Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Why is libertarianism so infallible?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-04 7:05 ID:qJENOkNb

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.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-22 6:05 ID:1P9YqDZF

>>80
What the fuck is that supposed to mean.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 4:27 ID:broRznf6

Well, looks like it's infallible and it has all been quickly defined in layman's terms, anyone who passed high school can understand why. The likelyhood of someone voting libertarian depends mainly on if you have been exposed to an explanation of what libertarianism is, how much you stand to gain from a fairer society and how much you care about American values.

Average blue collar workers, tax payers and small innovative competitive businesses stand to gain from libertarianism. Welfare leaches, useless state bureaucrats and corporate welfare monopolies stand to lose from libertarianism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 8:29 ID:H4wt5aBa

>>82
Im an idiot because ive never heard this definition in layman terms quickly. Care to give itto me fast?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 11:07 ID:broRznf6

>>83
do whatever you want

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 14:10 ID:H4wt5aBa

>>84
This has become the typical response from libertarians, whenever they are asked for these scientific definitions of their ideology then one is ridiculed. My heart breaks a little...

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 15:06 ID:7/wSr5X6

I've often wondered myself why libertarianism is infallible. An ideology that lets everyone do what they want, unless it's at the expense of someone else? Motherfuck.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 15:13 ID:7/wSr5X6

Post 83 -- Basically, libertarians are for government staying out of the bedroom AND your wallet. Pro laissez-faire capitalism, pro laissez-faire social life. But never at the expense of others. Read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell for all the information on laissez-faire capitalism you need. That's the more controversial aspect of libertarianism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 15:59 ID:eSzBb2aO

>>86
It's a great political philosophy. Personally, I can't stand the thought of the government passing laws on moral issues. The only problem with it is how easily exploitable it is by big business. In a totally free market, the largest corporations are going to destroy competition, even if the competition is better for the population as a whole. Then the environment is going to go to shit, because people will have little or no sway in pollution regulation. Pardon me sounding like a hippie when I say that the Earth does not simply exist as a cog in an industrial machine, and has value beyond the commercial.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 16:02 ID:3qUOpxcE

>>85
Can't you reason the rest through yourself?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 16:08 ID:3qUOpxcE

>>87
Ayn Rand had cognitive problems and objectivism mirrors marxist/leninist personality cults.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 16:40 ID:9H+y9NSK

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 18:45 ID:7/wSr5X6

#90, that was a fantastic debunking of Objectivist ideals. That was brilliant; I'm giving up reading her works.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 19:18 ID:H4wt5aBa

>>87
Ok, so libertarianism is a science that is easily defined in laymans terms, yet i have to read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell to get a clue? Seems libertarians have problem with the definition of both easy and layman, but why am i not suprised.
Me, im a market sceptic. I believe the hype about how easily the market can solve every problem, as long as we dont tax the richest people in the world is a ad hoc argument to vindicate robberbaron behaviour. I dont even believe the market has the power to inovate, i believe the state is a much better inovator. Examples are satelites, the transistor, the internet etc. That shit could not have been invented by private companies trying to maximize profit (nor small companies), since they are too short sighted to realize the value of such things.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 22:08 ID:Heaven

18th Century Britain = Libertarian utopia.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 6:57 ID:fu/qEJX0

Back to the Libertarian environmental ideas:

Take for example catalytic-converters for cars.

They drastically reduce smog and poisonous gas emissions at the cost of some power and fuel efficiency. What's to stop people from removing them and turning the cities into toxic smoggy hell-holes under a Libertarian system?

After all, it's beneficial to the car owner (better efficiency and power), and car manufacturers can also sell cars cheaper without the expensive catalysts.

Seeing as most people live in the suburbs, they don't foot the bill for the environmental damage on other peoples land causing loss of property value etc...

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 7:35 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>85
You're like a child. Can't you participate in a discussion without throwing a hissy fit?. >>84 couldn't possibly have meant that "people should be able to do whatever they want" is the end of it.

Consider 2 people, E and O, E is good at finding solutions, O is good at looking for problems. Every time E presents a premise, O looks for problems with E's premises and problems that still exist.

E = PrEmise, O = PrOblem

E1: People should be able to do whatever they want.
O1: They might harm people.
E2: They should be able to do whatever they want except harm people and their property.
O2: Sometimes harming people is necessary to prevent them from harming others. Some people do not have enough property to prevent harm to themselves which can be prevented, such as poverty. The definition of harm is ambiguous and could be used to abuse the law.

This is the level we're at, retard. Not E1.

