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.

>>119

The world needs more COMMUNISTS and less Democrats/Republicans and  "Free Market" Libertardians.

>>113
But you have to remember that private contractors would never EVER  invest research in something that seemed to have no financial gain while the government invest research in such matters all the time! In the beginning the only application for internet was military and academia, ie no commercial value. No state to throw money into this money pit then no interbuts! And no, private interest are NOT psychic NOR are they into the business of charity.

>>114
Who pays cops in libertaria? Not an official noncommercial body i assume? Are they funded by fines? As a percentage of arrests? Or are they just unnecessary when everybody owns nuclear weapons?

>>122
The military paid contractors to perform R&D into computer systems and communication. In "libertaria" the academia will be privatised and it will exploit it's collection of students with their cash and free time in order to investigate various untapped branches of science. When these students graduate they may well follow it through in their professions, they will also most likely come into a lot of money to make investments since they and the companies they work for would pay very little tax.

The government and tax still exists in "libertaria", it's only purpose is to preserve justice.

>>121
Communism is worse.

>>123
Privatised academia is not objective, and more, its does not want to give away money to soemthing it feels has no commercial application (if you debate this you prove that you are a retard and i will take that as a win for reason). The military has no commercial application for its research (thats were the military-industrial complex come in).

And wait one fucking minute. Is not libertarianism a science? Then what the fuck with all this most likely and other fuzzy shit. Give it to us, easy and in layman terms, what libertarianism does better and how this is known. Take this as a put up or shut up challenge.

>>125
So what if the libertarian education system is stripped to it's bare fundamentals, this doesn't mean research grinds to a halt, it means that talent is encouraged to do something useful and find a high position in the nation's economy in order to apply their vision. Would you rather pay a gifted artist to express herself by throwing faeces at a wall just to prove some marxist philosophy that "capitalism stifles creativity" or would you rather encourage her to become an architect so her work become an integral part of the nation and so that she can earn enough money to apply her vision as she sees fit?

The military has a commercial application for it's research, it just requires modifying. The inter-computer communication networks and programming languages developped by the military were easily adapted for use by businesses.

Libertarianism reduces inefficiency of tax by making people pay for what they use rather than an abstract undefined entity of unfathomable complexity to the average blue collar worker.

Libertarianism prevent people from forcing their ideals on others by allowing people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt anyone or their property. For instance you can set up unions or a hippy commune where everyone puts all their money in a bucket on their way in and it is shared equally. What you cannot do is pull a gun to someone's head and force him to put all his money in the bucket.

>>126

Privatized Academia would strive to make better ways to fry fries much faster and make them 120% tastier.

>>127
Don't you want your fries more convenient to obtain and 120% tastier?

>>125
Then why do private universities tend to be at the forefront of virtually all fields, not just immediately applicable research.  How many public universities do you see in the Ivy League?  Privatized education has been around far longer than public education and still has better results.

>>129
That may be the case in the US but the international trend is the opposite. Typical libertarian forming his whole argument on one observation. Fail at science.

>>130
The US contains most major private institutions since many countries make it difficult for private universities to be founded or be accredited.  Also, Most major universities in the UK function more like the USA's (accredited) private universities than the USA's public universities due to institutional autonomy.  Considering most people on this board are American it's perfectly reasonable to only sample from American institutions.  A multitude of observations from a single (very large) region is not the same as "forming his whole argument on one observation."  And please cite examples next time you make an assertion like "the international trend is the opposite."

>>131
I will not cite any examples as you did not in the initial assertion. Why do you assume everybody takes your tripe as the neutral ground? And the sampling region is not large at all if it has the same fucking state governing it. There is no evidence towards the conclusion you have drawn, since you have not eliminated the noise the US creates. To prove it to be true you have to sample in a wide different environments lest youll have no clue about how much the environment skews your results. As i said, fail at science.

*sniff* *sniff* Man, the bullshit is rife on both sides in here...

