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.

>>680

True that. It's also not often that someone would right a post as pointless as this.

Oh, wait, what am I saying? This is 4chan.

>>681

*write

>>681
But it's true. Despite the fierce criticism this forum provides, none have even scratched the infallibility of libertarianism.

Ok so libertarianism is indeed infallible. How are we going to educate the world about this?

You stupid assholes. You fucking dumbshits. I know the real reason why you whine incessantly about how all libertarians are evil capitalists.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with your capitalist dystopia where workers are hosed down and tear gassed in the streets for protesting and you know this. There would be no restrictions on worker's rights to strike, right to bear arms or set up worker's councils under a libertarianism as it is about not permitting the state to interfere with people's lives. You would have every chance to set up your socialist utopia if you could get enough people to participate, but that's the problem isn't it. You know that most of the country would choose the free market economy over an economy run by "worker's councils". Your pathological hatred of libertarianism stems from the fact that it does not force the entire country to abide by your rules and you know that's the only way you can create your socialist/anarchist/communist utopia.

>>685

Uh, maybe there wouldn't be enough people to support it in America, but if you look at, for example, Latin America, it's clearly not, as is clearly observable by simply looking at the election results.

>>686
Most of them don't know what socialism is and can't do anything after their promises are broken.

>>685
ANARCHY IS TOTES ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE DO THINGS!!!

This topic is fail because any political system is infallible when it's entirely hypothetical. I can't believe you fuckers keep this shit going

>>688
"any political system is infallible"
Wrong. For instance Anarchism ignores the fact that the state is necessary to provide law enforcement to protect liberty.

anarchism is the absense of a political system, ergo not actually a political system itself.  lose.

>>690
There is no causal link between that and "lose".

>>687 I'd be able to take your argument a lot more seriously if Hugo Chávez didn't keep getting re-elected, and Brazil and Argentina and a number of other countries didn't elect far-left governments in recent years as well.

The reason Latin America's economy was in the shitter for twenty years is because the IMF was forcing its fundamentalist free-market-worship bullshit on their governments, which resulted in their markets being flooded with cheap goods from overseas where governments were allowed to offer their people healthcare and subsidise their business efforts. When they told the IMF to fuck off, started subsidising their workers, and created their own trade agreement among each other, their economies started to recover.

>>689 I don't know any anarchist who proposes that the state be stripped down to eliminate law enforcement at this point. Anarchism mandates a completely different structure of society in which actions would be undertaken consensually by that society as a whole. If a person were to commit violent crimes, he would likely be outcast from the society; on the other hand, victimless crimes would be completely eliminated, and since under many hypotheses of anarchism all property would be shared, it would be impossible for theft to become a problem in those cases.

Like I said, though, I don't know a single anarchist who proposes that be implemented in modern society; all of them I've spoken to advocate direct change from the individual level up to the top.

>>692

But you are neglecting that if someone is outcast from society they will still commit violent crimes.  Also, historically when "all property would be shared, it would be impossible for theft to become a problem" ideology is implemented in modern times, it fails again and again.  Case in point : communism

>>692 Not if they can't get into a society to commit the violent crimes in the first place.

Also, communism wasn't anarchism. The elitist and heirarchical system of government combined with the corrupt implementation of its legal system destined it to failure.

>>694

Do we put big walls around 'a society?'  I really can't understand what outside of imprisonment or corporeal punishment could stop a human being from getting a weapon and doing damage with it.

True.  But there are numerous other problems with the 'shared property' theory that are so obvious I don't feel the need to point out.

Walls, or posted guards, or a number of other things. There's also the matter that those who commit violent crime are either insane or desperate, and the aim of anarchism generally includes removing the causes of such people's desperation. The rest could probably be treated, though it would likely require some form of coercion to do so.

Also, I agree that shared property is highly unlikely to work out; however, it's also never actually been tried. I'm much closer to Proudhon's model of a society where property is consensually laid out between all members of a society, but honestly even most people I know who want property eliminated don't really care about things like houses and toothbrushes.

>>696
uh, native americans weren't too big on property, especially real estate but pre-columbian american cultures often had little/no concept of ownership of property.

>>692
Since Venezuelans are only getting a token level of welfare where is the rest of the state's nationalised oil wealth going? Also while he has fulfilled some promises like prince controls and illegalising working longer than 6 hours, these are ridiculous polices that only result in empty shelves and failing industries respectively in exchange for no reduction in poverty whatsoever.

The IMF proposed economic freedom, but not personal freedom or political freedom. In order to be classified as libertarian you need all 3.


"If a person were to commit violent crimes, he would likely be outcast from the society"
This is usually, but not always, the case for 1 individual. However for a group of young men who have banded together their functional military power is too much for a community to resist. Your anarchist utopia would end there.

