Why is libertarianism so infallible?

It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.

Because it only exists on paper.

Its not infallible, its unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no way to prove it wrong. Other unfalsifiables are if there is a god or if there is alien reptiles living among us in neat flesh suits.

>>2
If it only existed on paper you would be a slave living in fear.

>>3
Science works with facts, so how can there be no proof to begin with?

>>1

A weaselly poorly articulated mission statement with empty platitudes and no concrete goals?  Where do I sign up????!?

>>5

So much responsibility has been taken from you by the state you cannot envisage following your own goals or believing in our nation's values.

>>6


more nothing-talk.  why don't you just come out and say you hate the FDA, the FAA and the EPA

>>4
Science work with facts yes, and a scientific theory must be able to be disproven theoretically meaning that its basic framework must include the parameters where it can clearly be discarded as disproven. That god does not exist is impossible to proove. That libertarianism does not work is impossible to proove. This means both statements are not scientific and more opinions with no true answer rather than scientific theories.

>>7


You said my mission statement included empty platitudes and no concrete goals, so now I revealing the fact that for some people our nation's values are not empty platitudes and that you don't need a government to tell you what your goals are. Do you think I am wrong and if so why?

>>8
For a start the core principles of Libertarianism work because certain principles do secure the freedom of nations, it has to be fought for and the product isn't perfect but it's epicly better than the alternative. No one can disagree with that. Libertarians merely apply the same reasonning used to generate these core principles in order to calculate why socialist modelled government policies continue to exploit the proletariat despite claiming to do otherwise and have discoverred that it was just another unrealistic utopia used to bolster corruption all along. The solution therefore is to prevent the government forcing ideologies on the popluation, they should be free to experiment if they want, but no one should be permitted to force anyone into economic policies they do not want, not even those evil people who own property.

It's 'infallible' because libertarians don't agree on anything but free market economy. Ok, we all know that it's superior but what about abortion? Or immigration? Their everyone for himself attitude prevents them from winning any election.

Oh, and republican proxies don't count.

>>4

We are not slaves BECAUSE of government regulation. In the early 1900s Big Business owners basically treated their workers like slaves: made them work in horrible working conditions, forced child labor, and gave them pay that they couldn't feed their family with. This is what sparked progressivism in the 1910s and 20s.

>>10

the free market does nothing to protect the environment or stop global warming.  also the free market doesn't give a shit about sending american jobs overseas.  libertarians are like fat kids in the cake shop in that respect.

>>13

It DOES protect the environment and even more because it's regulated by demand.
People feel like it's too dirty → they want someone to clean up the mess. That demand creates a market and the one who offers the best solution wins.
"Protecting" through regulations is on same level as reading tea leaves.

state regulations*

>>14

lol, keep on dreaming.

people feel like it's too dirty -> those with enough money will buy fresh air the rest will live in dirty air.

>>14

I agree. You can clearly see this working in countries such as _________.

>>9
Its still just an opinion which lacks an objective truth. Or rather, can you state as an libertarian what conditions would have to be met for libertarianism to be disproven?

Cock

>>10
It's simple. By following the laws of reasonning we can deduce the answers.

Abortion: Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil.

Immigration: Immigration should be free unless it influences factors such as gdp per capita and crime.

>>12
The US was not a free market. Constraints of the free market included institutional discrimination against foreigners, women and blacks and excessive taxation of the poor. Not to mention the fact that the economy was very different from today, the US received a large number of unskilled labourer immigrants and was still developping at this time compared to europe.

>>13
Incorrect. The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property. Due to it's nature, the atmosphere will have to be considerred international property, businesses and nations will be charged for using it and the money paid to contractors for the amount of carbon they remove from the atmosphere.

>>14
Truth.

>>16
Polluting the air is causing damage to property, something even socialist governments won't consider due to their inability to see the benefits of property laws.

