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.

In an anarcho-capitalist world I'd shoot you both.
And if some do-gooder comes to punish me then I'd shoot him, too.
After that I'd kill his family. And their friends. And THEIR families.

Nah, forget it. I would probably be busy shooting someone more important.

>>162

Like who? I hope it's a public official.

>>160
Thanks for the heads up on the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist bit. I tend to interchange them on occasion. But god, they are like two sides of the same coin.

>>148
That's simple. A vast majority of laws can be condensed into one single law: do not harm a person, his property, or his right to do with himself as he will. That covers murder, theft, fraud, drunk driving, arson...about the only thing it doesn't cover is campaign finance. But nearly, the vastest nearly number, all crimes are harm a person, property, or the freedom of that person. So there you go, just one law.

>>93

"i believe the state is a much better inovator"

Talk to people who work in the lower echelons of government (technicians, computer programmers, etc.) and you don't get a rosy view of government abilities, and forget government innovation. In fact, you start to wonder what miracle worker is holding that bloated bitch together. Government is a car with three square wheels. It's engine has pistons of metric and standard diameter; there a thousand redundant spark plug wires, none of which work, all of which go to the wrong places.

Government couldn't innovate itself out of a paper sack.

>>164
Idiot. WHO decides whats illegal. Not HOW MANY laws. And if you really believe its that simple you are naive as fucking premier Neville Chamberlain.

Yeah, and talk to the lower echelons of Microsoft, the factory workers, the cleaners etc and you will get the view of Microsoft as being an oppresive government that does not pay enough and that has no democracy at all. Are we going to cite anectdotal evidence? Because if we just count inovations and look who has developed them then governments come far ahead of private companies. Maybe its just your government that is largely ineffectual? And no, patent-holders are not inovators by default (since patents are a commodity that is bought and sold and companies tends to outbuy them so they can strangle the competition). For a capitalist you seem to have a fairly weak grasp of how it works.

>>165
Damn it. Ya, you're right. Who, not how many. Well...Just speaking for myself, the fundamental principle that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal. So if it hurts someone, it should be illegal. It's the principle that decides what is legal or illegal.

Anyway, here's the kicker Nancy. If someone thinks Microsoft is a dictatorship, they need to quit and find another job. Unlike Microsoft, we can't just quit the government and find another. Doesn't work that way. And should Microsoft be a democracy? You see, sweetie, in a way it is. Shareholders are the citizens.

You are the second person that seems to think the government has been an innovator. Now, I'm not quite sure if you mean innovation or invention; they are related but not necessarily the same. I'll assume you meant innovation. If, as the definition goes, innovation is the act of creating something new -- in order to solve a problem -- then we can see quite plainly that the government is as innovative as you are knowledgeable of British government. You have social security circling the drain, medicare crapping out -- oh and I hate those programs -- a discontented populace and an army that is not serving its legitimate function. To date, those problems have only increased. Why? Because government has become more and more involved.

Government is creating problems, ones it can't fix. That, my child, is not innovation. That is cluster-face-fucking anything good out of existence.

And one last thing, pretty girl. I'm not a capitalist. I can tolerate any economic form or government form so long as I have personal freedom. For me, it's all about personal freedom. Bye bye now.  

>>166

umm... the shareholders of the company aren't necesserily people? maybe 3% of the shares are owned by private people, but there will almost always be some major shareholders who get the majority of the deciding power. These companies might be pension funds or something so the money still indirectly go to the general population (at least to the fund that are part of this fund).

and we acn quit the government and find another, that's what elections are for, and unlike in the companies, your deciding power isn't based on your wallet (at least not theoretically) when it comes to electing a government.

now i don't quite get what you're saying here. You're saying that the government has never created something new in order to solve a problem? afaik laws, rules, regulations, national health care, public education etc. are all examples of doing just that.

The fact that governments these days generally have problems with inefficiency and ineffectivity, and seem to lack the will or means or whatever to innovate their systems, is a problem we have in our current situation, not necessarily one coined to a government.


You should stop with the whole "pretty girl" "nancy" etc. it  makes you look like an idiot.