Shall we start here or do you want to beat down more strawmen?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 7:39 ID:lIj80enI

>>95


libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.

me: so tax them?

libertarian: DSFARGEG

(lol libertarians)

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 8:17 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>97
libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.

retard: so tax them?

libertarian:: No, fine them. There is a difference.

retard: LOL I DON'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO UNDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINES AND TAXATION SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASSUME YOU SAID DSFARGEG AND PRETEND I WON ARGUMANT LOL I AM SOCIALIST I AM SUPERIOR TO LEMMINGS WHO ARE FOOLED BY THE RIGHT WING PROPOGANDAA OF THE TOTALITARIAN STATE WE ARE LIVING IN!!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 12:19 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>98
so mr libertarian scientist, what are the difference of a fine and a tax? If the difference is not in name only there should be some criteria that your scientific analytical powers have detected that you´d like to share with us retards who fail to see the light?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 14:39 ID:pXXkT//q

I dump nuclear waste on the playground at your kid's school, and I only have to pay a fine?


Well, that's just the cost of doing business.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:06 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>99
taxes are for everyone, fines are for those who did the crime

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:09 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>101
????????
If you pay a tax for owning an unmodern car or you pay a fine for owning an unmodern car must within all reasonability be exactly the same thing? Except that in the first case you are actually not perpetrating a crime, just paying for the damage that you casue?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:11 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>100
The fine also includes the clean up costs and life imprisonment for 100s of counts of grievous bodily damage.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:18 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>102
No, with tax it goes into government coffers and they do not use it to, with libertarian fines a small proportion is used to pay for the government offices needed to extract and distribute it and the rest is paid directly to contractors to convert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon compounds.

In effect libertarians are less polluting.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:19 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>103
Yes, but it seems more logical to prevent the crime instead of fining it. But logic may not be your strong suit...

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:25 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>105
That's why we legalise guns. One of the pupils can shoot the guy dumping toxic waste.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:28 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>104
I dont know under what kind of non-intervention government you live but where i live the government build roads, finance particle emmission research, finance clean up operations, finance forestry and wetland creation projects, finance city air quality projects etc. You should really complain to your government, thats no way to conduct a state. I assume you live in Somalia?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:30 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>107
A libertarian state does not mean such tasks are not completed, they are merely not handled by the state.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:31 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>106
Nice! And the child then pays a fine? And has therapy as well as chemo (which he has to pay for himself, the little triggerhappy parasite)? Libertarian really is a superior science!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:34 ID:Kg+iaoYk

>>109
No, the child stopped someone about to dump toxic waste. The crime is prevented and everyone lives in opulent splendour for the rest of their lives.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 16:49 ID:xM7GZ9Oe

>>108
But you said your government did not do these things? I thought that this was an argument for libertarianism? You have confused me now, mr Scientist of Liberty.

>>110
So dumping toxic waste is a capital offence in libertaria? Then why the fuck are you blubbering on about fines? Just say that in libertarianism people who does not follow the rules are shot, not by the police or any other facsist governmental institution but by pupils at schools. Seung-Hui Cho would have loved libertarianism!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 17:12 ID:mZ+sOg8y

>>111
You are not being very specific. You say one thing and then the next reply you meant something completely different. You asked me how someone would prevent a person from dumping toxic waste into a school, assuming the deterant of a life in jail getting banged up the rectum by donkey shlong bubba wasn't enough I guess the only way to stop someone dumping toxic waste in a school is by force. If the police haven't arrived yet it is up to the citizens to prevent him from doing so. Toxic waste is a chemical weapon so such a situation calls for the use of firearms.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 17:55 ID:lIj80enI

>>111

you have to remember! the government does it, but it's just paying private contractors to do it. so the state isn't doing it, but the state is paying other people to do it, and these people aren't part of or controlled by the state.

>>110
except for the families of the man who was shot because he was doing what he was told to because he couldn't afford to get fired?


but let's say a company dumps toxic waste unto a plot of land they bought, this reducing the value of the land, but is alot less expensive than digging it down, actions like this would lead to a decrease in GDP, due to the willing actions of companies. Is this legal in a libertarian society? i mean it's only their own property they are doing anything to.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-25 6:41 ID:MvjhGl3j

>>113
You're still not being specific. If the person dumping toxic waste was just paid to and doesn't know what it is, then the police can just go up to him and order him not to do it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-25 17:05 ID:RexEOYLR

>>114

yeah but the police didn't do that, someone just shot the driver.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-25 17:24 ID:gpom+1DC

>>115
Well if someone is dumping toxic waste into a school full of children what are you supposed to do?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-25 17:50 ID:NutjtO5R

>>116
Evacuate, call the cops, have them arrest the guy, have a massive trial and possibly dissolve the corporation responsible.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-25 18:38 ID:gpom+1DC

>>117
Or just shoot him before he dumps the toxic waste and send all those responsible to jail. That way the economy is unaffected.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-26 7:38 ID:HzCciwxs

The world needs more libertarians.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-26 8:40 ID:3QHQ6z5e

>>119
*less

Newer Posts