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.

One of the reasons libertarianism is so infallible is that the typical libertarian is a teenage boy. There's absolutely no empathy for the common person who actually lives in the world, and there's always an unrealistic expectation that anyone can become a millionaire unless they're lazy welfare cases. As such, there's no real attempt at forming a valid argument, so there's rarely anything palpable to argue against.

What's the possible benefit of libertarianism? That we would have fewer taxes to pay? We can go through each part of government spending, showing how almost all significant spending  is necessary (though efficient). We need the military, because having fees paid to mercenaries through non-governmental means is absurd (and would be ineffective even if possible). We need to pay interest on the national debt. There you go, just with those two you very well aren't going to be close to living a tax-free life.

Someone needs to pay for roads somehow. If you want to buy some delicious Florida oranges in Chicago, they have to get to the store, and if the government isn't making the transportation infrastructure with your tax dollars, you're going to be paying it anyways with higher prices.

Do we need an FDA or EPA, so that the average life expectancy can be competitive with the rest of the civilized world? Libertarians won't admit it, but they really don't think so. They don't have any sympathy towards people who don't have the money to fly around on their own private jets and feast on Swiss chocolate. The rest of us peasants can either starve or eat pesticide- and hormone-laced food (at higher prices than now, because instead of paying subsidies with your tax dollars, you'll pay them directly).

An appendectomy costs $2500. Do you have that kind of money laying around? A lot of people do, a lot don't. Libertarians believe that if you don't, you should just die on the street. The garbage men can pick up your corpse. That's what's so cool about libertarianism- it's so gleefully evil. There's absolutely no desire to benefit anyone other than oneself.

For objectivists (who don't know they are yet, because they don't have the attention span to read Ayn Rand), wouldn't that make sense, though? I mean, I could argue against objectivism, but that's really a different topic. Here's the problem: it doesn't even benefit yourself. Forget the remote possibility that you won't have a million dollars to retire on by the time you're 40. In four or five years, you're going to graduate from (public) high school. What then? Does your mommy and daddy have enough money to send you to a private college? No? Oh well, I guess instead of being an engineer, graphics designer, or whatever else you could have been if you had gone to college, you can just dispose of dead bodies (from starvation and easily curable diseases) that are laid out on the street for minimum wage (haha).

This gets to the crux of libertarian thought. To the libertarian, it will somehow all turn out okay. Once all the public universities are gotten rid of, more private universities will pop up. They'll do all the same stuff, except better and cheaper because they're private industry, and since there's more of them, an increase in supply will lower the prices enough that ordinary people will be able to afford them (without government grants, even). I'll agree, the cost will definitely go down, but why would you think that it would go down enough for the average family? Really, weren't public schools created because private industry couldn't meet the demands of society (a well-educated workforce that could do something other than farm, which incidentally results in greater individual prosperity)?

Then the libertarian comes back with his not-so-secret weapon: a hideous distaste for civilized society. If demand can't keep up, he says, let them all be peasants! Somehow, it'll all work out. When there's enough people in the work force that honestly can't do anything other than flip burgers, the wage for them will go up, they'll be able to send their kids to private school, and society will be better off for it! There's a problem with this kind of thinking, guys: it's shit. Nobody over the age of 19 buys it, for good reason.

The best quote so far:
>People's lives will be ruined

That pretty much sums up libertarianism.

>>321
Sorry, you've mistaken libertarianism for something else.

#321, there's a slight flaw in your examples, in that dead bodies on the street will not be collected since there's no money to be made in such a collection.  When jet-setting and eating bon-bons, you're above all that crap, anyway.  And ... hey, didn't I just describe modern Capitalism?  Why yes, I certainly did!

>>323
I don't know about that. Remember, all property would be private in a libertarian society. It's not like you could get mugged and murdered while jogging in a public park. Those kind of places would be a thing of the past- the ones on rivers would be turned into factories (for easy disposal of waste), and the larger national forests would be owned by billionaires who want privacy for their "hobbies". There'd be waste disposal companies, of course, and everyone would have to pay a fee to them, just like how they would pay a fee for everything else.

Ah, to live in a libertarian utopia. If someone were to die on your lawn (perhaps from starvation or poisoning), you'd have to bury the body yourself (not that you'd actually have a backyard for this), or have the mafia-run disposal company pick it up. If you aren't paid up on your subscription, you could just leave it there, but then you'd be sued by your neighbors for violating their economic right to not have their property values degraded by nearby rotting human corpses. See? It all works out in a wonderful libertarian world governed by batshit insane economic principles.

