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.

Unions could be like businesses that buy and sell jobs.

>>241
those aren't unions, those are job agencies. unions could have job agencies as a part of their service offered to the workers, but job procurement isn't what unions are essentially for.

>>241
oh wait a minute, i must've misunderstood what you said because it was so retarded.
I assume you mean tht a unions should trade available jobs between eachother? and that if a company needed, say, 10 new engineers, they'd sell the job offers to a union?
That seems quite supply-side minded of you? i don't know, it just doesn't really make any sense.

>>243
Not the same as buying and selling employees. Businesses are more skilled at deciding what they want rather than which specific individual out of millions they want, so they would buy a "job". Unions are the ones providing a service and of course they want as many members as possible to increase their clout and profts. It just makes sense.

>>243
Also, going back to grass roots, the unions will want their employees to be paid more so they would use that clout to increase wagea with the added bonus of the unions calculating the best course of action instead of the brute paranoia of their marxist counterparts. So we've figured out a way to privatise communism, what next?

>>244
not really. Most businesses want a specific worker, especially smaller growth-orientated businesses want specific workers that go well with the company mentality and who will work well with whatver management system is being used in the company. They don't just want whatever the union sees fitting for the job description. (just hiring people on the paper is never as good as interviews etc.)

>>245
come again?

"[He] exposes, in true and lively colors, the vices of a declining empire, of which he has so long been the victim; the cruel absurdity of [politicians], unable to protect their subjects from the public enemy, unwilling to trust them with the arms for their defense; the intolerable weight of taxes, rendered still more oppressive by the intricate or arbitrary modes of collection; the obscurity of numerous and contradictory laws; the tedious and expensive forms of judicial proceedings; the partial administration of justice; and the universal corruption which increased the influence of the rich and aggravated the misfortunes of the poor. A sentiment of patriotic sympathy was at length revived in [his heart]...and he lamented, with a flood of tears, the guilt or weakness of those politicians who had perverted the wisest and most salutary institutions."

All I had to do was change a handful of words and you'd swear that paragraph was about America. I'm sure we all agree that those conditions are intolerable. So let's play a game. Let's play Find out who He is, and What nation is being spoken of! We're headed down the same gutter but so many people think that if we only had a government bigger (read worse) and better (read more inept) that life would be peachy. Makes me want to kill myself.

So go! Figure out which nation is spoken of.

>>246
You don't understand. Either every business has a database with millions of employees that it keeps updated and analyses continuously or you have 1 sector of the economy that deals with that and businesses pay for the service.

>>247
Probably Hitler.

>>249
"...a flood of tears"? Doubtful. Hitler did not cry. Even when his dad got cancer. And then his mother. And then his country lost the first world war. He definitely did not cry.

>>250
It's always Hitler.

*cough* idealougs *cough* you guys really need to learn how and why the goverment works before jumping to conclusions, and you also need to know that the federal bank exists for a reason, along 
with regulations. here is somthing nice from before regulations on free market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

anyone who claims their ideology infallable is often delusional. and more often likely to turn authoritarian.

>>252
Oh god. The Federal Reserve exists to give more dollar bills to the government. The Fed creates inflation -- inflation which helped to create the 1929 crash. The Fed fucks up the economy. Read Friedman. Fuck, read Bernanke. As he said, "I would like to say to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz: regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Oh, they will. Worse than the last time. So just remember guy, the worst economic disaster happened on the Fed's watch and rational economists agree that the Fed was at fault. Good fucking job, government.

And regulations. I'm okay with a minimalist approach to regulation. By minimalist, I mean levels circa 1789. The US government can't do a good thing of its own volition, and it sure as hell acts like it is trying to do the wrong thing every time it gets involved. Take Ma Bell. They had a monopoly, and the Feds were going to break it up. The influx of competition would reduce costs, you know. They broke up Bell into the Baby Bells and guess what? Cost went up and in many areas it was a long time before competition showed up. And Bell (or ATT, if you want,) still remains dominant. Good fucking job, government. They fucked up in a major way with Ma Bell and the only ones to benefit were shareholders. Government couldn't regulate its ass out of a paper sack.

