Libertarianism is a joke.

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.

>>200
So you admit the government fucks people over?

>>200
Isn't it preferable to have the law makers and the overfuckers seperate so it is easier to spot suspicious activity?

Free market it is.

>>202

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.

face it. money = death of human species

>>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.

>>205
you're quote history? YOU'RE QUOTING HISTORY?!

Who gives a flying fuck about history. haven't you learned anything the past decade? all history is a fucking lie.

filter that trash...

>>204
so is lack of money

>>206
needz moar tin foil

>>208
then you sir will be learning the hard way.

most likely from bubba...

>>209
who is this bubba

>>210
needz moar OZ

>>211
Are you trying to change the subject because you are fearful of the facts?

>>212
nope. just flipping your offhand comment around.

>>213
what comment

*sigh*

>>215
so you admt there was no comment and you are just attempting to derail a debate you were losing

I respect your ability for self-criticism.

read your comment at >>208

now read >>211

does the word "fail" get used around you a lot?

>>217
what's oz

>>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

thread over.

>>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.

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.

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.

>>223
Hard fail.

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.

>>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.

none of you fuckers have a clue about the real world.

you're all in for a very fucking rude awakening...

>>227
Can you give me a boost?

>>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.

>>229
So you're not liberals, you're socialists. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>222
Like what Enron did, laughing at Grandmothers in California dying of heatstroke.

>>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.

>>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.

penis. vagina. wee. poo.

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. 

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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?

>>238
"as for the rest of your post: come again?"
retard harder