Well, #324, I DO know about that.  Even with property being bulk-bought by billionaires, the existence of streets implies a commons, if not by de jure than by de facto.  People will still die during transportation accidents and the result will be dead bodies that no one will want to collect since there's no profit in it.

I don't spend my time demonizing Libertarians.  They have some great ideas.  Other of their ideas are fairly lousy.  As you imply, it's a great blowing hugely BAD IDEA to let the people with the money dictate everything, at least indirectly by letting property rights trump everything.  However, past all those extremes, we can sanely discuss privatizing the fire department, and especially so in cases when said department is heavy with live-in retirees (which we must admit is the case in too may union instances) and other overpaid workers.

There is no "libertarian utopia" in exactly the same way we know that there are no socialist and capitalist utopias.  All these philosophies have ideas great and bad.  Wise heads can cherry-pick these things and make a society function.

Libertarianism isn't about unrealistic utopias. Socialism and capitalism were developped from the oh so great Marx who triggerred more than a century of a top down approach to political science. Libertarianism is scientific and was the result of 18th century attempts to apply scientific method to everything, liberty and justice were induced from the facts as necessary, equality was declared to be good from the beginning and an entire pseudo-science framed around it.

I approve of this thread.

Libertarianism is scientific
old troll is old

It's pretty sad what passes for "science" nowadays, and the mouth-breathing morons who actually believe it.

>>328
Observation, analysis, prediction, experimentation and evaluation. When composing their ideas libertarian follow these logical steps to find the truth and calculate the best way to do good.

>>329
Go troll elsewhere, kthx.

|Observation, analysis, prediction, experimentation and evaluation. When composing their ideas libertarian follow these logical steps to help them write incoherent bullshit that's based on nothing more than an irrational faith in market forces.

>>331
Market forces = the reason you were not severely disabled by whooping cough when you were 5 and did not spend the rest of your short life working the fields in some collective farm (exactly the same thing as a feudal estate).

>>Whole Thread
Anti-libertarian people making really bad points (are they points when they aren't sharp?) and some true Libertarians completely owning said bad points, while other "libertarians" that need to redo their research.

It's not "no taxes, no spending" or "nothin' but free-economy."

It's a delicate mixture between the freedom to do what you want to do without harming others (which means ~progressive~ measures to fix current issues which lead to harming others) while minimizing bloat-spending in government and the removal of laws which try to create social norms or infringes the peoples freedom (right to abortion). This gives more money to the people AND gives them more free reign to what to buy and how to live their life, which, now that you have happy people with more money, gives the economy a permanent boost.

It sounds LULZ REDICULOUS, but if we bite the bullet and TRY, we'll find out. We will either become the shining city on the hill with history, or the laughing stock. However, we had the courage to think different.

Vote George Phillies in 2008. Libertarian for President.

>>333
Yes, if we legalize abortion it will help the economy. Let's have the courage to ruin our country with pseudo-scientific extremism so that the few people to have enough money to survive will be able to enjoy increased freedoms.

Vote George Phillies in 2008. Libertarian for President.

>>334
Generally, the bloat spending of government was the reason to help the economy, whilst Human Rights give the people freesdom to do as they please, making them more wanting to spend their money.

I'm glad you're a fucking idiot and have no idea what you're talking about. It's your right as an American to become a job owner, rather than a grunt.

YAY WELFARE, right nigra?

At least you know his name now.

And before you pull a fast Democrat faggot move and try to evade the subject whilst poking fun at the competition with the sole intention of trying to pull support your way:

*freedom, not freesdom.

>>335
By your logic, if it wasn't for taxes (which I assume are the problem, as opposed to government spending itself), I'd automatically become a "job owner". Cool, can we all be job owners? What about the people who do actual work? It seems like the "market forces" you worship would make it so that somebody has to do the actual work.

That's for the good jobs, though. What about the people who don't have the talent or education (good luck getting that in Libertaria) to get good jobs? I guess they can just live without Medicaid for a while (for some, a very short while). Besides, they should be able to get private health insurance on minimum wage (oh, but you'll get rid of that, too).

Here's what I'm a fucking idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about: if there is absolutely no safety net for anyone, people will starve to death once they get too old to work, people without good jobs will be forced into a life of crime, and people will die of easily treatable diseases and conditions. Here's where you pop in and say that libertarianism isn't about creating an unrealistic utopia ANYWAYS, or else some "survival of the fittest" quip, or else some "market forces" absurdity about people hiring bodyguards so they won't get robbed.

>>337
If your grandmother was starving to death, would you not buy food for her? If she needed medicine, would you not find a way to get it? I don't know about you, but if anyone in my family needed food or medicine then I'd jump into the mouth of hell to get what they need.

