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.

>>800
You know, caps doesn't exactly prove yourself to be any sort of a credible person.

????Is Ron Paul prezident yet¿¿¿¿

>>801
Come back when you can find a reply to the countless arguments above, retard - though don't push yourself, if your masters couldn't find a legible excuse, chances are a moronic losers who gets caught on viral fads for "political thought", you can barely delude yourself.

>>1000 You sir, are a faggot.

>>9000

>>34
The environment has value beyond tourism, which most people fail to recognize. Marshlands and other ecosystems can filter water basically for free, this became apparent in NYC which decided to restore land nearby rather than build water more purification systems.

Natural lands are also carbon repositories, holding in carbon rather than releasing it. Mining and farming do not hold carbon in well.

Really, if air and water can be considered international resources, than why can't animals and plants (especially the endangered kind) also be considered international resources? What gives one person the right to kill wildlife, even if it's on their land?

>>799
Market forces are resolving this issue. Jobs are being outsourced, more and more R&D is done abroad, investment is haemorrhaging into asia and individuals who represent the future of innovation and technology are moving to where they won't face oppressive tax rates. 20% is just too much.
>>800
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
OH WOW AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU FUCKING BRAINLESS MORON AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I CAN'T STOP HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
>>801
get troll'd moar
>>802
Can you wait till 2012?
>>803
be specific moar
>>804
no u
>>805
?
>>806
Better still, turn the atmosphere into a market. People must pay someone to take the carbon out of the atmosphere that they put in. Then market forces can decide whether a marsh is better off as multi-million dollar real estate or a carbon depository.

>>807
cry more, ignorant retard

>>808
Oh noez.

>>807
Typical libertarian, witty, logical, just someone with a correct political opinion who knows he/she is right and isn't afraid to share it.
>>808
Trollfaggot, probably some socialist who just enjoys spouting 150 year old marxist rhetoric "OMG TEH EBIL CAPITALISTS EXPLOITING WORKERS".
Newflash: It never happenned.

>>810
Typical samefag, who is extremely ignorant and takes his opinions from retarded viral fads on the internets, and then makes pathetically hilarious statments about being "correct", "witty", and "logical" - which are all, in actuality, the ramblings of a deluded retard with no connection to factuality.

Also, lol@the rest of the ignorant crap you managed to squeeze in that post.

Dear "intelligent" HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAH-ahem libertarians.

Let me give an example,

Everyone who knows a bit about computing knows technologically RISC is superior to CISC - you probably have no idea on this subject, so take your time to google. Now, processors on almost all desktop computers use Intel, AMD etc. processors are CISC (essentially), because when the breakthrough in RISC was achieved, Intel jammed money into marketing and used monopolistic tactics, and the stupid customers who didn't know  shit about computers, bought the brand they knew about from the ads. 

So, how does free markets work in favor of humanity and not in favor of the guy with a shitload of cash, with reference to this example among countless, dear retards who are so eager to suck the cocks of your masters in the time you aren't busy flipping patties?

>>782
/thread

stop posting, faggots

All this OMG U R TEH STUPID crap is going nowhere. We must discuss facts in a factual manner to get to the heart of this issue.

>>812
Unnecessary state intervention in the economy is what prevents a lot of competition. Even within so called monopolies there are many investors and executives who stand to profit from a spinoff since they could easilly compete with the bloated morass and make millions for themselves that would otherwise go to their superiors. This usually occurs during the bear period of the business cycle when autonomy becomes more desirable. If the state interferes with market forces by trying to resist business cycles and control the money supply then monopolies persist.

>>813
It didn't end there. Macroeconomics is not a fluid business model, if the government steps in whenever there is a problem there is no incentive for the private sector to innovate and develop foresight. The state is only needed to ensure deals and transactions are followed through lawfully.

>>814
Wow, that's a really sad attempt at free-market apologetics, try again - but this time try to give an actual answer instead of crying, get to the point - mine was an example involving the company with capital surplus wins in a free market regardless of product being better, . This also goes for healthcare, but you got it 'covered' with the argument "I don't want to pay for nigger's health".

