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.

>>432
Libertarianism is not a utopia or unrealistic.
Communism and other ideals dictate how people should act in order for the utopia to work. Libertarianism is the opposite, it asks what they want and uses self-evident principles to mediate between everyone's different desires to facilitate the greatest happiness. Under libertarianism you can have your communism, just so long as you don't force it on anyone else.

>>432
>>433
Inequality.
If you set out to eliminate the causes of inequality eventually you would have to kill everyone to make them equal. Logically inequality is not a cause, it's an effect, even if inequality creates the perception that there is no hope or whatever it's those perceptions that are the cause not inequality itself. It is the epitome of stupidity to not understand the facts you are using before you've even begun. You must look at as many causes of inequality as you can, then you must look at ALL of the effects, not just the effect of inequality, and then judge whether that cause should be changed, reduced or removed. There is a bigger gap between the rich and the poor in South Korea than in North Korea, but where would you rather live?

>>432
"i just don't find it very human"
Under libertarianism you can team up with some like minded people and go out to live in the wilderness or whatever you mean by "very human". You just aren't allowed to persecute ethnic minorities or force people who believe civilisation is important and want to see where science leads to do the same as you.

>>433
>>434
Also bear in mind a large portion of our "labour power" comes from other countries which have lower or no minimum wage whom we trade with, as noble as some might think minimum wage is, all it achieves is economic inefficiency and international disparity at least until we can unify the world which isn't necessarily desirable and doesn't look as if it will happen any time soon. We could either refuse to trade with companies unless they pay their workers a minimum wage equal to our own in which case we would quickly find out this particular policy in our economic model is unsustainable or we could decrease or scrap minimum wage. Decreasing minimum wage also increases the jobs employers can provide for our citizens, employers have to pay at least the bare minimum needed for someone to stay functional and with modern technology this is much more easier than 65 years ago. Also under libertarianism there would be absolutely no restrictions on forming unions, strikes or protests of any sort unless the people there break natural laws. Under socialism all unions are run by the bloated state, under evil kkkapitali$m unions are broken up by faceless riot police who are authorised to use excessive violence.

That being said if a libertarian president was elected in 2008, minimum wage would not disappear overnight, it would slowly be phased out after considerable and lengthy debate.

The libertarians are missing a certain point:

In the free market there are forces IN EVERY DIRECTION.

So there is A FORCE PUSHING WAGES DOWN,
and A FORCE PUSHING WAGES UP.

JUST BECAUSE A FORCE PUSHING WAGES UP EXISTS
DOESN'T MEAN THAT WAGES WON'T SUCK

THE EQUILIBRIUM = RANDOM

>>442
Duh. That's why I pointed out the forces keeping wages up because all these retards were reading straight out of "Das Kapital" the obvious fact that people with no money work for low wages. What Marx didn't realise was that by forcing everyone to be equal he is ruining the economy and making everyone worse off along with handing too much power to the state. The only way to ensure "equality" is through the invisible hand of the free market, libertarianism permits tax free privatise unions and communes and permits the means for their defense and a simple bureaucracy that leaves no skeptics as to who owns what. In effect libertarianism for the average worker is privatised communism and it works.

>In effect libertarianism for the average worker is privatised communism and it works.

Sure, as long as "privatized communism" is defined as "working for $2 an hour because it's not like you have any other choice besides being a survivalist out in the (nonexistent) wilderness".

>>444
What's wrong with being a survivalist?

>>444
Also they would be paid more than $2.

>>446
Okay fine $3. Still, non-shareowners like you and I will be royally screwed. But hey, at least you'll be "free"!

i just started reading from the start

in fact, libertarianism is impossible to be proven wrong
but because of the libertarianism is always right

you cant prove it wrong because when you do, it can change to become right, but thats why libertarianism will never fail and always go on to be right, because it is not a set ideology, unlike marxism which gets stopped in its tracks when it reaches a problem.

libertarianism is made to build upon problems, it is like a person taught to think critically and not by a fixed set of rules where the procedure might always be different

>>447
For unskilled labour wages will be a little higher than similiar workers in other parts of the world, you buy products from countries with no or lower minimum wage everyday so you ought to commit suicide in shame if you truly believe minimum wage is the thin line between good and evil.

