Why Libertarianism is worthless.

1) There are no first-world libertarian nation.

2) Libertarianism led to the Great Depression.

3) Libertarianism leads to vertical monopolies

4) Every country that started out with unchecked capitalism either made a transition to regulated capitalism (US) or completely collapse (Somalia).

5) In order for Libertarianism to work, everyone needs to participate and do everything just right. Even the slightest mistake will put you at a disadvantage for the rest of your life. Guess what other political ideaology have the same requirements? It starts with a "C" and ends in "ommunism".

6) Did I mention that there are no first-world Libertarian nation?

The most libertarian parts of America (red states) are doing far worse economically than the "socialist" blue states.

>>2
How are red states more economically libertarian? I didn't know the government intervened less in business in Jesus land.

Terrible comparison anyway.

1) Representative governments create first world nations because of low state intervention in the economy.

2) The great depression was caused by state intervention in the economy.

3) Monopolies are caused by state intervention in the economy.

4) The first civilisations were tyrannies in which taxed their subjects into the ground. This continued until the scientific discovery of libertarian principles.

5) Everyone makes mistakes. In a libertarian democracy other people's mistakes don't put you at a disadvantage. Under communism there is no incentive to not make mistakes.

6) Liberty, justice, human rights and representative government are libertarian principles.

4) The first civilisations were tyrannies which taxed their subjects into the ground. This continued until the scientific discovery of libertarian principles.*

oops, I made a mistake, but luckily since I lost a small amount of credibility I had the incentive to correct it for you.

>>1
1) A few hundred years ago there were no first world liberal nations, now every Western country is. I wonder what the Enlightenment philosophers would make of your argument...

2) Gb/2/ economics class, Keynesian theory is outdated.

3) Most monopolies take place because of government intervention which grants people intellectual property rights, blocking others from entering the market.

4) Regulated economies are just one of the scars left by Marxism.

5) Very vague. Libertarianism is as far from Communism as you can get.

6) You mean there's a third world nation that calls themselves Libertarians? Who? I think you will find third world nations are filled with people like niggers, who will fail whatever system is in place.

>>6
Keynesian theory is still wideley practiced due to dependance on the state and general ignorance amongst academia and the general populace as to why we are dependant on the state.

general ignorance amongst academia
I wouldn't call it ignorance, I'd call it malevolence.

>>8
I'd call it ignorance.

>>8
Oh ok maybe a mixture of both. Some are evil and most are just stupid or haven't given it much thought.

>>9
How could they just be unaware of alternatives such as those presented by the Austrian school? I'd expect that from the general populace, but not academia.

>>10
Ok then ;)

>>3

Red states impose less taxes and restrictions than blue states. Libertarians believe these factors help stimulate the economy yet the red states are always doing bad economically.

>>13
Red states also spend less on educational support, meaning their labor pools are usually somewhat less skilled.

Coincidence?

>>4
 1) That's what you want to believe. There are many factors on why  nations become a developed nation and your reason is only a small factor. Factors such as universal education and culture plays a much bigger role. Just look at Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. It was their local businesses combined with the workers skill and knowledge that propelled them to become major players in the business world and not first-world countries opening up sweat shops in third-world countries.

However, there are 3rd world countries out there that have little to no state intervention in their economy yet they continue to be third-world. That kind of puts a dent in your theory.

2) Partially, at least when it came to tariffs and trading with Europe. However, banks were not intervened by the government at all and many people lost their savings because banks could not pay them back. Then there were the insider trading which were legal at the time. Whoops.

3) Monopolies can also form without state intervention. Look at Microsoft.

4) Principles exclusive to Libertarians such as?

6) Those principles are not exclusive to libertarianism. Stop hijacking basic principles and passing it off as your own. Also, these principles alone do not make a libertarian society. Our own country implemented these principle yet we are far from a libertarian society. I hope you know that.

>>6

1) Enlightenment philosophers would think that libertarians are full of shit. Unchecked capitalism has been around in many countries for hundreds of years and it still has not produced a single developed nation.

2) Unchecked capitalism is outdated.

3) You can have monopolies that are created without government intervention. Really.

4) No, regulation is a response to the problems of unchecked capitalism. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclar.

5) They're both similar in that both ideologies requires everyone to be either responsible for themselves and towards the economy in libertarianism or towards each other and the community in communism (sharing the wealth, etc.). Neither works because not everyone could be responsible enough to make either ideology work. Plus the fact that humans are inherently selfish.

6) Libertarians in the sense that there are little economic restrictions in those nations. Look at Thailand. And LOL at your comment.

Can anyone point out a country that has successfully implemented a system where education, police services, firefighters, and hospitals are all privatized? Anybody?

>>17
Just a guess:  Dubai?  Of course, the majority who live in the West would want to adopt Dubai's economic and political system.

>>18
yes, monarchy is my favourite thing. and there are both public and private schoolss and hospitals, i don't know about the firefighters and police services. The public services are generally run by the UAE ministries, and everything else by the sheikh i suppose.

>>11
Corporate finance is litterred with state intervention, there are also many positions in the state for someone who requires a PHD in economics. As a result there is a high demand for mixed economy studies rather than laissez faire economics.

>>13
>>14
Red states spend about the same as blue states and also there are many other factors you have missed out. Red states are in generally less dense areas with a lower percentage of service workers.