People only assume one stance or the other: the people can survive alone or that they can only survive with government intervention. And both sides ignore how much we really rely on family. Aw hell, I've said it and I'll say it again: I'd make exceptions for people who really have no other support system. You do realize that before Medicare and SSI that it was normal for children to tend to their elderly parents?

One side seems to argue that Libertarianism would dissolve all government. The other, that any government at all is not a Libertarian state. Bullshit.

But nearly all believe that people like me haven't considered what life would be if our current government were reduced by 3/4. I have. I could live hand-to-mouth. I could be the victim of pollution. I could eat tainted food. If I reach old age, I might not be able to support myself and I might be left to rot and die. I have considered it. I'd much rather decide my own destiny than let it be decided for me.

Statists walk a fine line. If Freedom of Speech were proven to be a cause of death for thousands of elderly people and infants, would we get rid of that freedom? If abolishing Amendment IV would cut crime by 90% would we allow all our personal information to be searched at random, and by people who are less than scrupulous?

The government can surely improve the quality of life for some, but I prefer Liberty to quality of life. I don't exist for the good of the state, I exist for my own good, and in living I will do all I can to help those I love. But I will not bow a knee to excessive government. Eventually everyone will have choose a comfortable life over a life of liberty. But that doesn't bother me because I will be dead by then.  

>Eventually everyone will have choose a comfortable life over a life of liberty.

Libertarianism is kind of like if the founding fathers decided they hated British rule so much that they wandered off into the wilderness to starve to death or get eaten by bears and Indians.

The government can surely improve the quality of life for some, but I prefer Liberty to quality of life.
Why wait? Move to Congo today! The "government" is in name only!

What? Why aren't you going?!

Oh, right, you're full of shit. You only can only claim you prefer liberty to quality of life (which is a bullshit false dichotomy in and of itself -- think about it for five seconds!) because you're living a pleasant life. Nice going, Internet Warrior.

>>340
Congo is an anarchy, not a libertarian-democracy.

>>340
Good points. Libertarians are probably made up almost entirely of people who have never experienced struggle or any lack of quality of life- in other words, kids and the very rich.

India is a good example of a Libertarian society. There's little in social services, but hey, at least they're free to do what they want! For the most of them, that means subsistence farming unless they want to starve. If you're really smart, you can get into college and work as help desk for wages that would seem appalling to us. If you're REALLY smart, you can get out of that hellhole and move to America to be a doctor or engineer.

>>341
Tell that to Joseph Kabila. In all honesty though, what's wrong with moving to the Congo? According to your theory, "market forces" will make it so that you will be able to find a good job if you work hard enough. The lack of law enforcement shouldn't be a problem, because you can just hire your own bodyguards. They don't have social services or effective law enforcement there, and effective tax collection is extremely low. The DRC seems like a libertarian utopia to me.

Obviously, somebody here doesn't understand the difference between a civilized Libertarian society, and a fucking nation in collapse that's effectively a dead-nigger WAR ZONE (i.e. the Congo).

You may as well urge folks to move to fucking BAGHDAD, for the sweet smell of freedom (or perhaps its the stench of flesh burning?).

India is at least a more sane example of what's wrong with subscribing to the markets-solve-all-problems model.  Stick to sanity, please!

>>343
Obviously somebody doesn't understand "I prefer Liberty to quality of life." You care more about liberty than quality of life? Go to fucking Congo.

Or maybe just stay in your nice cushy "quality of life" home dreaming about your civilized Libertarian society filled with "Liberty". Pretty convienient, isn't it, RedCream?

Actions speak louder than words. If you don't care about liberty than a comfortable life, don't fucking say it. Yank your head out of your arse and stop lying to yourself.

>>342
No one enforces justice in the Congo. I never said market forces would occur in an anarchy.

Though I could in fact hire my own professional bodyguards and clear a very large amount of productive land for development, the cost of security and transportation would be higher than say starting a coffee farm in Nicaragua.

See! Market forces.

>>343
Racist. The Romans called celts and Germans "barbarians" which is the equivalent of today's "niggers" when describing savage black people. They had an inferior culture very much like many of today's blacks, if history repeats itself then it won't be long until hoardes of niggers overrun civilisation and plunge it into a dark age which will last 1000 years by the end of which the niggers will be at the forefront of civilisation.

>>344
An injustice is the infringement of a person's liberty, thus liberty cannot exist without justice and justice does not occur if the law permits infringements of people's liberty. There is not much justice in the Congo, though I would prefer to live in the Congo more than North Korea.

>>346
I think that injustice is more than just infringement of a person's liberty, but I'm glad you agree with me. As noted in >>340, it's not really quality of life versus liberty, since if you have little liberty, your quality of life will be rather poor.