Also, way to fail on not knowing what macoreconomics is, and avoiding the point on the quoted post.

And hence, this is why "you are stupid" crap is going on, because you are too ignorant on the subjects you formulate an opinion on. Your opinions, are not products of genuine thinking, but just idle talk perpetrated by others, as described by Socrates in the Apology.

tl;dr libertarianism is a pipe dream, but unlike communism it doesn't even bother to promise a better world (except for a few), which its formulators know, but its drones don't.

>>815
I am truly amazed at how stating a simple series of facts can procure the worst of demagoguery possible from you. I fail to see how business cycles do not play a role in macro economics and why only statist ideologies are the only valid macro economic doctrines. Attribute this criticism to stupidity all you want, it won't it go away.

>>816
It's funny because it involves an ignorant retard refuting a valid field of economics just because he can't fit it in his narrow view of the world.

Reminds me of creationists and the ensuing hilarity when they attempt to sound scientific while refusing it.

>>817
So I refuted your argument and that means I am narrow minded?

>>818
you didn't refute the argument, you denied macroeconomics in your crying sequence, try again.

>>819
I did not deny macroeconomics.

>>815
>>817
>>819
Keynesian economics is just one of many lines of thought in macroeconomics.

>>820
Then you don't know it
>>821
Facepalm.png

>>822
So you admit that you are a statist who believes that macroeconomics should be monopolised (much like state monopolies on roads and education) solely by the branch of socialism called Keynesian economics.

>>823
Wow, your retardation and ignorance is summed up in this post. Not only that you misunderstood what was being meant again, if you think Keynesianism is socialist, then you clearly don't even have a fucking clue on what we are talking about, and that's why we are back to the point that libertarian drones are fucking retards who just babble without having knowledge over anything, which is the reason why they are gullible enough to be carried away by viral fads and how they can easily accept such retarded ideas.

>>824
Are you attempting to shit me reeses puffs for breakfast? Keynes announced clearly his belief that the state should interfere with market forces during the bear period of the business cycle in order to end unemployment. How is the belief that economic power should be in the hands of the state not a socialist belief?

>>825
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Not only you don't know what socialism is, (hello, state capitalism), you also don't know what Keynesian Economics is, like I stated in the other post and you went on all the way to prove your ignorance and humiliate yourself once again. I suggest you to at least bother to google before you make such retarded statements. We are discussing the macroeconomic portion of Keynesian theories, which suggests that gold/silver capital too plays a part in a nations' wealth, which is seen as a model which re-introduces portions from the disproved notion of Mercantilism. But, before everything, this discussion is irrelevant because the point was that according to ANY valid macroeconomic theory your dim interpretation of the neo-sheep herding ideology, Libertarianism, is wrong.

See, you can't do much without knowing shit and just spouting back the bullshit that was fed to you. Good day and enjoy your fail.

>>826
So your points are.
1: You don't know what socialism is.
2: You don't know what Keynesian Economics is.
3: Gold/silver capital plays a part in a nations' wealth.
4: According to any valid macroeconomic theory, libertarianism is wrong.

1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
2: Keynesian economics is a field which observes how macroeconomic state intervention through blanket policies, such as interest rates, affects the economy. Proponents believe they can solve problems, such as unemployment, by lowerring interest rates to promote growth. In truth all this does is upset market forces and cause people to make uneconomical decisions that reduce the overall value of the economy. The sub-prime mortgage crisis for example was caused by an extended period of low interest rates following the dot com bubble and 9/11 enacted by the socialist bush administration.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_conservative_origins_of_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis
3: Everything plays a part in the nation's wealth. Be more specific.
4: Every macroeconomic theory implies analytically that other theories are invalid. This however is not the measure of whether a theory is valid or not. One must prove that Keynesian economics is valid before it can be implied that a laissez faire approach, state intervention caused the great depression after all.

>>827
1- Whoops, no - and I had put "state capitalism" in there to make it easy for you to comprehend where you failed, but ahh... Your stupidity knows no boundaries.

2- Again, nice failure - but that part of Keynesian Economics was irrelevant as stated explicitly - but you are too retarded comprehend.

