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.

>>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