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

Why is libertarianism so infallible?

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-04 3:45

Libertarianism is the inclusion of every sapient being into the decision making process and all that logically follows from that. Utilitarianism is the objective of ensuring the most happiness for all sapient beings and all that logically follows from that. Sometimes they compliment each other, other times they contradict.

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-04 9:39

first

Name: RedCream 2008-04-04 12:33

Libertarianism is infallible since it relies upon the truth of Human nature, in that we're individuals with very small social circles.  We give and take on that basis.  There is no room for enormous governments in that structure.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-04 23:39

***
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/1-499
***
Here's the last "Why is libertarianism so infallible." thread, for the newfags.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 7:55

Libertarianism is infallible because its followers are almost exclusively retarded organisms who shut their ears and cry when presented with evidence contradicting their spoon-fed "worldview".

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 7:56

LIBERTARYANIZM IS INFALLIBLE BEKUZ BUSH IS A COMMUNIST AND HE'S BAD

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 12:08

>>5
>>6
State socialism = crony capitalism

You will either need to cry harder or commit suicide. There is no escaping reality.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 12:25

>>7
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING PROOF FOR THE STATEMENT
>its followers are almost exclusively retarded organisms who shut their ears and cry when presented with evidence contradicting their spoon-fed "worldview"


In the previous thread, an epically retarded libertarian had claimed that bush was socialist because his brain couldn't comprehend more than one bit of data, and thought etatism was socialism. Here, we see that after hundreds of posts of pure ownage, he still holds on to his retardation. This is why libertarianism is infallible, because its followers are too stupid to recognize facts, they just keep crying...

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 12:55

>>8
wat

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 13:11

>>9
Disregard that, I looked at the thread

Then again, why would anyone expect intelligent political debate on fucking 4chan?

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-05 19:05

woat is conservatism

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-06 5:53

>>8
If you support state socialism you support a system that is geared for stealth crony capitalism. This is why libertarians wish to take measures to ensure any state interference in the economy has a valid justification. The purpose of the state is not to see which party in an issue can dish out the most cash to lobby for their cause.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-06 7:16

>>12
And libertarians are retards who think bush is socialist, that's natural for them to have such ludicrous assumptions. NEXT ISSUE: ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM IS CAPITALIST BECAUSE IT HAS NO STATE

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-06 13:10

I'M VOTING FOR RON PAUL

loljk

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-06 16:04

>>14
You will be voting for Ron Paul come 2012.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-06 16:38

>>15
No, I don't think so. I have a brain.

Unless, of course, I get a lobotomy...

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-13 10:24

I think that about covers it. Libertarianism is infallible as it is the product of politic science worked logically from empirical facts and clear inductive reasonning without unnecessary emotive language or cult-like ideals. The only argument against it is the same argument against scientific method, that it is not the certain truth but rather we have no choice but to be libertarian since that is the most logical conclusion given the facts.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-13 11:40

>>17
Quite to the contrary, libertarianism is infallible as delusions of a drooling moron. Its perpetrators have proved themselves to be retarded by proclaiming Bush to be socialist, and that saying it is true because that is their own definition of socialist. Naturally, this isn't an argument against libertarianism, but seeing how much of ignorant retards are supporters of this "ideal" should give you an idea on why it's "infallible". It is so, because these retards refuse to deal with facts and they live in their imagination created by their ignorance. For actual arguments against libertarianism which the aforementioned retards couldn't retort against, please see the preceding thread. The libertarians may resume their whining and proclaiming everyone in the world except them and ironically anarchist-communists, as socialist.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-13 11:40

>>17
It's also funny because it's all weasel words and no content.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-13 16:34

>>18
Most libertarians I know are actually quite moderate and merely lack fear in questioning society aswell as groups that claim to be non-conformist (emos, liberals, anarchists etc..) and libertarianism itself. Besides you are supposed to judge arguments by their logical merits not the people who support them, why do you enjoy evading the infallible logic behind libertarianism?

President Bush is not as statist as Chairman Mao but he does support unnecessary state intervention in the economy in the name of the people which is state socialism at least. I fail to see why you believe his socialist leanings should not be revealed.