3- Yet again, a point where you expose your ignorance - please read on the subject some before making such retarded claims, that was the Keynesian approach and for example, Adam Smith had declared that gold surplus was virtually irrelevant, while it's opposing school, mercantilisim had claimed that precious metal supply was all that mattered (this particular one was disproved).

4-Ahh... I don't know where to begin, you have summed up so much fail in here.
>libertarianism is wrong
That isn't what I said, let's look
>your dim interpretation of the neo-sheep herding ideology, Libertarianism, is wrong.
see, it's YOUR FUCKING INTERPRETATION - Again, I had explicitly stated that Libertarianism would "work" but, it wouldn't work like you retarded drones think it would. Read on the fallacy of Anarcho-capitalism, libertarian is just a fancy fallacious new name for a lightened version of it, basically. 

And I'm just laughing at the second part, it's funny how people who are so blatantly moronic and ignorant can claim to understand what is valid and what isn't, and it's sad that you are still trying to make an argument based on keynesianism - reminds me of "if evolushon is true, den why are there still monkies???". Please, please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, it's really sad from the perspective of people who know a thing or two. It's so fucking obvious that you are just being a dimwit parrot. But hey, I'm hoping that you are getting a thing or two among the things I'm saying, so maybe one day you'll start reading, learning and producing original thought.

>>828
WAIT, WAIT HOW DID I MISS THIS
>by the socialist bush administration
OH MY GOD HOW CAN A PERSON BE SO FUCKING DIMWITTED, DISREGARD THE LAST SENTENCE YOU ARE DOOMED TO BE A RETARDED FAILURE AT LIFE, WHAT THE FUCK!? What's next, Adolf Hitler was Anarchist-Communist?  I thought there was a limit to your stupidity, yet I was wrong. There is no cure for this level of retarded delusion.

>>828
1: You put "state capitalism" in brackets with the explanation "hello". State capitalism is itself a branch of socialism, (hello, state socialism).
2: Macroeconomics is a field, keynesian economics is a branch of that field. You were claiming that someone who denies keynesian economics also denies macroeconomics as a field.
3: Don't be a hypocrite.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=gold&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Results 1 - 10 of about 577,000,000 for gold
Read every single google result for gold then complain that I asked you to be more specific. For someone as omnipotent as you it should be easy.
As for how gold should be used in an economy, this should be left to market forces.
4: But libertarianism will work, I addressed the problems put forward earlier in this thread.

"if evolushon is true, den why are there still monkies???"
This is called a false dilemma. It assumes that species do not branch off. Can you point out where I made such a logical fallacy? Under a libertarianism people are entitled to their opinion, even if it is a logical fallacy. Libertarians believe if you are correct you should be able to persuade others and there is no need to persecute people for their beliefs. Why does this make you angry?

>>830
If by "answered" you mean ignored contradicting evidence and cried a lot, exposing your ignorance again and again on this subject, proving that you did not have the knowledge required to have an opinion on the subject of economics, then yes. Again, as exemplified in your "points" 1, 3 and your hilariously retarded classification of bush administration as socialist, I'm sorry but you are really stupid even among your fellow libertarians.

But also, your problems are not limited only to your lack of knowledge, as you reveled yet again in point two, you lack significant reading comprehension as well, probably related to your severe retardation. The point was, your retarded interperetation was wrong NOT ONLY ACCORDING TO KEYNESIANISM BUT ACCORDING TO EVERY FUCKING SCIENTIFICALLY VALID THEORY AVAILABLE. I do not share Keynes's views on economics, but in your deluded and retarded drooling you missed that too. What kind of horrid education did you receive to end up being like this?

Libertarians of course believe in being entitled to fallacious opinions, else they would have to shut up. There is evidence showing you are wrong but you are too stupid and ignorant to comprehend it, hence why you are still repeating the same things  again and again and again without being able to refute a single factual argument I have provided, only making more and more false statements and showing you don't know shit. It has surpassed the level of "sad" and is bordering "pathetic" now.