I wonder if some people honestly think that if government was somehow reduced all of a sudden that their lives would be thrust into chaos, that they'd fall victim to all sorts or predation. And it seems they think that once a power is given to government that it shouldn't -- or worse, can't -- be taken away. Pity.

If I had child and it was government, I'd kill it with a hammer and toss its body in the Muddy Boggy.

>>252
They had fluctuations in the market of similiar magnitude under Coolidge, because the government did not interfere there was no panic and the market corrected itself. Look at any decade long graph of any company's share value and you see that although shares occasionally plummet they jump back up when people realise the true value of the company is now higher than the share value.

>>254
So why has europe and china an economy at all? Seems mr Friedman should stop cocksmoking Augosto and do some more research.

>>256
He's dead. So you're wrong.

>>256
Is that in reference to central banking or government regulation? If it's about central banking, you should bear in mind that European nations also suffered economic collapse in the 20s and 30s, so, again, central banking can't prevent such devastating collapses. If anything they cause it by artificially manipulating the market. When the Fed increases the money supply, your value is worth less than it was before. Todays dollar is worth 6 or 7 cents compared to the 1913 dollar -- the year the Fed came into being. Todays dollar is worth less than it was in the Great Depression.

And I'll just be blunt about this: the Fed is going to cause the most disastrous economic collapse we've seen. When creditors lose faith in the dollar and the influx of foreign investment dries up, we're fucked royally.

As for regulation, there are some interesting things about that. A small amount of regulation is acceptable: namely when laissez-fare turns becomes fascism. But short of that I draw the line. Europe and China both have more regulation than we do. And they face some particular problems. Europe has a higher unemployment rate than we do, and, consequently or not, lower productivity. Until recently, China had pegged the yuan to a fixed amount against the dollar. This gave China an advantage in trade, but by artificially manipulating their currency caused economic woes for the people. The more regulation you face, the worse things get until, at the end of the spectrum, you face a 1980s-91 Soviet economy that is based more on wishful thinking and government control than real world conditions. The Soviets were assigning values and setting levels of supply that just weren't cogent with reality. Nazi Germany regulated the economy in such a way that unemployment was brought down but wages fell just as dramatically.

A market can exist without government, with its own little rules and currency and economic factors, and it can survive without government involvement. Bartering. Prisons have their own economic systems, ones not based directly on the dollar yet functioning without government regulation.

Have you ever considered the fact that drug dealers seem to have a better, more realistic grasp of economics than the government? They at least are fiscally responsible -- maybe because if they run up too much debt they'll get shot. In any case, they can still produce a more balanced budget for themselves than the government could ever hope to achieve.

No matter. Regulation amounts to the government wanting the economy to be at such and such a level when the market might not be able to meet such a lofty goal.

Have a good'n.

>>258
So inflation only happens because of central banking? I thought the inflation rate in europe at least have been record low the last two decades yet theres still central banking... Oh woe!

China has more regulation than India, yet China is expanding faster, produces more engineers, produces more food, more power, exorts more products etc ad nauseum. I understand though, i also wish macro economics were so simple that only two or three things described the lot so it could be understandable by you, but alas, reality has a tendency towards the complex.

And the black market is more or less regulated by crimelords. Ever seen what happens to a soldier who doesnt give the old guys a taste of his action? Taste is italian for tax.

I really like though that you describe libertarian utopia like a prison or a drug dealers fantasy. Seems apropiate i guess...

>>259
While I'm not concerned with Europe, per se, I'll be glad to respond. Inflation is caused by other things, true. A diminishing supply of, say, flax will cause the price of flax-based products to increase. Which falls under that natural trend for the price of goods to increase. As far as Europe goes, if they can make central banking work, somehow, then good for them. The US Fed is not working. All it has done, as I can see, is set optimistic goals and devalue the dollar.