Take a look at the projects where there are many African Americans or Hispanic illegal immigrants where these primitive military arrangements exist and are called "gangs". Even though these gangs are willing to sacrifice much of their effectiveness for morale related purposes they have managed to exist and evade law enforcement for decades despite numerous arrests. There is no doubt in my mind that they would no longer act in a covert manner if law enforcement were to cease.

>>697
But if someone feasted on the dried meat that they saved for the winter they would have to be punished. Also in your walled anarchtopia where everyone shares property and is kicked out for commiting crime, isn't mob rule a type of law? It wouldn't be anarchtopia if the mob ruled. Perhaps if you grabbed some indoctrinated college anarchist fanatics it might not turn into mob rule for a while, but no group is 100% perfect, a small minority will act violently, start sexually molesting children etc... and the people affected by this crime will have stronger personal feelings over this than they have for anarchism and eventually mob rule will occur and the criminal will be punished by being thrown out.

>>699
uh, that made no sense.  wtf are you babbling on about?

>>700
If you know anything about native americans you would know that they dried meat to preserve it during the winter. If someone consumed too much dried meat before the winter then it meant others would suffer, so they must have had property laws against that.

>>701
all that babbling to make a bad analogy?  your logic is weak.

>>702
It was a good analogy, you said the native americans didn't have the concept of property and I have disproven you.

>>704
uh, no, that's not what I said.  what I said is, "they weren't too big on property, especially real estate," which is nothing like saying they didn't have the concept.  learn to read fucktard.

>>705
Then you didn't have a point to begin with. Property is vital to the functionning of any society in which it's members are capable of being unethical and depend on definable entities other than their bodies.

>>706
whatever, you're too stupid to have this conversation with.

>>707
"BAAAAAWWWW"
Crying harder won't change reality. You have no choice but to give up anarchism, all marxist lines of thought and become a libertarian.

If libertarians really think that corporations are more emboldened that government, please list a prominent corporation, and what legislation particularly emboldens it.  I want the specific law, with the specific corporate policy that capitalized on the passing on said law.

>>709
The existence of the federal reserve.

>>710
the federal reserve was set up because the market alone fails so hard.

>>711
The Federal Reserve was set up as a headway for interventionism and WW1, and has been from the start an UTTER FAILURE.

>>708
OHHH MARXIST OOOHHH MARXIST
You post on fucking 4chan, any flames coming from you are automatically nullified due to you living in your mom's basement and jacking off to furry porn.

If libertarianism is so fucking great, maybe I should see you with millions of dollars on television, considering your wise and enlightened political knowledge must correlate to real world success.

Libertarianism sucks, because you suck.
Libertarianism is fallible, because all the people who follow it are pretentious faggots.

>>706
Right, because I own my body, forces that are far beyond my control cannot possibly influence or even control my life.

Lolbertarians are fail. SOMEONE DELETE THIS FAGGOT SHIT

>>713
I am a bachelor of economics, completed my series 7 earlier this year and currently work as an investment consultant, I have accumulated approximately of $100000 in stock and $400000 in options. I am 26 years old.

>>714
Property is not defined as the bare minimum corporeal entity needed for your to survive, you don't need your leg to survive any more than you need your internets.

>>712
Uh, no, it was set up in response to the Panic of 1907, another in  a long line of financial crises in the US due in part to having no central bank.  you're aparently too stupid to use wikipedia.  or you're a liar.  either way, you're a worthless piece of shit.

>>716
The panic was caused by state intervention in the economy.

>>717
the state didn't intervene in shit back then, you are a lying sack of shit.

The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis in the United States. Its primary cause was a retraction of loans by some banks that began in New York and soon spread across the nation, leading to the closings of banks and businesses.

To answer this simply, Libertarianism works because it is the belief in self regulation. If you do not like you do not have to do it. Outside of a few social contracts like, not murdering someone, not speeding, etc. Libertarianism is the core belief that if it does not work, IMMEDIATELY fix it, instead of waiting years. It is the ideal that self is first and everything else is second.
The argument that charity would not exist is false. The ideal that the poor would die, is FALSE. Why? Because there are plenty of people in this country who gain self gratitude from simply helping other people.

>>718
The banks didn't want to compete with the new trusts that were coming onto the scene so they whined and cried to congress and the OCC to over-regulate them, the government at the time was heavily socialist with many corrupt dealings between those in positions of economic power and the state.

Also the great panic did not result in a depression that lasted a decade, the market simply buckled up, maturely took the recession and waited till stock was lower than actual value before becomming bullish. You can be thankful towards the fluidity of the free market for this.