Name: Grawp 2008-04-13 16:34

RON PAUL /newpol/,

I have discovered an amazing site. Turn the volume for your computer ON, and go to http://blocked.on.nimp.org with Internet Explorer. After going there with Internet Explorer, go there with Mozilla Firefox.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-14 16:08

>>20
As you see, the retarded libertarian still claims that socialism is statism even though gallons of information disproving his retarded notion was given. Clearly, these retards don't have the intelligence to formulate any proper thinking, and they cling to their disproven delusions as INFALLIBLE TRUTH HURRR DURRR, which is expected from masses of uneducated morons.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-14 18:36

>>22
You do realize that you're the only idiot who takes him seriously?

in b4 1000 posts more of everything is socialist

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-26 21:37

>>22
There are many forms of socialism, state socialism is one of them. Also you are still evading discussion, saying libertarianism is illogical doesn't make it so.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 6:10

>>24
Repeating what you know wrong doesn't make it true, socialism and etatism are two completely different things as it has been repeated countless times and even though it is an obvious thing anyone should know even gallons of sources proving your delusions wrong were provided, yet you STILL keep repeating the same thing, I can't honestly believe in the existence of such a monumentally stupid and ignorant person. Additionally, the faults of libertarianism were discussed in the preceding thread, in which you replied to a similar manner - ignoring facts, repeating the bullshit someone made you memorize.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 7:00

>>"5
Strawman pls.
state socialism ≠ statism

While I don't expect you to disprove everything I've said, you could at least provide an example of one issue you have supposedly disproven me on.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 7:06

>>26
You're still at it aren't you? I'm genuinely sick of your conscious denial. Yeah, yeah, bush is socialist along with everyone else except anarchist communists, you're soo right, starting from your fundemental delusions going to what you think is keynesianism and socialism, indeed there was not a single instance you proved yourself to be completely retarded and ignorant with hundreds of fucking posts from countless people completely cited disproved your retardation in the previous thread, you are in no way denying this...

Enjoy your retardatio-ahem, I meant brilliance. You can now leave the thread.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 7:30

Hey guise, what going on in this thread?
If you refer to stuff posted in the previous thread, could you post a link or cite it or something?

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 9:26

>>28
newfag

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 13:44

>>27
Still no proof, you only let yourself down. And you cannot censor me because I have the free speech.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 14:09

>>30
Of course, you win, and in no way you have ignored gallons of contradicting proof when given because you are a completely retarded organism who thinks free speech is repeating factually wrong bullshit. Bush is socialist, right.

I have more valuable things to do with my time to show how pathetically retarded you are dozens more times again, because simply you don't even have the capacity to understand you're wrong, defying all logic. So, why not get a tripcode or something so that intelligent people can ignore your perpetual whining?

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 14:14

>>28
here's a summary of the last part
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/836
following that is ~200 posts of the same retard mentioned there repeating claiming bush is socialist by making up definitions, and ensuing ownage.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 14:52

>>32
this is why we can't have nice things

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 15:48

>>32
All right, so I read up the whole up and this is what I have to say:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It startet off with some story that you later labeled as:
[...] example of free market failing [...]
The other guy just bought it without questioning what exactly was the the market failure there (spoilers: there wasn't. macs suck not because of intel or microsoft, stupid macfag troofer. gb2bed steve jobs) and goes on about something completely irrelevant because he doesn't know enough about libertarianism.
From there it goes:
you: YOU'RE STUPID! (+every odd post) END OF DISCUSSION!
he: NO YOUR STOOPID!
For doing this for about 2 months both of you deserve the title "Master of Stuidity".

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 15:57

>>34
Are you retarded? The only thing you know about RISC processing is intel/microsoft you fucking idiot? RISC being superior to CISC is a solid fact, and even intel and AMD today, marketers of x86 CPU's are trying to get away from CISC via translation as CISC instructions are horrible to deal with during compiler design and it was made pretty much obsolete with pipelining, and what you did was unfortunately only exposing your own ignorance on the subject. So now that you know this, try again.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 15:58

>>34
also, macs use intel processors, so there's your doublefail

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 16:12

>>35
>>36
Apperently you don't know as much about computers as you'd like to.
Since there're only two people who read this thread regularly and neither of which has a past in computer science I'll save me the trouble to tell you where you fucked up.
Enjoy being reminded of your fail today years later when you're in college.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 16:19

>>37
I'm a computer engineer. Try again, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 16:21

>>38
I'm a computer scientist. Try again, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2008-04-27 16:26

>>37
Just for fun, I'm giving you the first five google search results for cisc vs risc

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/groups/honors-program/freshsem/19951996/utopia/risc.html
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e85/lectures/instruction/node13.html

Indeed, *this* is not really up to debate, history has proven the RISC approach right, and you proved yourself as ignorant on the subject not only by claiming CISC is better, but also by thinking RISC nowadays is related with macfaggotry in some way. So unless you want to span hundreds of posts of denial of facts, similar to BUSH IS SOCIALIST bullshit we examined earlier, I suggest you to move on.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -