Liberals and Libertarians.

There was one thread named "libertarians are a joke" with some liberals talking as though all libertarians are capitalists and libertarians pointing out that this was wrong.

Then there was another thread named "what does socialism mean" with some libertarians talking as though all liberals are communists and some liberals pointing out that this was wrong.

We should be beginning to see a pattern here.

Are we all in agreement that Marx's idea of communism and capitalism are all naive bullshit? I'm not just talking about Marx either, I'm talking about all sorts of political philosophers who knew very little about the field they discussed and viewed the world through a very narrow lense. Marx discussed socio-economics yet he did not major in mathematics which is fundamental to any subject dealing with economics. In his writings he did not prove scientifically that his theories were viable. He was a total failure. No one can take him seriously as a scientist, only as a case study in psychology investigating how people get drawn into fallacies.

So Libertarians believe communism is utter BS and claim not to be capitalists but free marketeers. Whilst liberals believe capitalism is utter BS and claim not to be communists but social democrats....

Perhaps it is time for libertarians to state clearly that capitalism is BS and for liberals to state clearly that communism is BS.

Then we can all agree that Marx and other idealists who followed suite, including national socialists, capitalists and fascists, were bullshitters and we need to do things scientifically.

As a libertarian myself I hereby clearly state that capitalism is BS.

>>40

fallacy of ad hominem

prove it

Sure.

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

Your style of trolling is awful similar, isn't it?

>>40

So far, according to you, I haven't been to college, this is my first time on this board (which could or could not be a bad thing), I'm a veteran Usenet user, and I'm a troll.

Anything else you supposedly know about me, anonymous? How about the color of my eyes, my zodiac sign, or my ethnicity?

Too bad I forgot that you already trolled with >>32.
But I should've noticed it as you proclaim victory in >>36 even though you didn't contribute anything yet.

So far, your style of debate is less effective than trolling, and about as intelligent.

At least trolling is usually funny. Citing a book that you obviously haven't taken to heart is just sad.

>>45
>BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

fix'd

>>46

Wow. What can I say.

I guess you won. How can I argue with that? I don't even know what it means.

This is ridiculous. I you want to claim you won, then go ahead. I've just realized how much time I've wasted time arguing with an anonymous person over the internet, and I have work to do. Regardless, it's been fun.

Have fun on /newpol/, anonymous.

>>47
>BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

fix'd

Alright, so you're not going to fall for that.
Well, let's pretend I said the following:

TRANSLATION: "I lost the debate, so I'll try to fool people into thinking I won."

Despite your condescending elitism, calling people "retarded" over the internet under your anonymous handle, most people see through your intellectual put-on facade.

For those of you who really think he/she is gone for good, and you wanted to get in your rebuttal, don't worry. They'll be back in a couple days pretending to be someone else supporting their own previous posts, this time changing their typing style a bit, so people can't easily point them out as the same person.

lets, fuck

>>49
>BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

fix'd

Good one.

>>52
>BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

fix'd

They both start with "liber" how can they NOT get along?

>>54
liberals are fucking stupid

>>55
o i c

>>1

I'm the OP of the libertarian thread and I didn't call them capitalists, I called them fucking morons. Nothing wrong with capitalism and a little regulation.

those little regulations are the reason why all western nations have a huge problem with unemployment
you fail, quit life

>>58
Move to Africa. Plenty of places without regulations there.

>>59
There is an almost totalitarian level of regulation in the regions you are referring to. You have been indoctrinated to think otherwise, but in fact liberty cannot exist without justice.

>>60
Oh really? Totalitarian?

lawl

I guess you think all of Africa is Zimbabwe then? People in Congo and Somalia would be delighted.

protip: lack of centralized government != totalitarian

>>58
"those little regulations are the reason why all western nations have a huge problem with unemployment
you fail, quit life"

I have no idea what countries you are referring to, way to be fucking specific.

>>60
"but in fact liberty cannot exist without justice."

Ambiguous catchphrase is ambiguous.

>>60
totalitarianism can't exist without justice either. retard.

>>64
Totalitarianism is a crime, how can it co-exist with justice?

>>65
justice is defined by the state. if the state says it's justice to kill jews, it's justice to kill jews. This is the case whether the state is totalitarian or not, and whether the justice is fair or not.

>>59
If you consider that much of Africa has to follow the mandates of the WTO and World Bank to get investment, what you just said makes no fucking sense.

africa is made of instability and dictatorships and AIDS
countries within a civil war != libertarian

>>67
"much" != "all"

So you just admitted I'm right. Thanks, mate.

>>69

no, he didn't
your logic is that those who aren't part of "much" are not regulated which is not true

*not regulated at all* or in context of this thread: libertarian

>>70
Because they aren't regulated.

You realise that there are parts of Africa that have a centralized government in name only? Some don't even have that. The only "regulation" they have is the law of the jungle.

I must be missing something here.

>>72

as a posted before:
those countries are in war and not libertarian

>>73
only countries at peace are libertarian?
of course, it all makes sense now!
You're a dumbass!

so is that how you usually flee from a lost debate?
try something less obvious next time

>>68

There is no developed country under libertarianism and there never will be.

>>73

The peaceful countries are also not libertarian. What's your point?

>>66
The state's laws are defined by the state. Justice is defined by god (or science if you prefer) whom I hold no man above. No, not even Karl Marx.

Anarchic states in Africa are regulated, regulated by hundreds of small tyrants each of them with a gun in their hand. Anyone who says this is liberty is trolling.

>>77

How about you read what's going on first?

Well, since I am already answering I can tell you anyways.
He says that some African countries don't have regulation nor a government right now, so they can be used as examples for libertarianism.
But the countries he's talking about are just at war.

Anarchic states in Africa are regulated
Man, now this is just playing fast and loose with a definition; it's not even worth debating anymore.

But let's run with it: if anarchic states are regulated, then what kind of state isn't?