>>166
Its nice in theory that illegal things should be those that hurt people but as we all (?) know this is impossible in most cases. Cars hurt people, flight hurts people, working hurts people etc. But nevermind that, lets oversimplify to the extreme where even libertarians understand!

The question was not if microsoft is a democracy, dictatorship or a fucking papal state. The question was that for every anecdote you can produce from a "friend who works in the government" i can produce an anecdote from a "friend who works at generic company" and if these anecdotes are indicators of the properties of said org then they seem to share the same properties, ie generic company cant inovate itself out of a paperbag. See what i did there?

The state is the greatest inovator becasue the greatest inovations are if not organized so at least funded by the state. No state, no inovation. This list of inovations include communication satelites, internet, mobile phones, the transistor  etc. And as i said earlier, for every government that works poorly i can whip up a government that works fine. Case in point, Sweden.

Some governments are bad yes. Do you want a prize for that discovery?

Thats a lazy opinion if i ever saw one. So you wouldnt mind to live in nazi germany as long as you where an aryan factory owner?

 

>>168
The spitfire frame and engine was developped by air racers who served to advertise for their capitalist funders. Without the spitfire Britain would have lost the battle of Britain. Germany's industrial centres could not have been bombed and they would have the clout to push to Cairo, then Moscow. The pax Germanica in Europe would be a launching platform for nazi and Klan propoganda in the US in the decades after the war quelling the possibility of a civil rights movement and usherring in extreme racism. You have capitalists to thank for your ass not starving away in a concentration camp.

>>169
No, i have the T-34 to thank for that. You loose fucker.

you cannot have lax laws and keep a civil government.

>>170
You have US industrial contributions to thank for the number of T34s manufactured and bombing runs on Germany to thank for the reduced number of superior Tigers. Next time you see a billboard or giant corporate logo get on your knees and thank your Allah for the existence of the free market.

>>168
I enjoy over simplification. The thing is, I don't really feel like writing a treatise of my own views on this thread. So simplicity has to be the order of the day. Anywho, yes, it is a nice theory. Yes, cars hurt people. That's the fun in life, knowing that any of us can die by such a plethora of random objects. But the use of cars outweighs the bad side of that use, and last I checked, only a few people use them to kill people. Compare that to, say, meth. A fine drug which may cause euphoria but is a detriment to that person and the people around him or her. It has almost no positive value -- except for maintaining a clean house, perhaps.

Anecdotes are wonderful. Do we really have anything but anecdotes? We may find random studies, this, that, and the other, but a shit load of our natural perspective comes from experience, hearsay, and, yes, anecdotes. Mayhap I should cut back the usage, but if I had known I'd be called out on the floor for it, I'd probably have omitted that part. But hey, life is hearsay.

As you can list a few things you attribute to government, I can list just as many from individuals. By the way, how do you think government came up with the transistor? Because it was interested in germanium? Anyway. How about the AC motor, vacuum tubes, speakers, the lever, pulleys, vaccinations... And this is all pointless.

Efficiency or inefficiency of government is a moot point. As much as I like efficiency, in government it's not always a good thing. Case in point: Nazi Germany.

And as I said, I can live anywhere as long as the government is running roughshod over me. Aryan factory worker, Roman magistrate, janitor. Try harder.

>>173
Cars hurt a lot of people through pollution and CO2 emmissions, all car owners are responsible for these casulalties, yet the cost of those lifes are not factored in the price of a car. So how do we regulate so that these casulties can be minimized? Your simple assertion that there is no need for more laws than one helps us naught here.

We have science, ie statistics and logic.

Yes, but i am not asserting that individuals cant inovate themselves out of a paperbag, your argument is irrelevant, the two are not exlusive. I assume therefore that you accept that the government actually can be an inovator.

I dont care about efficiency myself, i just combat the myth that governments MUST be inefficient and i believe that idelogies that require inefficient government (eg libertarianism) are to be suspected. Just because your government suck does not mean that it have to and that there is no point in trying to improve it. Rather, since there are examples of benevolent and efficient governments who have succeded in some of its ambitions are proof enough that it is possible. Fatalism is for losers. 

