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.
And so we may conclude on the libertarianism issue that IN THE REAL WORLD its about as infallible as Stalinism, so shut the fuck up with your 'philosophising' on the matter, cos it just sounds like trolling to the rest of the world...
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-23 22:09
>>767
And pray tell whence this conclusion sprang from?
All your 'beliefs' are frankly fantastical, unfalsifiably bullshit, which like socialism will only ever work IN THEORY. Libertarianism has failed (epically)- its the main cause of the abomination thats known as globalisation and has (when combined with all other Capitalist systems) caused COUNTLESS times more millions of deaths than any Commy or Nazi regime could have dreamt of acheiving.
Only difference is that libertarians, like other capitalists- won't fucking grow up and accept responsibility for what they do (and they get away with it purely because all the horrors that ensue because of them are caused "indirectly". E.g. when a poor countries economy is arse-raped due to 'libertarian' corperations and their people starve to death as a direct result libertarians simple say that starvation killed them- not their own actions).
Therefore in conclusion- yes libertarianism is NOT infallible.
Name:
The mighty Bob2008-01-24 18:49
Lol- the libatari-fags are getting owned :)
- Libertarianism: Where markets are free, but people are not.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-24 21:34
>>769
I explained earlier in this thread that libertarianism is a science not a theory, if a theory is disproved this is documented and accounted for already by libertarians. This is due to the fact that libertarians are pro free speech and as a result anything you can fathom to criticise libertarianism, criticism being always welcome, has been reviewed and analysed 50 times before. It's like a pro martial artist vs a basement dweller pretending to be a ninja.
So let us take a look at the issues you raised.
Globalisation: Why should borders impede trade? Globalisation is a good thing. Globalisation does not cause inequality, it highlights inequality that pre-existed before people came into frequent contact with each other, don't shoot the messenger. Countries don't get poorer due to globalisation, for instance poverty rapidly decreased in China over the past decade and outsourcing providing jobs to 3rd worlders that pay higher than most of their employee's pre-globalised parent's jobs.
Libertarians support a capitalist economic system.
Many deaths occurred under governments which used a capitalist economic sytem.
Libertarians are responsible for said deaths.
100% of nazis and communists believed 1+1=2
Many deaths occurred under nazi and communist governments.
The belief 1+1=2 is responsible for said deaths.
Corporations starving people to death, throwing orphans out into the snow etc..: Libertarianism is not just about economic freedom but also political and social freedom. If a government does not have enough safeguards against corruption then it is not libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-25 5:43
Fair enough then. In that case governments who claim to be libertarian (at least to an extent) need to start imposing these safe-guards, so as to diminish the problem.
Name:
The mighty Bob2008-01-25 23:04
Libertarianism simply doesn't work. When previous posters have made this point you have stated that any flaws in current government systems are simply due to libertarianism not being properly employed. By that note Communism is infallible. It would be equally valid to say that communism simply hasn't been employed properly and so in your next post I expect you to explain why communism is infallible. If you fail to do so I will be forced to assume that your line of argument (which defends libertariansim in this exact same way) is void.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 0:46
>>772
Which government are you talking about specifically? >>773 Libertarianism is inapplicable. Libertarianism began pretty much with some of the best philosophers and political scientists of the mid 18th century sitting around a table and deducing the best way to get rid of tyranny. They deemed that fear is the greatest tool of a tyrant and that it is used directly to control people, thus the greatest tool to oppose tyranny is to eliminate fear through the belief that death is preferable to a life under tyranny and to define tyranny as being the infringement of liberty. It is absurd to compare it with a fallacious ideology that failed so miserably to prevent tyranny for most of the 20th century.
That said libertarianism does have theories like communism, however most of these are untested unlike communism which has had astronomically more attention. Furthermore libertarians believe these theories should be implemented through consent via representative government and should not conflict with any safeguards against tyranny, those who do not are severely crticised due to the obviousness of their hypocracy.
Also libertarianism covers 100s of different issues so there are bound to be a few which are branded inapplicable.
There are theories which are succesful such as representative government, free speech and emancipation, however since they have have been adopted by every other succesful political body and today are taken for granted many are unaware of their basis.
There are those which have been used and are beneficial but not enough to prevent the average person from believing the fallacies and abuse of emotions used by opponents, these include the free market and individual freedoms such as the right to grow and smoke marijuana, bear arms and be a homosexual.
There are untested theories that are branded as outlandish despite their rational basis such as a market based tax system and privatising traditionally state operated services. Then there are fringe theories that do not have a clear rational basis but which some libertarians support, commonly anarcho-capitalist theories such as privatising the courts and law enforcement. These exist purely due to the pro free-speech nature of libertarianism which allows anyone to share the fruits of their intellect with the group, you are free to criticise them but it should not reflect on theories which are unrelated to them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 0:54
>>773
O haha, by "Libertarianism is inapplicable.", I meant that as the title. I am responding to the claim that libertarianism is inapplicable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 6:24
Apparently the libertarian doctrine is to cry on the intertubes until everyone is pissed off to the point they leave the country voluntarily.