Universities waste tens of thousands of dollars on students to study "modern art" or "sociology" because both the universities and the students know they don't have to pay for it.

At the same time the people who want to waste money on this shit because they feel they need to prove something complain about how most tax comes from low income earners.

I have an idea, why not ditch subsidising universities and reduce tax on the poor by the amount of money you saved?

>>134
I have an idea. Study moar.

I fail to see why people disagree with libertarianism. Because it doesn't allow them to force their beliefs on others? Because it doesn't stop people from criticising them? What? What do you think it is wrong with it exactly?

>>136

Is this even relevant?

>>137
Only because some people disagree with libertarianism.

>>138

Obviously, but what you said before it:

"Because it doesn't allow them to force their beliefs on others? Because it doesn't stop people from criticising them?"

This suggests you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

>>136
Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean we don't have the right to bag the shit out of your half-baked, deadend political philosophy.

The vast majority of Libertarians are fucking annoying, stuck up little shitheads who delude themselves into thinking they're the smartest and most valuable 99.9999995% percent of the human population and that their views are not only unquestionable greater then anything else but they themselves are "TRUE AMERICANS" by an 1800's criteria while ignoring all of 200 years of progress that has happened without their influence.

Can you successfully name a modern country that has implemented pure Libertarian ideals successfully? Even Communism has had a better track record with the Soviet Union holding up for a couple of years before going to shit.

>>140
Yeah, and the soviet union defeated fucking nazi germany in warfare on top of that, any libertarians have an idea how to fight the great patriotic war? "Oh you leave the line because you only got a clip of bullets and no rifle? Well, heres your fine."

>>136
Exactly whats wrong with libertarianism? Well, it has nothing to do with reality. Is that concrete enough? Otherwise, read a couple of the "libertarians sux cox" threads, they contain every scrap of criticism and most often it stands unanswered by the scardypants libertards. But may I direct a question towards you? Some liberfailians posted earlier that libertarianism is a science and that it is simlple to implement and easy to understand, but when i begged for a definition then i got bullshit. Maybe you can enlighten me and convert me?

>>139
I emplaced a question mark apon the end of both the sentences in question to denote that they are suppositions, not statements.

>>140
Of course libertarians believe their values are unquestionable, if they didn't they wouldn't be libertarians. Libertarianism is a mostly modern concept which is merely the result of a scientific analysis of systems of government which have been succesful in the past. It can be seen that resisting tyranny and focussing the force of justice towards the preservation of liberty is primary in ending strife that is the result of criminal systems of government. The problems of today pale in comparison to the problems of the past but this doesn't mean we libertarianism is obsolete, extending this line of thought yields logical straight forward solutions that many corporations and companies adopt on a similiar scale, but which the government is unwilling to even test. Libertarians are of course strong on civil rights.

>>141
Libertarians are not extremists, the implementation of libertarian principles would be an evolutionary process. There would be strong debate on conscription, many regulations and high pay for those conscripted. Also bear in mind after 22 years of libertarianism a large proportion of Russians would have their own rifles, pistols, possibly heavy and automatic weapons all embued with the good old libertarian "LIBERTY OR DEATH" mentality. I'm not sure if conscription would be a problem or the Nazis would want to invade.

>>142

The Free Market is AWESUM! Rite? Right guys? No seriously, it's never been a problem... has it?

>>142
Lol at defeating the nazi advance with libertarian conscripts. And high pay. And debate in a country where the knowlegde to read is scarse. And lol at thinking that just by being libertarian the country automatically fills up with guns by itself. I guess this visionary thinking is the true testament of that awesome science libertarianism!

>>140

I don't Libertarianism is very scientific.  It's at best pseudoscience.  It handwaves a good number of the problems with business practices in the 21st century. 