>>172
No, i havent. This is just something US history theachers say to gloss over the cowardice of not joining the war until pearl harbor. Its not like lend lease was an act of benevolence, nor was it so crucial that without it the war would have been lost. And how many spitfires or pilots did the US contribute during the battle of britain? Its not admireable to join the winning side in a war after it has already been decided.

>>174
Why not list something other than cars? You know, something that hasn't facilitated the entire via Americana? I don't know, alcohol? To assert that car-related casualties are the responsibility of all car-owners is rather like saying that, well, any one who owns a dog is responsible for all pit bull attacks.

Yes, we do have science and logic. They are wonderful. When I try to find stats from the Federal government, I can't find what I'm looking for. The other day I was hunting down the 1913 Federal budget. Couldn't find it. Not a damned trace of it. The data organized by the Federal government are not processed in the same way from department to department, bureau to bureau. This government has used neither logic nor science. In the absence of such, what do we have but anecdotal stories?

Now, of course government -can- be an innovator. With absolute control over the economy and intellectual property, the government is the only innovator. There is no AK-47, only the Soviet 47. Any government with absolute control can claim to be innovative. If you remove the individual, who remains to invent and create and innovate? Following your logic that if the government simply funds a thing, in part or in whole, that it then is the innovator is also flawed. Your assertion that government came up with the transistor? Crap. Telecommunication satellites? Crap. Telecommunication would not be feasible if not for General Relativity and the work of Arthur Clarke to figure geosynchronous orbit.

And so on.

Finally, I don't give a shit which benevolent governments have done what. I just don't care. Some of us still value independence more than personal wellbeing. The Swedish government may be swell, super efficient and benevolent, and it may take care of the citizens of Sweden. The nanny-state is the ultimate form of tyranny. Without any coercion or violence it prevents the people from ever speaking out and speaking up.

You accept a level of being governed. I reject it as much as I can. Let's just leave it at that.

Nanny states do nothing, they just mask problems instead of solve them. George Orwell's 1984 is a vision of the ultimate nanny state, it won't be long until Sweden decides to address the problem of political grievances the same way it challenges possessing alcohol.

>>177
And how does it handle alcohol possesion differently from other states?

>>178
Communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget

>>179
That is not a challenge on possesing alcohol but on selling it. And its democratically founded, no party in sweden, left nor right, supports a complete dismanteling of the systembolaget, since the beneficial effects compared to neighbours speak for them selves. If thats communism then traffic rules are communism.

#180, that's right, most countries already implemented many socialistic institutions. It evidently works. You wouldn't want to leave your house without knowing that the police will protect you, would you? Only the liberals are dumb enough to cry about it. They must have missed the memo that liberalism and laissez faire economics died with the age of enlightenment.

>that liberalism and laissez faire economics died with the age of enlightenment.

They weren't really born, also, do you mean libertarianism?

Thel, I'm talking about the classic liberalism here and not about that twisted US definition of liberalism.

#183
Oh right, I'm too used to talking to Americans on the intarbuts. I havn't even got round to reading this whole thread yet. I'm nowhere near an anarcho-capitalist, but I think it's a better option than the current ones, So I hope it's not dead.

Thel, if RedCream #183 keeps that up, I won't need to come to this 4channel anymore.  He looks and sounds like me.  WEIRD.

I don't exactly agree with what he says, however.  Socialistic institutions (as they are largely implemented in the West) provide a social fabric or background more than they impede social activities.  I would leave the house if I know the police wouldn't protect me, since as a US citizen I have the right to keep and bear arms.  We're not really railroaded into supporting the more despotic institutions (neither the more despotic aspects of more benign institutions).

It's true that classic liberalism is quite a bit different than the bizarre form it has been twisted into in America.  In the USA, it's all about making and keeping money, and everything is being mutated into supporting those two functions.  It's disgusting and it must stop.

