Quoting the dictionary in a debate about ideologies is a sure sign that you are desperate and simple minded. But here, I'll do this for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-16 23:40 ID:VWjPDBba
>>229
So you're not liberals, you're socialists. Thanks for clearing that up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 1:18 ID:Gs1LD4Yx
>>222
Like what Enron did, laughing at Grandmothers in California dying of heatstroke.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 4:15 ID:AqUxqioY
>>224
fail again
Look, I wasn't saying it WASN'T a libertarian principle, I was saying it isn't a STRICTLY libertarian (the political social/economic ideologgy), and libertarians somehow seem to think that it is. "WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT LIBERTARIAN, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM! DAMNED COMMUNIST!" I'm just sick and tired of libertarians taking freedom hostage.
Also, WHAT TEH FUCK IS STATISM!?
seriously, someone who wants a state? welcome to all the people in the world who are not hardcore libertarians or anarchists, or some other extreme ideology. it's the dumbest fucking word i've ever heard.
ohhh, wikipedia comes to the rescue!
Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism.
yeah, good job, statism sure is an evil ideology, oh wait, it isn't anything.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 4:25 ID:+k/VAjCw
>>230
God, shut the fuck up. Who is this "you're" you are referring to anyway? I myself am not a socialist. Economically I am a Keynesianist, socially I am very liberal (like libertarians). Am I going to fast? Sorry you can't slap me with one of your five labels: socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, libertarian, but politics are just a bit more complicated than that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 6:36 ID:6N9a8/Od
penis. vagina. wee. poo.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 9:02 ID:wYp4eJue
So...what did the last 50 posts accomplish? Absolutely nothing, I think.
Lemme lay it out. Saying "we're better than communism!" isn't a great selling point. Communism totally failed. Saying "I don't fail as bad as the next guy" doesn't mean that you don't fail.
Corporatism undermines Libertarianism. Libertarianism only works if everyone is in control of their own money. It doesn't provide representation for employees. It doesn't provide accountability for managers. That's what you need unions, oversight boards, disinterested observers (i.e. government) etc. And when you have all that, it's not libertarianism anymore. It's just what we have already with a fancy intellectual-sounding label.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 12:58 ID:JnhoZIR4
>>235
People are free to form unions in a libertarianism. They are just not allowed to force people to pay tax to support unions.
The only reason people hate libertarianism is because the only sources of information about it come from their much more powerful political opponents, mainly the "liberal" propoganda machine, but also recently various piss takes by the conservative media.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 13:16 ID:JnhoZIR4
>>232
You keep on attacking libertarianism by endlessly repeating the usual socialist rhetoric about evil coorporations and the like and I am merely arguing the fact that libertarianism is nothing like the strawman of capitalism that Marx envisaged.
Statism isn't a strawman. There are plenty of political groups and politicians who believe they can make the world a better place using "significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters", whiny emo kids who worship some unrealistic utopia they want to force apon everyone else included.
Note how the definition of statism does not include state intervention in justice. Libertarianism is about liberty, thus justice must be preserved. If an evil coorporation starts throwing orphans out into the snow so they can knock it down to build a polluting mercury processing plant, then under libertarianism they are given a fair trial, found guilty and go to prison. If anyone attempts to corrupt the justice system most likely they will be killed by one of the many libertarians who vow to start a war if anyone comes to take their guns. Fine fellows and dame they are.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 13:34 ID:AqUxqioY
>>237
whiny emo kids who worship some unrealistic utopia they want to force apon everyone else included. <--- how is this different fromw hat you want to do? forcing everybody to not have a state, even if they want to.
as for the rest of your post: come again?
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 13:42 ID:JnhoZIR4
>>238
It's different because it is based on free speech and political freedom. This means accepting criticism, people's concerned and letting people try out different ideas as long as they don't force it on others. Under a libertarian system your only duty to the state is to help preserve justice and defend the nation's liberty, if that is your idea of forcing other people to do what you want, then what's socialism?
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 13:43 ID:JnhoZIR4
>>238
"as for the rest of your post: come again?"
retard harder
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 13:52 ID:9Pk+YQR9
>>238
under a socialist / communist system, people are more and more restricted TO doing a specific set of actions.
under a libertarian / constitutional republic system (which i believe america no longer is), people are only restricted FROM doing a specific set of actions.
under libertarianism, the degree of state control is minimized to allow freedom, whereas in socialism the degree of state control is maximized to reach an ideal that is impossible to objectively size up as good or bad.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-17 16:54 ID:AqUxqioY
but if either of the two are democracies, thus the governments are elected by and represent the will of the people, aren't your points sort of moot? if the population decides to give up part of their freedoms to the state, how is this not the people using their freedom to the greatest extent.
>>239
"If an evil coorporation starts throwing orphans out into the snow so they can knock it down to build a polluting mercury processing plant, then under libertarianism they are given a fair trial, found guilty and go to prison." this is true for most other systems as well, what's your point?
"If anyone attempts to corrupt the justice system most likely they will be killed by one of the many libertarians who vow to start a war if anyone comes to take their guns."
what does curropting the justice system have to do with libertarians starting wars against people who want to take their guns?
"under libertarianism, the degree of state control is minimized to allow freedom, whereas in socialism the degree of state control is maximized to reach an ideal that is impossible to objectively size up as good or bad."
but is it possible to say whether a completely minimized state is objectively a good or bad thing?
"It's different because it is based on free speech and political freedom. This means accepting criticism, people's concerned and letting people try out different ideas as long as they don't force it on others."
Socialism is based on Free speech and political freedom too.
You write something epic as anonymous and all the credit goes to anonymous.
You write something epic as a namefag and you're still a name fag.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-18 4:03 ID:ygCF5Usn
>>246
MEGA FAIL. GTFO you cancerous gaiafag. Unless you're a troll trying to defame >>219, in which case, bravo.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-18 6:02 ID:1XvSkaC2
>>242
Socialism allows free speech, but it doesn't solve some of the most basic dilemmas of democracy.
1: 2 wolves and a fluffy bunny vote on what's for dinner.
2: Someone uses free speech and democracy to speak/vote against free speech and democracy.
Not everyone wants to be socialist and in order for liberty to survive through the ages a certain level of national self-determination is needed, freedoms which socialists reject.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-18 17:53 ID:E0UlUZ9P
Libertarians are stealing basic principles such as "free speech" as their own now. What's next, libertarian means liberty because libertarian has the word liberty in it?
Free speech is a communist principle. The people who supported it in the late 18th century were coined communists because they loved liberty. This is according to my communist sources.
The only unbiased source information comes from the libertarian media. libertarian high five!
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-19 4:35 ID:TajJi1sB
>>249
High five. >>248
All my good works are for the greater glory of anonymous. >>249
I wasn't trying to defame >>219, as I posted >>219, but I was trolling nonetheless. I'm no gaiafag either.
Oh, and I thought that this would be relevant to the discussion on libertarianism.