China does have more regulation than India, it is true. But you omit the fact that China has been benefiting from decades of foreign investment, especially in industry, whereas India has only lately (let's say the past decade) started to receive that same influx of money and industry. Also, to a small extent, China does have a higher population and that does result in a generally higher industrial output. And while I take no offense at the condescending banter, I kind of chuckled about the "...so simple that two or three things..." bit. What other reason would China have to out-pace India? Perhaps it is the notion that the Chinese do what is best for China and always have; that the Chinese, or east-Asians in general, have a damned fine work ethic and that does result in increased performance across the board. I attribute the fact that Japan went from a poorly industrialized nation circa 1900 to the second most powerful economy as of today to that hell-bent work ethic and national determination. India doesn't seem to have that as much. Should I go into other facets?

Crime-lords are like emperors: far removed and out of touch with the foot soldiers. While they may have a good deal of control along part of the transition line, at the end they have a lot less control. It's up to the governors, if you will. And that entire idea ignores what I call free-lance drug dealers, like meth cooks and people growing their own pot. There are no meth crime lords and yet that market mostly governs itself.

Libertarian utopia? Hmmm. Of course, I was trying to point out that things can run themselves without government -- being an American it's hard to find a single thing that is free of government involvement, excepting drugs or crime. But if you can think of something legal and devoid of government regulation, please let me know.

So let me ask. Why do you take issue with the libertarian philosophy? It's just a matter of curiosity, so I can know where you are coming from. Do you consider it infeasible? Idealistic? Demagoguery? 

 

#260, I've gotta pipe up here.  The presence of government intervention markedly affects "unregulated" things like drugs and crime.  You sound so cogent otherwise in your postings that that seems to be a blind spot for you.

Drugs are expensive all around, legal or illegal.  The legal ones are expensive from a one-two punch of government interference ... first, they make creation and testing of drugs very expensive to pursue, and after that the government's pro-corporation and anti-individual legislation keeps prices high despite economic pressures to lower them.

The illegal drugs are made expensive (or low quality, which is just a hidden cost) from the anticipation or opportunity costs of law enforcement.  It's expensive to try to avoid the law, to handle prosecution events, and to suffer lost opportunities from your imprisonment and your ensuing felon record.

>>260
I accept that, the US Fed sucks. This does not mean central banking sucks though, and that is my point.

Two words, economy of scale. The chinese through their massive central government can focus more people and resource than any other country in the fucking world. If theres a million people living where there will be water when the three gorges damm is finished, fuck'em! Just send them somewhere else with little or no compensation since the government owns everything anyway! This is of course impossible in both India and Japan. There are currently being built three gigantic export product centres, areas large as fucking central europe each dedicated to one branch of products coupled with huge R&D facilities. Economy of fucking scale, theres your your explaination more than anything else. Okay, thats simple too, but at least it incorporates contemporary economic theory generally accepted by academia.

Whatever about the crime thingy, i dont now how regulated that sector is, yet i dont think freelancers are allowed as long as they dont cut in to the earnings of the big players, if they do they eitehr pay tribute or sleep with the fishes. And thats regulated enough for me.

The reasons why i hate libertarianism and libertarians are many fold. The people i hate because of their arrogance and retarded way of debating, like reinventing definitions so shit gets confused fast (eg capitalism and socialism). And their assertion that libertarianism is a science, yet never can answer why its a science, and how it fucking works (read this thread from the beginning and youl find multiple examples of this)! They also assume that the US failures must mean a global failure, they never assume that other countries can actually succeed where their own government has failed. They love huge strawmen. The ideology i dont know that much about, yet how great can it be if its followers are so retarded that they cant even answer the most basic of questions? But illuminate me please, why is libertarianism infallible?

>>262
You are not worthy of illumination.

>>263
That's the wrong attitude.

>>262
Then we can find ourselves in agreement on some points. Yes, the Fed sucks. And no, not all central banking sucks -- I'm sure Bank of Japan is ideally suited for Japan. I just don't see a Fed-type system working in America.

As for the crime thing, that was anecdotal. I've already been admonished about that once...

Until this thread I had never heard Libertarianism called a science. It might be based on historical examples, but so are my theories about imperial retreat and the termination point of federalism. Doesn't mean either are scientific. The philosophy itself is much like Communism before the Russian Revolution: there are ideas on paper, but those ideas have not been tested; and no one knows exactly how they will be put into action or how they might fail. In a few more years it won't be possible because by then all Americans will have been raised, to whatever extent, by the government; and won't be able to meet the level of independence required by Libertarianism.

As for the followers, we do have an arrogant strain. It seems to be a common factor. But every other faction, party or religion in America suffers the same problem: a host of followers who know nothing of the ideology or theology, and thus most can't answer basic questions. It is unfortunate. But revolutions are led by the intelligent and pushed forward by the momentum of the sheep.

Libertarianism is not infallible. Those who say such raise it up to the level of deity. The only idea formed by man that can't be questioned, as far as I know, is Will Roger's quip that the only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.

Veni, Vidi, Dormivi

>>264
They have been tested. Libertarianism like all science is the logical analysis of as many facts and phenomena, except with the intent of calculating the best utilitarian course of action. Communism is a theory developped from fallacious science that continually ignores the most obvious criticisms.

Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, in doing so millions of communists believed they were incapable of being as ignorant as the religious and went about their brutal insane activities as gleefully as the next religious fanatic. Libertarians place free speech on the highest pedestal, criticism of your own leader is considerred more patriotic than criticism of your mutual enemies.

Is it just me or are you guys going in circles?

>>266
Circles? No. Four left turns? Yes.

>>266
New people come and ask old questions.

>>265
Do I smell some copypasta?

I think the whole "Libertarianism like all science is the logical analysis of as many facts and phenomena" was torn to shit pretty thoroughly last time. Go back to your bong, art fag.

Don't talk about libertarianism, you're a schmuck. I'm a libertarian, and I refuse to associate myself with you. You're spending more time being intellectual than you are being intelligent, and you fail horribly at even that.

Libertarianism is infallible because it accepts all of its flaws. Libertarians are aware that no system is perfect, but that government sure as hell never solved any of those problems. It also bases itself in principle rather than power. It is based in the only correct principles as it is the only political ideology that does not call to tell other people how they have to live their lives, it is based entirely on every individual's liberties and desire.

>>270
"i think the world is flat, the fact that the world is flat is infallible"
"dude, the world is wrong"
"no, i say the world is flat, but i know it's round, thus the fact that the world is flat is infallible"

>>269
That never happenned. Libertarians have answerred all questions logically, maturely and concisely leaving little room for trolling and no room for succesful criticism. Further criticism is invited, just don't take it personally when you are proven wrong.

>>272
Heh. As if I'm going to fall for that (although I'm sure someone will).

Better luck next time.

I don't know about you guys but I think libertarianism is logical.

>>274
If only human beings were logical creatures.

>>275
We are or you'd still be wiping you filthy stank black asshole with moss.

>>275
We are capable of logic rather.

Libertarianism takes into account the fact that humans are flawed. What little altruism we have must all be directed towards the enforcement of justice.

>>278
No it does not. Since if it did it wouldnt want privatized police forces, courts, fire depts, roads etc. Libertarians miss the simple lesson of prevention, that if we never allow the environment were injustice grow expand then injustice will never be a problem. If we instead let the injustice occur and then hope that market forces will selfcorrect then we actually let the injustice to occur and put our blind hope to something other than us. Its mysticism.

We've already seen how well private police forces and fire departments work...

Thank god we moved on.