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.

>>479
I understand your point, but you cannot dismiss that the miners themselves (having the right to being armed in America) are potentially a bigger force of armed goons than the mine owners can muster.  Handguns and ammo are cheap and very transportable and concealable.

Modern gayfaggotry makes it seem that the American public is just a set of plums, ready to be plucked.  The 1930s demonstrated that even disarmed, American workers stood up for their natural rights of directing the major vector of their labor.  Those times can return; arguably, they MUST return since a similar financial collapse (i.e. Depression) is returning itself.

>>477
I love the knee-jerk reaction to playing the OMG MARXIST card, but seriously, I'd suck Marx's cock clean if the opportunity presented itself!

this is why i vote independent... hmm... what lame name shall i put on the ballot this time?

libertarianism is epic win

lol libertarianism

What truths are self-evident?

>>486
"We hold these truths as self evident" ... and then there's a list that few people can or will remember.

Doesn't matter if libertarianism "fails" to help poor people. In the end, no one person has the inherent authority to force me to do something against my will.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.
Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

>>488

and what are the wolves? fucking ignorant idiot.

libertarianism is just less retarded anarchy

>>490
Anarchists don't live under the delusion that their fringe political belief is "Science" and that pseudo-religious "Market Forces" will deliver us from evil.

Voting is an obstruction of Liberty. It must be abolished.

The very notion that one man is equal to one vote and that a leader should be elected based on the will of the majority is a deeply socialistic notion to the core.

Market forces will do a far better job at selecting which leader is best for the economy, and hence the best leader for all Americans.

>>491
Truth!

>>492

weeeerd

>>490
Have you ever tried getting an anarchist to explain how their ideal would work? All I've been greeted with is "how do you know it wouldn't work!" and "if people would just..." arguments.
>>491
Libertarianism is derived using scientific method, if it isn't you should be able to contend that assertion. Under a libertarianism you don't need to make financial decisions based on market forces if you don't want to, therefore libertarianism has no pseudo-religious stance on market forces.
>>492
Voting is a method of representation. It can be utilised to prevent tyranny.

The notion that one person is equal to one vote and that a leader should be elected based on the will of the majority has many flaws but is much better than tyranny.

A democracy with strong libertarian parties will do a far better job at selecting which policies are best for all Americans.

>>491-494
Same person.

>>495

"if people would just vote libertarian" then huh? durr hurr.
the scientific method is unsuitable for devising a political theory, as politics is people and you can't do experiments that live up to the scientific method with people. sure, in the libertarian world you don't have to make financial decisions based on the market forces if you don't to, then maybe society would change, oh wait, is that where we are today? *Gasp* i guess it is.

>>496
Saying "if people would just vote libertarian" is a fallacious argument as it is hypothetical. However saying "we can convince enough people to vote libertarian through good policy and rational debate" is a valid argument as it is factual, anarchists have no factual arguments.

You were too stupid to think what I said through, you have embaressed yourself. In order to make yourself a better person you must recognise you have a problem. Admit you are stupid.

This thread is beginning to suck. The critics of libertarianism are just repeating the same shit over and over. Why is it so difficult to admit you are wrong? No one is holding anything against you so there is no reason to have a grudge against libertarians.

>>498

an emotive response?  how scientific.

>>499
It's a fact that you are repeating the same old shit over and over. Therefore >>498 is merely a scientific response with an emotive edge.

Communism is the application of science to economics. It's science, it's all based on scientific grounds. All political philosophers consider it fundamental and foundational on scientific principles. It's scientific.

Shut up. Libertarianism is no more different than Conservatism or Liberalism. They are tried and true doctrines of politics and neither of them should profess some "scientific advantage" because saying such things is only illusory.

Libertarianism would never work. We have seen it in the early 20th Century when the rich and the poor were the only classes.

It took FDR and his New Deal to create a vibrant Middle Class.

>>501
FDR prolonged the great depression. Advances in technology and freedoms created a vibrant middle class as the need and social mobility to generate a diversely skilled workforce arose.

>>502

i see words in your post but when i tried to read them all i got was "WONK WONK WONK WAK WONK WAK WOOOONNNKKK!"

>>503
Learn to read and get back to us.

>>502
That would be a pretty mediocre argument if any of the premises were true.

>504

WAK WAK WONK WAK WONK

>>503

i lol'd XD

The negative heath effects of lead were well known in the 1910s when oil companies started adding it to gasoline.  Leaded gasoline had the ability to reduce engine knocking, which was notoriously bad in the early age of automobiles.  To the heartless and uncaring, the advantages were unquestionable.  Unsurprisingly every major gasoline manufacturer in the world was soon adding lead to the mix.

Again, there was no debate about the effects of lead.  People inside and outside the oil companies readily agreed that it caused birth defects, retardation, learning disabilities, joint problems, poisoning and even cancer and neurological damage.  Mechanics and automotive workers were particularly susceptible, and showed a much higher rates of illness. Yet trillions of gallons of leaded gasoline were put into the air decade after decade.