>>17
There are 100s of companies across the globe which perform clean up operations.
http://www.pdcarea.com/
What are you trying to say? That it's only physically possible for these companies to exist if they are run by the government? That's absurd.

>>18
The only thing that can be disproven are the conclusions that have been made through reasonning. Libertarianism is just a branch of political science, within the range of accuracy that we have core libertarianism is correct and the newer libertarian policies are predictions. In before "GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF THEM WORKING".

Within it's range of accuracy newtonian physics works, while on the quantum or relativistic level it does not this does not mean that when you drop a pencil it will not fall at around 9.8ms^-2. I'm sure there are innaccuracies in predictions made by libertarians, but within the range of accuracy that we are capable of in political science we can be sure the predictions made will occur. If newer libertarian policies are implemented methodically over a period of 4 years, starting with the obviously most beneficial such as personal freedoms and equalising tax and going on to experiment with other ideas, you can be sure you will see major improvements in society and the economy.



Anyway, libertarianism first and foremost is about making money by any means possible except crime. You can all afford computers so once you people see the opportunities openned up I'm sure you will be able to cut yourself a slice of the cake, then you will become libertarians.

>>13 >The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property.


It's really cute how you spew out this pie in the sky bullshit. Left to their own devices, business will make ZERO allowances for environmental protections - even on their own property.  You make it sound like libertarianism is a big, happy system where Chinese factory wokrers hold hands and sing Earth Day songs while they add 3000 cars a day to the roads of Bejing. 

STFU.  There is a strong need for government regulation in this area.

LIBERTARIANS DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE

>>21
If they make zero allowances their business will fail, so they won't. If they don't notice it or don't care then their shareholders will and they will lose or not make as much money until they start doing otherwise. Shares = long term investment, this is why logging companies only chop down trees of a certain diameter and why oil companies only extract a certain amount from an area even though they could increase "production" several hundred times as much with the profits they make.

There is no need for government regulation, just big business and investors who think about their future.

>>20
is abortion killing sentient life? define sentient. if fetuses are sentient so are fucking cows.

so everything should be free unless it affects gdp and crime? Everything affects GDP, so i guess nothing's free.

so... people will buy and sell "environment", and make it as profitable as possible? what do you even mean by environment? how will a company make a quarter of a mountain side profitable?  without mining it or something similar? and if you can't mine it or something similar you can't make it profitable.

the athmosphere will be considered international property? who owns it then, who's going to take money from the businesses and thwart the market when they pollute? where will all the money go? to a supernational organization? a supernational organization that owns the athmosphere?

Yeah, pollution 'causes damage to property, and what do you think is the most profitable for the individual organization? to protect themselves from the pollution or to chip in a tiny bit to removing all of the pollution? it's a typical prisoners dilemma situation. the only way you can solve it is by instituting is by setting up some sort of commitment device which has to be instituted by govenrmetns etc. this menas you ahve to have an incentive for companies to not pollute, and it HAS to be instituted on a global level, do you really think that's gonna happen?

And now we can govern over companies because something they do has negative externalities? and since we have to be rational about it we should do it for ALL externalities. how do we figure out exactly what externalities businesses produce? and how do we make sure that what they claim they produce is what they produce? that's right, more regulations.

Since we have do take into account all things which effect our GDP, this includes social matters. If a person has an alcoholic problem, that's his own fault, but negative personal traits such as alcoholism affects his ability to work AND his ability to raise and have kids which are effecient and contribute fully to our GDP, so he would have to be charged for his negative externalities.

Alright, so what do we have now, all companies and people are being watched and monitored by a supernational government in order to make sure noone contributes inefficiently to our GDP.

good job.

Competition ends.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
Companies collude, merge.
The public is conspired against.
Government is the only force that can stop it.

In before guild system.

It is due to it being the application of political science.
Hahaha

HAHAHAHAH

GGGGGGGGGGGYYYYYYAHAHAHAHAHA*thud*

Something (a very big something) tells me you haven't even taken Political Science 101. It's an interesting topic, but science it sure as fuck ain't.