There're only three types of terrorist organizations:
1. communist revolutionaries
2. Islamists
3. nationalists aka wannabe dictators
Where're all the libertarians who fight for a "better world"?
It's certain that such a radical change won't happen democratically because there are people who'd profit from a communist system, Keynesian economics, theocracy etc. and they're not going to vote for you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 11:48
When Libertarians (or any third party) achieve enough success at a governor/congressional level that their policies are nationally recognizable and understandable as different from the other two parties, then and only then will they have a shot at a position like the White House.
Top-down reform is like creationism: just because you want to believe in it doesn't make it plausible.
how the fuck is this thread still going? this thread = fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 2:36
Under libertarianism, with economic control going to private organisations, corporations would eventually be too powerful, crushing individual liberties and dominating the political scene as well unless a true free market could be acheived. The chances of that not working are pretty good.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 20:30
>>776
Communist revolutionaries? Islamists? Nationalists aka wannabe dictators? This is America not Somalia, context pls. Besides libertarians have George Washington, Milton Friedman, the culpepper minute men, Reagan, William Tell, the chicago boys and William Wallace are legendary libertarian figures.
A good example of someone who promises radical change in America is Barak Obama whom is making "change" his election platform. Putting aside the fact that change is ambiguous and not inherantly good for a second, but what is he changing anyway? More welfare? More taxes? How is that new? The majority don't profit from a mixed economy, it is just difficult for people to acknowledge real alternatives but with libertarians like Ron Paul getting 20%+ in the primaries more and more people are understanding the reasonning behind libertarian principles.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 20:34
Besides George Washington, Milton Friedman, the culpepper minute men, Reagan, William Tell, the chicago boys and William Wallace are legendary libertarian figures.*
bleh...
>>779
Wrong, it would take billions to bribe the hundreds of local governments in order to enact an unconstitutional law throughout the country under a libertarian system. With all crony capitalists removed competition would be so fierce companies could not afford to do anything other than suck on the cocks and clits of their employees and customers.
Fucking retards. Libertarianism is awesome if you are in the richest 10-20% of the country, yet funnily most of its supporters are retarded uneducated burger king workers who think it will be good because "they won't have to pay for the niggers' welfare".
And oh, to the idiotic drones in this thread, please lern2macroeconomy - it's sad, really.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 12:47
>>782
Sorry, we libertarians don't do macroeconomics, they're an attempt to control the free market, the only way we can have a completely free market is by having NO rules or regulations, and being completely oblivious.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 13:35
>>782
Which macroeconomics do you talk about?
Most theories support the libertarian view with Keynesianism being the only exception as it advises deregulation only when a recession is coming.
Methinks you're a communist retard who mistakes ramblings of a delusional jew with macroeconomic theory.
libertarians seem to live in this fantasy world where the US is a magical land where the free market rules and the the rest of the world doesn't matter. seriously, like all dumbass utopian dreamworlds, libertarian = fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 3:13
>>783
Ummmm.
Then there would be no distinction AT ALL between micro and macro economics.
Libertarian Laissez Faire is Strictly Micro Economics, name some of these "most theories" where libertarian microeconomics is simply extended to the macro level?
Here's a hint, it doesn't, it starts to break down and have interesting phenomena that are not totally dependent on supply/demand.
Under your theory, why does unemployment exist above the natural rate of unemployment? Why are some prices "sticky"?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 3:17
Money has to stay with the wealthy or else.
They'll cry. In some cases, for the first time ever.
unemployment exists above the natural rate of employment exists because of unions and government regulations.
The same are the reason for most sticky prices. In the free market we libertarians desire, the only thing that migth remotely cause sticky prices would be cost barriers to entering some markets, but granting we are dealing with the free market here, those effects would be diminished.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 7:46
yeah those pesky unions and regulations, enforcing minimum wages and forcing companies to find cheap labor in other countries where people will work for pennies, americans should be willing to work for pennies in order to compete
>>792
Quit whining. If your job provides the same economic benefits as some illegal immigrant you are going to get paid the same, either unionise with the illegal immigrants or go to community college.
>>794
Congrats on being a retard who didn't get a very simple post.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 12:03
>>791
This is both an incorrect use of the English language, and an unsupported fantasy.
Making the declarative statement that "unemployment exists... for x reason" is a logical fallacy. Congrats on baby's first political opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-14 10:03
>>795
So you weren't being sarcastic? >>796
He said "unemployment exists above the natural rate of employment exists because of unions and government regulations" not "unemployment exists because of unions and government regulations".
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 9:17
Even so caled socialist nations continue to slide towards libertarianism. Libertarians do not claim to see the destination they are travelling to, they merely deduce the best direction to follow. Socialists on the other hand strive for a purely theoretical utopia based on the murmurrings of a schitzophrenic in the mid 19th century, this is not very logical.
Most Western countries are becoming more and more authoritarian.
The welfare class in many Western countries has become so large that even once classical liberal and conservative parties pander to them.