Atmospheric lead rates soared for over sixty years.  The whole planet was literally being poisoned.  There was an outcry from the public.  Petition after petition was sent to no effect.  The invisible hand of the market could only limply hold the impotent, flaccid cock of the oil industry.

Lead wasn't removed from gasoline until the 1980s, when President Reagan and a Democratic controlled congress passed a federal law that allowed EPA to regulate leaded gasoline.  Regulation worked where the free market failed.  With the new tool at its disposal, the EPA promptly banned lead from automotive gasoline and moved to ban it from all other types as well.  But the airlines had a tantrum and to this day, leaded gasoline is still used in aircraft fuels.

The Moral Of The Story: Libertarians are smoking crack when they say their idiot political system can reduce environmental dangers.  For every success story like the Chinese toy recall, theres a thousand others that the public to too stupid to pay any attention to.  We need the willingness of Congress along with the concentrated expertise of the federal bureaucracy to regulate these complex issues. There's so much behind the scenes invisible hard work involved.  Sure people complain, but most countries would kill to have our FDA or EPA.  We need to straighten these institutions, not weaken them.

90% of the libertarians are humanities majors who don't even understand the complexity of what's involved.  They take an objectivist, Ayn Rand "i got mine fuck everyone else" view of the world.  Also they're all faggots.

We can do better.

Don't vote Ron Paul 2008.

>>498
libertarians keep saying the same thing over and over, of course normal rational people have to repeat themselves when explaining to the libertarians that they are retarded.

>>509
Many seemingly unique criticisms have been brought up against >>1. Unfortunately they all lie within the following criteria.

· Lack of understanding of the reasonning behind libertarianism.
· Poor interpretation of facts.
· Immorality.
· Strawman arguments better aimed at anarcho-capitalists.

To which a mere 4 counter-arguments are required, tailorred for the particular discussion.

Spoiler: Libertarianism is the result of a bunch of people who one day supposed "What would I come up with if I used logic to solve all my problems?".
Spoiler: Science requires that you induce arguments from the facts, not that you induce facts from what you want others to believe
Spoiler: You can be immoral if you want, but I don't have eternity to spend on Earth and I recognise that other peopel are sapient. This is why compassionate conservatism is working so well.
Spoiler: Libertarianism ≠ anarcho-capitalism.

>>510

and i'll ahve to say this again, making a system based purely on facts and logic is a) ideological, and b) impossible

But somehow libertarians constantly go "omg, libertarianism isn't an ideology" well it fucking obviously is?

most ideologies are based on facts, how you interpret the facts however, gives way for some discussion.

>>511
So what should we use to make a system? Mysticism?

Libertarianism holds free speech highly and is open to criticism, this can be contrasted with political movements which may be based on logic and some facts but are never open to debate.

marx was a jew, trotsky was a jew as were 90% of the people in the bolshevik revolution, they never cared about equality all they did was enslave and kill millions of russians all in the name of 'equality'

i want the OP to know that this thread has convinced me to never, ever vote Libertarian. 

>>510

So come on, generate empirical data that supports "Libertarianism" or any other political doctrine and then you can say it's based on scientific/logical principles.

Stop using the word science to make it seem as though Libertarianism not only has the best approach to economics and politics but also it's empirically the BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

If it was THE BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, the truth of it would be a priori and almost all Governments would choose to embrace it.

It's the same argument for Democracy. Pro-Democratic spokesmen will say that it's the best form of Governance because it's representative of the wishes of the Governed. But tell that to a theocracy, or people in a theocracy, and they will without doubt disagree.

There is no single economic or political doctrine that works better than another so long as that people are content.

>>515
All long term government interference in the economy other than law enforcement has been corruptive. Libertarian principles form the core of all succesful 1st world democracies.

Libertarianism is the best system of government because that is what has been determinned by science.

Libertarianism is not the best form of government for states seeking to abuse their power, this is why many governments do not "embrace" it.

[sarcasm]Maybe we should ditch democracy then, since the theocrats might be right. Maybe we should not bother following any movements whatsoever, if the theocrats disagree with us on one thing it means we could be wrong so we must give up immediately.[/sarcasm]

A system of government whereby people elect parties who determine laws democratically and under criticism from other parties works better than a system of government which forces everyone to wear butt plugs and are enslaved under the transvestite god king redcream.

>>516
"works better" is an entirely subjective opinion, which can only be supported when it meets subjectively chosen criteria

If a theocracy can argue that it guides it's citizens into an afterlife paradise, and the citizens agree with it, they can argue that it "works better" in terms of getting it's citizens their just metaphysical desserts.

If you don't like the situation under a democracy due to your "two wolves" clause, then fucking go to the land of sheep, nobody is stopping you.

>>517
It is an objective opinion. Forcing people to join a religion causes sufferring and therefore is evil. Under a libertarian democray people of that religion would be able to worship just as freely as they would under a theocracy of that religion, the difference being if they change their minds they will not be executed by the state.

i showed this thread to my friend and now he's never, ever going to vote libertarian

>>519
He probably just said that so you'd shut the fuck up about it.