I guess you believe creationism is a science too?

Libertarianism needs to be updated with a post 16th century economic model.  lp.org is apparently quite ignorant of the simple concept of a market externality.  Their platform would actually make sense if they endorsed Pigovian taxes for markets with significant externalities.  I guess that goes for all the parties!

people who are so zealous about government regulations confuse me.  what makes the corrupt rich whities in congress better than the corrupt rich whities in a company board room?  the corporate fatcats actually stand to lose profits if they fuck over their resources and consumers, the government weasels dont give a shit either way.

>>28
Because the business fatcats loose money if the income level is risen, i.e. they stand to loose if poverty is eradicated. In theory, this is not true of politicians and the government. In some countries (not the US) this actual practice. And everybody except the filthy rich stand to win if poverty was ever eradicated.

>>29
i dont know what fucked up econ classes you've taken, but more people with more money is VERY good for the corporations that are trying to sell people things.  if anyone loses when poverty is eradicated it's the government, because if everyone has money, no one is going to vote for the guy that wants to take it away.

>>24
Abortion: You fail to see my point. Where do you draw the line as to whether a fetus is sentient or not? If a fetus can survive outside the womb is it ok to end it's life? etc..

GDP and crime: It is unfair for one country to have to lower it's living standards to deal with another country's inability to prevent overpopulation and crime.

Environment: Environments have tourism value.

International property: Everyone owns it. Due to it's fluid nature the atmosphere can only be everyone's property, so everyone in the entire world must pay for it's use and decide it's composition.

Pollution: Pollution is damage to other people's property. For instance you can dump all your trash in the back yard instead of sorting and composting, but if the stank and rats start to affect your neighbours you are damaging their property and you will have to pay for it or work off your debt to them in prison. Property laws have been degraded over time, but they will be become a lot more touchy under libertarianism and will serve to prosecute polluters. Commitment devices or any other pointless bureaucracy is needed.

Regulations: Regulation is a standard part of law enforcement. The improvement libertarians would make is to ensure businesses foot the bill for the law enforcement needed to police them. This means they have an incentive to prove they are law abiding and stay that way, one slip up and they have to pay substantially more tax for a few more years along with their legal costs. This way evil corporations won't even touch immoral activities with a 180 foot pole.

Social problems: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a "supernational" government to prevent self-destructive behaviour. Libertarianism would greatly reduce social problems by forcing people to be responsible. If every time you fall the government catches you you would never develop a sense of balance.

>>25
A cartel forms.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
One company manager quickly discovers his branch can gain a little extra profit by reducing the cost or increasing the quality or his services.
The shareholders demand a split
The corporate cartel faces losing a significant proportion of the value of their company unless they comply.*

fix'd

>>26
The first thing any scientist does is look for facts or problems in reasonning. Since you have provided none I will reply to someone else.

>>27
They are not ignorant of it. They expressly state a deeper understanding of this dilemma which for some reason you cannot reach. Consider this. In the prestigious institution of walmart, 99 law abiding citizens and a hooligan all purchase a 6pack of beer. The law abiding citizens consume the beers over the period of a week whilst the hooligan consumes them all within an hour, he goes on a drunken rampage vandalising property before being picked up by the police, sent to the courts and spending a week in jail at great expense. The expense just happens to be the amount of extra tax levied from the 100 customers that day.
Did that tax stop the hooligan?
Who paid for the damage?

>>28
See >>30.

>>31

actually, you failed your point, you said abortion was killing sentient life and that killing sential life was evil. You drew a line right there, and i'm saying to you you can't.

Not all environments have tourism value, what about the ocean? large interdependant environments?


Oh, so everybody everybody in the world has to pay for using the athmosphere and decide how it's composed? what if say, 2/3rds of the world doesnt want to pay?

how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it? since the fine is enormeous, their incentive to attempt to bribe the inspector are that much greater, and the inspector being able to retire happily in macao for the rest of his life after two bribes may as well comply.

so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike? give the kid the bike and say "here, have fun trying to learn how to ride a bike" or holding the bike untill the kid got it straight and then let go?