If you have a skill your wages would be much higher, taxes would be much lower, employers stand to gain more profit for scarce employees and wages increase. There is also the fact that there are literally NO restrictions on forming trade unions or on the free flow of capital, making it easier for the average person to make investments. The only thing keeping the profits of allocating capital in the hands of a few brokers are endless state regulations and a nationalised currency. If things were to change you would see these profits spread across the general populace. All you have to do is work very hard.

Vote Ron Paul.

>>448

too bad libertarianism is a set ideology then isn't it, sort of makes your thread moot.

>>449
If you have a skill your wages would be much higher
No.  Remember that the consumer-spending driven economy has collapsed because most people spend their small wages on food and a place to live.  Less automation is used because hey, people are cheap, so productivity is down too.  And you've got lots of poor suckers training for your skill hoping to take your job.

The only thing keeping the profits of allocating capital in the hands of a few brokers
Of course, if you've got money you can start a business prety easy.  What's your market?  Well, ignore 50% of the population, they don't have any money anyway.  Why don't you make a luxury good for the wealthy?  With the profits you can buy some apartment buildings and make money from the other 50% too.  Of course, if you don't have money, why should someone lend you some?  There are enough wealthy business people, let them start a business.

NO restrictions on forming trade unions
UNIONISTS?  Anti-free market socialists who want to extort money from your business?  If you even HEAR RUMORS that someone in your shop is suspected of union activity, FIRE HIM RIGHT AWAY.  If your whole shop is unionized, just fire all of them!  Workers aren't scarce.

This seems like a more likely direction than some utopia.  I mean, look at history!  Look at most near-100% free market countries!  The main reason China is doing so well is they are selling stuff to THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS.

>>450
You caould call Libertarianism the ideal of being logical, adapting when necessary and everything that springs from that. Though a lot of political movements claim to do the same libertarianism is the epitome of adaptability since it's foundations lay in letting people choose how they live.
>>451
No. The economy would not change substantially, it means that the market for the same industries dependany on cheap labour conveniently outside our borders will move in. Unskilled labourers may earn less, but goods would be cheaper as we don't need to import food, support illegal immigrants and migrant workers and spend billions policing them to make sure they go back. Automation can be uneconomical and this isn't the 18th century, we have an enormous amount of motivation to advance technology there are entire markets based on creating valuable patents to fund future discoveries. If it is cheaper to have a worker pick apples, the gdp per capita increases as the machinery support resources can be used to increase overall productivity. It may put me at a disadvantage having to compete with more people, but this only provides me with motivation to improve myself which would concern my superiors making them more efficient to prove they are worth their salary. There would be an improvement throughout the economy.

Spoiler: People do lend people money to start businesses, they just don't hand it out to anyone.
Of course, if you have a the skills, determination and a valid investment opportunity you can gain the interest of a business person, perhaps even your employer, and begin an enterprise with a starting share of the company equal to the worth your skills add to it. If the business grows you will also possess a decent sum of cash along with the wealthy, even if it is all tied up in stocks. This easier under a libertarian system as the only restriction on the exchange of capital would be the fee banks set for ensuring deals are negotiated lawfully.

UNIONISTS! Alone a worker does not have much negotiating power and an employer can just go to each worker and say "low wages or no job lol". Unions are a legitimate business arrangement which exploits the negotiating power of a united workforce. Unions attract members acting as their united voice and charge them a small fee each to pay for the think tank needed to make a negotiation, the union bureaucracy gathers information about the company and assesses the true value of it's members which it then demands.

I don't get it. The free market takes advantage of opportunities, if THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS has cash to spare and the Chinese can produce goods cheaper than their competitors then across the pacific spending power will migrate west and luxuries will migrate east and everyone's happy. What's wrong with this?