>>831
Bush is a left wing socialist by my standards. If I were to list my disagreements with his domestic policies it would consist mainly of excessive taxation and unnecessary regulation all in the name of benefitting the people. That said many republicans themsleves are suprised to hear themselves being called socialist even though they agree with me on the same points. Semantics? Or perhaps I am the only one willing to use that dirty word? You decide.

Since you are quoting nothing specific about my argument all I can say in my defense is that I have shown nothing but a well informed knowledge of macroeconomics and the bizarrely popular keynesian branch of that field. I have proven libertarian macroeconomic principles to be infallible. When you are ready to discuss them I will be lurking.

Perhaps you could repeat any factual arguments I missed. Do not include any more irrelevant personal attacks. I know how strongly you feel about being proven wrong but this is the internet, I am currently being insulted on /b/ for saying the LHC will not lead to the end of the world.

Anyone who believes that regulations hurt the corporations  today and that the government is the enemy of corporate control is just completely wrong. The state is completely bought off, so I'd rather just live with less regulations and taxations since they never do what they're supposed to anyway.

People have this idea that libertarians are anarchists. We're not all about total deregulation and regressing to the Articles of Confederation. Not at all, we start with the Constitution, meaning, there certainly needs to be a federal power to do a couple things here and there, but not the welfarefest that is today. Theres a reason to fear of big government.

It's not just a matter of free market vs. regulation, there are many implications to each, and many middle grounds in between as well. Most is up to debate but it almost always depends on what market we're talking about.

>>832
>Bush is a left wing socialist by my standards.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOUR STANDARDS MEAN NOTHING, YOU ARE A RETARD WHO KNOWS NOTHING AND MAKES SUCH RIDICULOUSLY RETARDED STATEMENTS YOU FUCKING MORON, And then you go on and claim making "factual statements". You are REALLY retarded, it isn't a "personal attack", it's a fucking fact, even among libertarians there aren't people so fucking ignorant about anything related to economics to say this stuff, anything you say has no value because all you say is bullshit with no factual connections. For the facts you cry about, see my posts which you couldn't reply. Enjoy your low IQ and perpetual failure at life

>>833
Yeah, the state is bought off by faggots so they don't obey the law, let's make it weaker so they will obey it out of pity! oh wait...

I'll go on to sum up on how I wasted my time with this pathetically retarded moron who is so stupid that he thinks George fucking Bush is socialist, let's see.

>>812
An example of free market failing was provided. The reply was an irrelevant "less state control needed", which is hilariously ironic, as the subject was about a corporation monopolizing. The retard couldn't refute this, as it is hard to do it with facts, and his ignorance and retardation didn't help him much either.

The rest was a debaucle about macroeconomics. The fact that all valid macroeconomic theories. The retard first tried to ignore it, then probably google-searched, and thought Keynesian economics opposed his retarded view, and everything else agreed. Then he cited some irrelevant info about Keynesian economics which was not at all related to the field of discussion, which further proved his ignorance as he simply didn't know what was being talked about. After FINALLY getting that other valid theories too failed him, he simply kept crying and told "I proved it infallible", and then said state-capitalism and bush was socialist.

This debate proves one thing. If a retard believes one thing, he will defend it to death, if facts are presented against him, he'll just ignore it, keep crying, and say "I disproved it", while no actual information was given. This is a sad example of "Idle talk" Socrates describes, which leads to his death in the apology. Basically, someone makes up bullshit, and tells it to the retard. The retard, unlike the one who made it up, does not know it to be a lie, and does not have the capacity to judge whether something is true or not, so he repeats what he is being told with a fervor, believing it to be a fact because he doesn't have the intellectual background to think otherwise.

>>836
>The fact that all valid macroeconomic theories were in disagreement with his comprehension of economics.

the sentence suffered premature death, but hey it was repeated five times before and still he didn't get it - what will it change now, right?

>>832

so, everything about economies and ideologies is actually taxes = COMMIE no taxes = LIBERTARYAN huh? If that is what you understand, really you should just shut up.

>>836
We get it, he doesn't know economy and you're so smart - what, do you get off on showing off your INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE skills? you are as much of a faggot for dragging it on for your e-penis, it only proves your time is just as worthless - enjoy your fail.

>>836
actually had some win there, above you can see some butthurt people whining