And about the supernational government i was taking your argument  of forcing responsibility of pollution on a supernational level and using a completely rational way of doing things one step further, leading to a computer-run technocracy in order to remove negative externalities and inefficiency costs.

100 law abiding citizens buy a sixpack. 80 of them drink it over the course of the week. 20 of them drink it over the course of an hour, and beat up their wives, giving her a minor concussion which reduces her efficiency, but she won't tell the cops on him because she loves him even if he beats her.

Also, in your example the hooligan went to jail, keeping him away from work for a week, instead he's doing low-production manual labour in the private jail, worth alot less than he would've produced in his normal work week, he will also make less money to consume less. So the company he works for gets fined for his inability, and all the other companies that produce things he would've bought lose sales.
The hooligan being arrested leads to a total reduction in GDP, and this isn't really very good at all.

>>31
>>32

This thread has now more hilarious generalisations and retarded analogies than all the other threads on /newpol/ togther.
Keep up the good work.

>>32
I said
"Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
I meant
"Killing sentient life is evil. If the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
Key word "If".
How long are you going to draw this out?

The ocean like the atmosphere is fluid, so a person who owns an area of ocean cannot use it to dump waste or it will interfere with the fishing business next door. If an environment has no tourism value, what's the point of preserving it? A lot more people need that land for farming or the minerals there.

"how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it?"
Indoctrinate them in the values of justice, tell them to accept the bribe but report them to the state anyway and increase the number of inspectors until the company cannot possibly bribe them all sufficiently.

"so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike?"
What is the point of your analogy? We do not need the state to treat them like kids their whole lives. After the CHILD learns how to ride the bike the parent is supposed to LET GO. The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them by never letting them learn to look after themselves.

Computer run technocracy? Let me guess, the technocrats (enlightenned monarchs?) decide the best way people should live their lives? If such a thing is beneficial, then it should have no real power beyond anyone else. How about a social R&D or think tank which people pay to teach them how to solve their problems.

What stopped the wife beater from purchasing a six pack? The tax? How much tax would needed to stop him? What if he simply brews his own beer or distills his own whiskey thus evading the tax? Again who was punished? If alcohol really did cause 20% of users to beat up their wives it would be classed as a class A drug. The hooligan has to be punished to maintain the deterant, if the deterant is gone then hard working people will drink themselves into a stupour, hurt themselves and others thinking there are no consequences because they benefit the economy more.

>>32
I can predict your quibbles now.
"The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them INTO ADULTHOOD by never letting them learn to look after themselves."*

fix'd

>>30
Yes, but people whit money demand higher wages, thus lowering profit margins. Thats why they are closing down the factory and moving it to china you know. They dont move it to fucking sweden. They just sell shit to the swedes.

Im terribly sorry for reading what you write and not what you mean.

so.. so far we have indoctrination, supernational government regulating everything very strictly, the parts of the environment that can't be made profitable destroyed.

me saying that the state will let go when the kid has learned how to bike is as retarded as  you saying that people will learn how to keep their balance really efficiently from constantly falling over.

>>36
The quality of workers in China is poorer than the quality of workers in the US. Companies with poor expertise cannot compete in the US so they must move to China where they do not have to purchase expensive sophisticated machinery and employ 1 american technician to ensure it function correctly, they just round up 100s of peasants and sit them next to a conveyor belt.

because no libertarians understand game theory

Why is Libertarianism so fail?

It is due to it being a fabrication of political ideology. It subsists in failed ideas to be promoted fruitlessly year after year with brick-headed audacity, it is next to impossible for anyone talking to a confused libertarian simpleton to teach that person the simplest of facts. It's made of ironically fascist ideals, engorged with false dichotomies and fueled by logical fallacies.