>>452

IF! there was a free market unions couldn't exist unless they were world-wide, and as >>451 said, people would simply hire non-unionists. Unions skewer the market because they artificially raise the minimum wage some workers are willing to work for, then it doesn't matter how they do it.

spoiler: a very little percentage of opened businesses make it big. Alot of them go bankrupt. You know what happens if you go bankrupt in libertarianland? you most likely never have a chance to do anything again. You'll have no credit rating. No way to get some of your loan removed, you'll have to do whatever job you can and pay off on your loan which is probably of a magnitude so that you'll be working for the rest of your life to pay off the loan.
That doesn't really sound like a situation i'd ever risk ending up in.

Different areas of the world will always have different advantages. Saying you wouldn't have to import food in a free market situation is pretty silly, unless you want to restrict the kind of foods sold to those being produced in the US, and that's not very free market is it.
 
"It may put me at a disadvantage having to compete with more people, but this only provides me with motivation to improve myself which would concern my superiors making them more efficient to prove they are worth their salary."

it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it. No thx i think i'll  pass on libertarianland so far.

>>453
IF! This is a common mode of thought amongst socialists who underestimate the tenacity of free market entrepeneurs! The reality is unions would take everything you have just said into account and use it as a factor which lowers the perceived value of their members. Unions would have a strong incentive to alter their policies to ensure businesses have no reason to do this as it affects their members financially, an idea which is just a gimmick for votes in the eyes of the state.

Spoiler: Don't gamble more than you can afford to lose.
Spoiler: Most failed businesses were set up by retards who didn't even research the market before making the decision.
Spoiler: Failed businesses are usually shut down intentionally and long before they go bankrupt and usually quite soon after they were set up.
Spoiler: Many now succesful business people have made stupid catastrophic mistakes in the past, bankruptcy included.

I didn't say you wouldn't have to import food, I was talking in the context of industries in this country which require less than minimum wage workers. With minimum wage the orange business is less profitable and less oranges are grown here, without minimum wage there is no need to ship workers to and from Guatemala and spend millions policing them, instead we can use American workers, they can live next to the orchards and Tropicana can make more profit.

"it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it"
Cry harder. Also consider the fact that if the government let you have more responsibility you would have a lot more confidence and determination to further your career. You might not care at the moment, but once you realise how rich you can be this life aspect becomes more evident.

>>it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE.

Work for your money. Either become educated and work where you are needed, less hours and hire wages, or wash my goddamn dishes.

Your choice. Nobody should feel sorry for you and your shitty life decisions.

>>455
LOL, this kid thinks he's the cat's meow.

>>456
cat's... cat's meow?

What do you guys think about Ron Paul. Is it good that he is tied to the libertarian wing of the republican party? It means more republicans will be interested in libertarian policies, but it also means possible libertarian voters will vote republican.

>>455
*higher

underage b&

>>459
How would demanding higher wages increase your chances of employment?

This thread must die.

>>460
If you know how to perform colonoscopies, you'll get paid more than the guy who can wash dishes or disinfect phones.

Amirite?

>>462
Yes.

>>462
So what?

If someone needs medicine but can't afford it and it would cost a person very little to give him the medicine but he doesn't want to just because that of that miniscule cost, libertarianism solves this issue by allowing the person who requires medicine to sign a deal with medicince providers to use the medicine on a loan and pay it back. The medicine provider who offers the best loan and highest quality medicine profits the most thus providing the incentive to find the most efficient means to achieve charity so people can spend their money on other things like a fine chardonnay.

STOP OUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT
ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 5TH 2007 STAND AND FIGHT
PAINT SIGNS BLACK...
TIP EVERYTHING POSSABLE....
EGG EVERYTHING...
DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT....
AND PASS THE WORD! POST THIS POST EVERY WHERE HUMANLY POSSABLE..
NOW GO!

>>466
I fail to see how any of this would help. Also you are not very clear as to what elements of the government are socialist and must be removed.