This is one issue I have with a lot of libertarians though. Power fills a vacuum, so if it's not the government, it's some other private interest. Hell, corporations and republics have the same structure. But at least with a so-called democracy everybody has a say, even if they don't exercise it.

Claiming that a monopoly won't form, and won't defend itself from a weak government, strikes me as a bit dubious. And the people will rise up? Risible.

>>343
And what's keeping America from becoming a "dead-nigger warzone"? (though if you look at RedCream's other threads, you'll see he's full of gleeful anticipation for such a situation)

I care about liberty more than quality of life.  With the former, you can always find the latter, but with the latter, you often find yourself without the former.

Those who prioritize "quality of life" only invoke Fascism, leading to the creation and enforcement of masses of poor, leading to great suffering.  Sure, a minority achieve an enviable quality of life, and a tiny minority get an amazing quality of life.  But that's effectively tyranny, and it behooves the free man to shoot tyrants down like dogs lest they throw him into their various meat grinders (corporations, schools, military).

The more we care about money by confusing it with wealth, the less we end up ensuring the prosperity of our neighborhood, town, state and nation.

Although the screamfags on this topic don't want to hear it, it's entirely possible to have a moral social structure that provides a certain minimum for the truly needy, while allowing the truly capable to become prosperous.  This involves a minimum government with mandatory taxation.  Taxation is, after all, the price of civilization ... but with a minimum government, such things can't be onerous.  The bulk of the wealth of the people belongs in the pockets and vaults of that same people.

In closing, the Congo is still a dead-nigger war zone and all that was accomplished by semi-Fascists paying attention to money instead of WEALTH.  Now that the citizens and government officials let things degrade so much, institutionalized violence is the only result that a sensible man should expect in the short term.  Hence:  DEAD. NIGGER. WAR. ZONE.

>>349
RedCream, this is a very impressive post, even for you. Literally every single sentence, with the exception of the first one, is demonstratively wrong. This is like an art student's thesis on logical fallacies.

More importantly, though, this should show you why nobody respects you here. It's not that your arguments lack substance. It's that EVERYTHING you say is absolute bullshit. You could construct a rational argument, because oftentimes you seem to come to reasonable conclusions somehow, but you just aren't interested in it. You aren't interested in reading Hayek or Chomsky and wowing us with your knowledge. You just want to spew out your projections that come from the fantasy world you seem to live in.

but with the latter, you often find yourself without the former.
You have been doing too many drugs. That or you have a surreal definition of "quality of life" that is completely disconnected from reality.

That is all I will say on this matter.

>>350
>>351
In standard LibJewDem form, a couple of yuppie fuckers with too much institutional education (i.e. propaganda) have tried to respond, yet have produced not one valid point in contention.  Instead, they jumped on ad hominem and left it to the usual yuppie assumption mechanism to carry the rest.

Hence, my points stand, until these apecocks realize they need to actually debate instead of propagandize-by-dismissal.

This reminds me of Usenet, where the native loon claims victory because nobody can be bothered. Really, what's the point?

Sure thing, RedCream. Whatever you say.

>>353
That's fucking and excellently right -- "whatever [I] say".  Truth has that irrefutable quality to it, doesn't it?  The sweet smell of success is mine.  I win.  You ... well, that means you fucking lost.  Losing that badly -- so boldly -- generally makes you a loser.  So sad, too bad!

>>352
Your points don't stand, because they're completely disjointed from reality. For example, you say that prioritizing "quality of life" leads to fascism, and then you back that up with some inarticulate nonsense. Being just wrong isn't enough, though: you call for "free men" to bring a violent end to institutions vital to American economy, education, and even liberty.

Then you go on to say how important it is for everyone to know the difference between money and wealth, and how that is the difference between the libertarian utopia and hyper-capitalist ruin (as in Africa). That would be a really compelling philosophy, if you bothered to even try to explain why someone would believe this kind of nonsense. Instead, you leave it as fact, apparently because you've already decided that everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you is a lib'ral commie traitor.

Am I a 'yuppie' for consuming the 'propaganda' that allows me to communicate in such a way that I can have some chance of swaying a normal person's opinion? Really, go read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. He was an anti-socialist who you would agree with on many issues, but instead of grabbing nonsense out of a deranged fantasy world, his book contains logic and reason. It really is a compelling work, but unfortunately you're too anti-book-learnin' to bother to get out of your chair to get it (or is it that the presence of another human mind in this world is too threatening to you?).

>>355
How many times are you going to fail before you have the grace to be embarrassed?