>>15
1) Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea had representative governments. If Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea did not have representative governments their local businesses would have been taxed, extorted, over-regulated or nationalised into the ground and their workers would have had little freedom to apply their skills and knowledge where they saw fit. 3rd world countries with little or no state intervention in the economy usually have populations which are too poor to tax or are in a civil war and do not have access to a large portion of their country.

2) The stock market was intervened by the government. When Hoover was elected he began a policy of using government spending to counter natural corrections in the economy called anti-cyclic spending, after the crash he exacerbated the situation with further intervention as you mentionned.

3) Microsoft is not a true monopoly, it's operating system has to compete with linux and apple and it does not have a monopoly on CPUs, monitors, printers and other software. Though if you call a product so excellent it outperforms all it's competitors a monopoly then fine, whatever.

4) A market based tax system. Complete personal freedom. Complete political freedom.

6) The country has not implemented them, it has only implemented a few of them. Since a few libertarian principles are needed to turn a country into a 1st world western democracy, guess what they will all do!

>>16
I'm not >>16 but you're still wrong.

1) Laissez faire capitalism wasn't exactly the libertarian model, but it did industrialise Europe and America.

2) A libertarian government would have those few regulations we have today which actually enforce the law, it would also not suppress personal or political freedoms.

3) Achieving monopoly in a free market is extremely difficult and shareholders would eventually split the company and have their half make more profit than the other through competition.

4) There is regulation to enforce the law like safe disposal of hazardous materials and then there are regulations which are arbitrary or corrupt in nature like tariffs and quotas.

5) Libertarianism prevents you from paying for someone else's mistakes, so there is more incentive for people to act responsibly under a libertarianism.

6) I disapprove of his use of the word "nigger" also. Most of Thailand's problems are a result of a lack of the employment certain libertarian principles.

>>17
Education and hospitals have been privatised across the world. The police are law enforcement and thus would be supported by a libertarian state. Firefighters could easily be funded by insurance companies who would factor in the cost to firefighters in determinning insurance costs, creating a further incentive to prevent disasters and save lives.

>>18
Dubai is a city in the United Arab Emirates, not a nation.

>>19
By the looks of it the UAE has an isolated head in the clouds state that is wasting it's oil wealth.

Well Bush has shown that so-called concervatism both fails and leads to facism

Though nothing he's done is concervative. Spending massive amounts of money, getting the country in trillions of dollars in debt, causing people to lose jobs, and expanding the control of the government, all to 'liberate' a country we have no business in 'concerves' absolutely nothing, thus making bush prove Liberalism if also epic fail, by technicality.

That said,I'm not a fan of real concervatism, not to say I'm more of a fan of iether of the other parties...

Solution:
Spiderman put it best:
"Lol, i dunno"

>>22

Tax cuts are conservative.

Nothing that he had spent taxes on are supported by liberals.

Every record deficits had been set by Republicans in the except for FDR.

Nice try on shifting the blame to the other party, you fail.

Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem like global warming that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.

"1) There are no first-world libertarian nation."

The USA is one of the more libertarian countries of the world.  Also, other countries that exhibit certain libertarian principles have displayed great success - such as the nation of Hong Kong.  They don't have large amounts of resources there, yet their economy is quite successful, and there is a huge degree of economic liberty there. 

"2) Libertarianism led to the Great Depression."

No, stupid government programs created the Great Depression. 
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

>>24
Global warming could be solved by proper application of law. There is no need to use it as an excuse for more regulations.

>>24


LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>25

1) The more successful states in America are not even close to libertarian. A lot of money are spent on education, medical services and general welfare in the better economic states.

As for Hong Kong, you should actually visit there. Nearly 2/3 of the population are considered low-income and depend on public education and health services. The middle-class is small in that city and it has been that way for many years. The one characteristics that has been consistent with libertarian cities/nations like Hong Kong is the big income gap between the rich and the poor.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=284&Itemid=34%20

2) There are many factors that contributed to the Great Depression and the source that you posted only sounded like a theory. It also didn't help that there were no regulations in the banking industry and that many lost their savings because the banks couldn't pay them back.

>>20

Red states spend more than blue states on government programs? Since when?

1 - What does a representative government have to do with Libertarianism? Let me guess, only in a Libertarian government does a representative government exist, right? Oh wait, take a look at Norway, Switzerland, Japan, etc. They have a representative government and government programs such as universal health care. Yet, somehow they have a sustainable economy and they outrank the U.S. in the quality of life. Whoops!

2 - Real libertarians do not want regulations nor were it libertarian representatives who instituted those laws you are referring to.

6 - If you implemented only libertarian principles, then you would get a complete disaster of a nation just like if you implemented only socialist principles. That's why I'm in favor of implementing a bit of both.  Just look at some of the European countries.

>>20

Why would there be exceptions for "law-enforcement"? Wouldn't the free market take care of that? Why pick and choose who gets our tax dollars and who doesn't? Wouldn't a government-run law-enforcement become inefficient and corrupt form their power over time according to you libertarians? Doesn't paying taxes for anything contradict with libertarian principles? If your excuse is "we need someone to enforce the law" then why not "we need someone to take out fires" for the firefighters? Try to be more consistent with your libertarian philosophy.

Also, when did privatizing firefighters worked and where?