I think the libertarians would run the country better than the reps or dems for sure. If we have to have a 2 party system I'd rather there be more independants and the libs and greens were the 2 major parties.

>>466
wrong.

>>468
If I may, I offer a slight correction to your posting:  After decades of Repubs and Dems fucking up the Republic, Libertarians would run the country much better.  But heck, a fucking accountant can run the country better just by noticing that you have to balance the budget based upon income, not upon borrowing and theft.

America is now so fucked up politically, socially and financially, that an African warlord could make improvements merely from dismantling much of the system of fucked-up-edness.  However, Libertarians are at least sane and are civilized, so they should be given first crack at fixing the nation.

>>470
Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult. This is where libertarians come in.

>Libertarians are at least sane and are civilized

We have a comedian in our midst. Go read Forbes magazine and try to differentiate between warlord-style looting and libertarian-style voodoo economics. The only difference is that it's possible to convince morons that there's some imaginary benefit to libertarianism.

>>468
uh, no?

>>472
There is a certain truth in what you say, but there's otherwise no real comparison between an American Libertarian and an African Warlord.  What you're perhaps thinking are Libertarians are actually Big Government Republicans who rely on a huge government for not only their systematic looting, but also for abusing other classes in the nation to make sure they are weakened enough for further looting.  A real Libertarian doesn't ally himself with government like that.

>>474
The Cato institute had an article as to why Somalia is better off in its current situation than having a functional government.  Despite their worship of freedom, they seem to be ignoring the necessity of why social contracts are implemented.

At its core, libertarianism wants to abolish government so that large, multinational mega-corporations can institute entirely privatized societies, in which contractual "agreements" take precedence over what we consider human rights.  The mining town is an excellent example of this sort of control, shut up about safety or you lose your home. Despite the illusion of choice that free-marketeers spout constantly, human beings are not rational beings, and can be easily cowed into essential slavery.

And yes, I endorse gubbymint to intervene on their behalf, that some arbitrary entity knows whats best for them.  Because, as every libertarian will contend, republicanism is superior to democracy as it acts to reign in the "fickle people" of a true democracy.  Which is in effect saying, that elected representatives know what's best, rather than having a pure democratic decision making process. 

>>475
I didn't realize that the CI had gone so far off the deep end.  Not to be googlelazy, but do you have a link?

As for the mining-town paradigm, eventually the workers should rebel and take control of the means of production directly.  Sure, this is violent, but it's not like (in your same scenario) the police and military are going to step in, right?  You already said that the government would have been abolished by the Libertarians who purported to owns the means of production at first.

I agree that Republic-ism is superior to Democracy, and muchly so.  Democracy is merely a tyranny of the majority and Human societies require a baseline of rules for what's possible.

>>475
You can't seem to make you mind up as to whether libertarianism will end up like Somalia or 19th century Britain. Libertarianism is not capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. It has nothing to do with your marxist theories, much like reality has nothing to do with marx's theories.

Libertarianism is not about eliminating the state, it's about elininating what is unnecessary in the state. Occam's razor applied to political science.

Libertarianism is not about evil corporations, it is about freedom. Evil corporations who exploit their workers only exist because the state prevents the workers from utilising their negotiating power. Under a libertarianism there would be NO restrictions of this kind at all. All firearms would be widely distributed through the population. If there is a hand gun for every person in the US at the moment with almost stalinist levels of gun control think about how well armed the workers would be with no gun controls!

>>Libertarianism is not about evil corporations, it is about freedom. Evil corporations who exploit their workers only exist because the state prevents the workers from utilising their negotiating power.

Good luck. In my Hobbesian mindset I could never see a Government that doesn't pin its people down for interests with capital.

>>476
Who can afford a bigger cadre of armed goons? The mining boss, or the miners?

>>477
I love the knee-jerk reaction to playing the OMG MARXIST card, but seriously, marx drew his theories from the reality of his contemporary time, and from his interpretation of history as class-economics driven.  Marx was being rational in his analysis, he was looking at prior events and trying to extrapolate what would eventually happen.  It just turns out that he was wrong.