Haha, you have an admirer.
But wait...how do I know YOU'RE the TRUE Creamy?
(just messing with ya).
Well, In England we're in a Police State, cameras everywhere. However, they are grossly inneficcient so it's like having no police, just a bunch of guys that will put you in a room if they think you comitted a crime and some community support officers that say hello, ride in thier bikes and suspect you of having weed....
I think that Companies fuck as up just like the government does but I'm a believer in social institutions and smaller communities as the way forth.

Well, Thel, just start blotting the cameras.  A good paintball gun is readily concealable and can be used quickly to blot the lens.  What makes a surveillance state work so well is that people don't fight it when such a fight is so effective.  Do you think your watchers have the wherewithal to actually go out and clean camera lenses often?  No.  With enough people blotting lenses as a matter of course, the cameras will start to become useless.

I always suspected that the more cameras are used, the lazier the police become.

As a child I did things like that, I also used to swing round rocks on the end of strings infront of speedcameras so they kept flashing because of the speed, making them useless. That and petty vandalism. I think it's good advise anyway, reminds of the midget in the Illuminatus Trilogy.

What, you mean the midget that went around changing signs to subtly make people more and pissed off at authority?  Yeh, that was a great character.  Structured vandalism.  In one of Bruce Sterling's novels ("Heavy Weather"), he called it "structure hitting", which essentially brought down WesternCiv and replaced it with ana-cap.

I'd like to organise such things on mass scale
like using flash mobs, rallies, street orgies etc etc
Also, the more I hear of you, the more educated you seem.

Why, thank you oh so much, Thelema Designate #190/4QZD2iwH!  I'll send one of my own clones to meet you.  {guffaw}

I love admirers.  Please, admirers, I've left a body of literature scattered all over the Intarbutt.  Please inspect every nook and cranny of the smelly thing and ferret out my statements.  Weave them into their fabric of inherent logic and education.  Wave the flag therefrom formed, and rally the citizens to the cause of LIBERTY.

I'd say at this point to "give me liberty or give me death", but not only is that passe, but largely the issue is that I will TAKE LIBERTY for myself, and those who try to stop me will largely meet with a few, select rifle shots that will end their participation in metabolism.

(I'm sure it's not shocking for Thel to realize an American is well armed.)

Sometimes I think you have delusions of granduer :P

Creamy, Killing people who oppose Liberty since '96

You are both retards.

>>193
Granted, anon.

>>191
Amen to that.

>>185
If you feel safe because you own arms and not because you have a police force then you are forced to buy arms. I dont believe its cheaper (economy of scale and all that), and its sure as hell is not as efficient as a working police force. Yet idiots like to pay for lower quality products as long as they pay for it themselves and not through taxes. Its like the oldest con in the fuckin book. Enjoy your vaporous freedom. And seace the namefaggotry already.

You know, I used not to understand Libertarians. They appear to be raving loonies.

Then I sat down with a former US citizen and had a little chat why he left. I realized that the US government is even more utterly fucked up and completely insane than it appears on TV.

Seriously, the US government hates its citizens.

So, if someone has lived their entire life in the US, is it any wonder they're libertarian?

>>197
"Seriously, the US government hates its citizens."
Granted, yet libertarianisms solution is throwing out the babe with the bathwater. There are a lot of other states where government actually works and where taxes actually are used for good. There are no states where libertarianism works, and there has never been.

I've got some sad, terrible news for ya, #196.  The police actually can't stop crime.  When crime really gets a head of steam goin', the police only nip away at it.  The real crimefighting happens with the citizenry.  Once they stop tolerating crime in their midst, it largely stops.

Hence, feeling or not, the responsibility falls to you and I.  This has nothing to do with expense (as if a $200 gun is in any way an onerous expense for self defense, but I digress).

Sure, my freedom is vaporous.  The vaporific nature of it is largely due to the complacency of fagcits like yourself who can't bring yourself to see that the citizens are the true barrier to crime.  You accept being effectively ruled by paramilitary forces (i.e. police).  Talk about the fleeting wisps of freedom!

P.S.  "Cease" anonyfagging, yourself.

Just an aside: vigilante justice is mixed news.

You're obviously not just advocating self-defence, because you would go and help a Kitty Genovese, right? Right?

Now multiply that by another dozen people with good intentions.