The now-routine excesses of corporations, schools and the military are NOT "vital to American economy, education, and even liberty".  Learn to differentiate between criticism of a thing, and destruction of that thing.

Anyone who doesn't understand what's happened in our society about the difference between money and wealth, is just stupid.  Some stockbroker makes millions, but creates or concentrates no wealth (only money), and legions of workers are laid off by the actions of his class of money-manipulator -- at great social cost.  Obviously, money can be (and too often is) disconnected entirely from wealth.

Just the fact alone that money is printed, proves my point.  Wealth is secured by gainful labor to win resources, processing them into useful items (ideally, capital equipment), distributing them to greatest market reach, and then subsequent enjoyment of the items thereby (since a sustainably prosperous society not only revels in what it has, but also produces stability thereby).

And finally ... I'll add Hayek to my extensive reading list, as I don't have him either there or on any of my shelves in my library room.  ... oh no!  Did I just pop another one of your myths?  I have so many books in my home that they'd fucking CRUSH YOU if you were so unlucky to have one of the shelving units fall on you.

P.S.  The end product of money worship like yours is that a tiny minority of people end up owning everything on the strength of what a few pieces of paper in some bank vault say.  The vast majority cannot be restrained from possession of the vast majority of resources, on the strength of paper alone.  The inevitable consequence is absurd, hence the methods and attitudes which create it are absurd.  Money and wealth have become almost completely disconnected in our society.  Learn to see the difference, capitalist freak!

Hey, can someone explain why a self-professed libertarian is arguing that libery and quality of life don't go hand in hand? I thought it was well-established that controlled economies lead to poor outcomes.

Also, >>356, take your own advice. Half of your post is ad hominem and gloat. I swear you're anti-chan the way you write.

>>356
Point by point:

"it behooves the free man to shoot tyrants down like dogs lest they throw him into their various meat grinders (corporations, schools, military)" - criticism to the point of suggesting destruction, as any reasonable person would think.

You suggest that someone who doesn't share your quirky (at best) use of unexplained vocabulary is "just stupid". There's one demonstrated reason why everyone thinks you're a loon.

You claim to be well-read, yet you NEVER cite any source for your opinions outside of your deranged fantasies. One would think that you'd have some grounding in philosophy, economics, and political science. Instead you come off like a 12 year olds who is just making this up as he goes along.

"money worship like yours" - strange ideas about other people that seem to come from nowhere.

So are you a socialist or what? "...vast majority cannot be restrained from possession of the vast majority of resources, on the strength of paper alone" - sounds like a worker's revolution to me. Ah, but libertarianism would obviously lead to the dystopia you describe, yet it's easy enough to go back and see that it DOESN'T MATTER to you. Regardless of who controls money or wealth, don't you prefer LIBERTY instead? Why should it matter to you what kind of system distributes economic power away from you, as long as you have your liberty? What's the difference between government wasting your money on wages for needless projects (i.e., the interstate), and banks using it to manipulate the economy for their own selfish ends?

>>357
If you're so fucking down on "controlled economies", then EXPLAIN why you tolerate your national, state and local governments handing out subsidies and abatements like CANDY.  America has fallen well into the wrong kind of Socialism, in that it should have remained quite limited as a Socialist-regulation model of Capitalism.

Also, fucker, I never said I was Libertarian.  I'm a citizen of the (now, "Old") Republic and I well admired the fine layer of Libertarian principles in there, with another layer of Socialism added in the 20th Century.  Fuck, it WORKED!  Capitalism was working JUST FINE in the style of Elbert Hubbard.

But, what that good enough for the rich?  OHHHH NOOOO!  The rich fuckers decided that they weren't making enough money paying their taxes, and they started an outright revolt against the supremacy of Populist control of the mechanisms of government.  Now, the Republic has been literally destroyed, and an Empire stands in its place.  The so-called government at all levels is actually a huge, Corporate Profits Assurance Agency.

If you really want to know what you fuckbags lost, read Major General Butler's "war is a racket" speech excerpts.  The industrialists had always sought to undermine the Republic to some degree, and in the early 1930s they attained significant control (largely from causing the largest financial crash in history at the time) ... which became essentially complete control in WWII with the outright dominance of what Ike called the "military-industrial complex".  Instead of being citizens of a Republic, we've been subjects of an Empire ever since.

And you turds DARE to complain about "centrally-planned economies"!  Shit, look around!  Corporate welfare in the USA stands at 3 times the amount spent on all individual welfare programs in the nation.  WHY THE FUCK DO WE GIVE MONEY TO THE WEALTHY?

>>359
So Elbert Howard (or whoever) can suck higher quality male prostitute cocks. To improve diversity or whatever.