It can't work in a world where we don't make our own foods.  Without government "interference" I'm not sure that an average American could tell whether his Mac & Cheese had melmate in it, whether his toothpaste had gylcerine in it.  We get our food from around the world, and we can't go ourselves to check out the growing conditions or manufacture conditions.  Libertarianism never takes this into account.  When Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, most people were famers or local craftsmen.  Things were made locally and you could inspect the goods. 

It does a crappy job of protecting the workers.  When libertarianism met the industrial age, we saw child labor and shitty safety records.  People losing limbs and ending up with nothing.  Attempts at unionisation ended in gunfire. 

Long story short, the economic end of Libertarianism doesn't work when you're dealing with an industrial society.  It was designed for a time when you bought local or made your own.  It was designed for workshops not factories.  And it hasn't kept up with the times. 

lol

>>144
Well done for ignoring 50% of my argument. I clearly stated conscription would be allowed under much regulation and capped the moment the war was over.

>>145
By stopping government interference, libertarians did not mean stopping the enforcement of justice. Your entire argument about poisonning food is invalid. Child labor and poor safety are also criminal and would be stopped by a libertarian government in the pursuit of justice. This argument is also invalid. Forming unions would be a protected civil right under a libertarian government as is the right to bear arms.

Your arguments however are valid concerning Cuba, why you are here telling people who harbour a philosophy which holds liberty and justice above all else these things when you could be telling Fidel Castro you will have to admit.

>>147
Okay. Lol at conscription under much regulation and capped as the war was over. Your argument is still shit and there is many lols to be had imagining libertarian minutemen fighting the nazi advance. It would be like "Hans, vat waz zat noise?" "Oh, zat were ze russian conscripts, all three of zem. Nevermind them Gunther, we vill clean ze threads ven ve are in Moscow!"

Who decides what is illegal in a libertarian state? Macdonalds? I weonder if childlabor or meltmate then would be illegal. Or what, somehow libertarianism counters the immense manipulative power of large corporations by arming three year olds?

>>148
Holy shit you know nothing about history or warfare.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22russian+partisans%22&meta=

Discussion over.

>>148

"Or what, somehow libertarianism counters the immense manipulative power of large corporations by arming three year olds?"

exactly.

>>149
Well, the russian partisans were communist (as almost all partisan s during ww2, see any pattern emerging?) and they worked behind enemy lines in enemy occupied territory. They would have never whitstood the invasion alone, and by refering to them you have proven your complete lack of understanding of reality. The famed french resistance did not liberate france now did they?

>>151
Are you talking to me? I never said guerilla activity alone is needed to liberate a country. You are the one who dismissed role guerilla warfare played in ww2 not me.

Also since libertarians permit anyone to possess firearms. Would a libertarian guerilla war against the nazis be more or less fierce than a communist guerilla war? Come on. Use your brain. You can do it.

>>152
No, you are not listening. What you said is that if the soviet union had been libertarian all they would have had were guerillas and that would have stopped the nazis as effectevily as the red army. And that is a fucking LOL. You said it yourslf, you would debate conscription in a country with very low education level (e.g. they were the last country in europe to give up serfdom, tzarist russia that is) etc ad nauseum.

If there are no firearms in the country and no money in the country and if the technology level of the country is far below other countries how effective do you believe this libertarian militia to be? Compared to tiger tanks or the T-34? And yes, i higly suspect libertarians to be egotistical pussies who´d never be able to fight against invaders and oppresion, at least not as fiercly as commie guerillas have done. Do you believe a libertarian guerilla in vietnam could have defeated the US?

>>153
"No, you are not listening. What you said is that if the soviet union had been libertarian all they would have had were guerillas and that would have stopped the nazis as effectevily as the red army."
I'm not listenning when you tell me what I said? What?

So you dismiss the fact that weapons are more widely available under libertarianism because you think we are all goateed coffee house types like marxist intellectuals? The russian guerillas weren't fighting for Stalin. Even Stalin knew this, his propoganda was almost entirely aimed at defending mother Russia not the state. Libertarianism is a philosophy that would have cut closer to home, when libertarianism is about protecting freedom and national self determination, this coupled widespread weapons would make the conscript army and the guerillas much more well equipped and determinned. Also bear in mind a libertarian governmetn would be on more friendly terms with the US.

>>154
So you just dont give a fuck about answering my criticism? About a guerilla is not a replacement for a regular army? Or that even if guns are allowed to be owned by any man their supply might still be short? Since you dont care to answer i assume you dont have an answer to give and you´re just to much of a pussy to admit defeat. And btw, during the war the soviet union was on friendy terms with the US also, look up lend lease.

>>155
You're not criticising anything. I never said guerilla armies are a replacement for a regular army in the first place.

I've written less than you, so if this ia a troll you fail.

>>156
What is it then you have claimed? That if the soviet union had been libertarian it would have had a guerilla force operating behind enemy lines, as it did when it was communist? If this is all you claim then libertarianism seems quite abysmal, but then again maybe it is.

The original. Bitches.

Too many assumptions are being made here. Absolute Libertarianism won't work, just like absolute communism, democracy, socialism or, who cares, theocracy won't work either. You simply can not trust the mass of sheeple or corporations to do what is right all the time. You can't trust the government to do what is right ever.

However, a larger part of it is the fundamental role of government. Is it to improve the lives of the people or to secure the freedoms of the individual? Leftists espouse the former, Libertarians the latter. More importantly, Libertarians seek limited government -- not the absence of government. When government gets involved, things tend to go to crap. As Jefferson said, "if the government decided when we should sow and when we should reap, we would soon want for bread."

On the economic side, Libertarianism has its problems, but so does Communism. This nation did survive a long, long time with limited government intervention. And there is a place for government regulation and intervention, such as matters which apply to the powers vested in Congress: roads, commerce, etc. Because those things do affect the whole, some government regulation is needed. What I reject is the notion that every aspect of life must be regulated, observed, taxed and subsidized by government.

But screw that. I'm not an economist (who'd have guessed?) My adherence to Libertarian philosophy is based on the desire for personal liberty. It is not the place of the government to say I can't smoke pot in my own house. Maybe I want to cook up a batch of 180 proof shine, for my own consumption. If I sell it and it kills somebody, I am at the least guilty of manslaughter; and should be punished accordingly. In my state it is illegal to buy, sell or produce pornography which shows penetration. Who the hell is it going to hurt if I watch Back Door Jackhammer Jesus XII?

Libertarianism is at its heart the idea that "if it harm none, do as thou will." The government should only step in when someone has been harmed (or, I'll concede, there is a good chance someone will be harmed, such as drunk drivers or open threats.)

As for me, "any man who lays his hands on my to govern me is a tyrant and a usurper; I declare him my enemy." -- Pierre Proudhon.

>>159
You are mistaking libertarianism for enforced anarcho-capitalism. You can be a capitalist, social democrat, communist, socialist or anarcho-capitalist under a libertarian system just so long as you don't force anyone else to comply. Sorry you felt compelled to type so much, though it is a good criticism of anarcho-capitalism and your opinion on personal liberty is compliant with libertarian opinion, you could be described as a "left libertarian". Also recognise that libertarians are a legitimate party amongst the others that are not either republican or democrat, they do not call for a ridiculous revolution but a methodical evolution beginning by solving obvious problems first and allowing lengthy debate, mass media and referendums before enacting controversial policies.

Law enforcement, the military and state services which the libertarian government is allowing to continue temporarily while it develops a consensus on how to privatise it are the only institutions people must pay for. Liberty is preserved through justice and the law can only be agreed apon through heterarchy (representative government) otherwise you will either have tyranny or anarchy, because libertarians are sensible and realise the world isn't perfect they accept that such tax must be paid. Many of the problems you have outlined do not have to be solved through the statist practices used by reps and dems or typical major parties from other countries.. Libertarians view social justice and regulation differently....