Why is libertarianism so infallible?

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.

>>158
If RISC/CISC means Microsoft/Apple to you, then you should just shut up - just like people who think socialism is statism.

how does a person claiming bush is a socialist make libertarianism bunk?

I don't see bush as a socialist, I am not american and I don;t follow american politics close enough to know bush's stance on every issue. I do know that he was responsible for various tax cuts and is generally opposed to big government. On the other hand, fighting a war in iraq is not a libertarian act. Does communism tend towards war, I would say yes on the grounds that communism is usually statist. Of course, communism is not necessarily statist so pursuing acts of war does not make one a communist.

>>162
Thanks for the post with no substance. That retard makes libertarianism "bunk" because he stands as a testament to how deluded and stupid the average libertarian can be, however that doesn't really fail libertarianism, it's theory is there for that job.

Also, communism can't be STAYTIST because there is no state in communism - that's socialism. But luckily you saved yourself from epic failure with the last sentence.

>>162
>Does communism tend towards war, I would say yes on the grounds that communism is usually statist.
US is less statist than Sweden. Therefore US is less warmongering?

Libertarian logic lol.

Can't there be at least one country in the world where you can be a transexual prostitute, wear headscarves in school or bear arms and not have to give a fuck what other people think?

>>165
Some weird fetishes you people have...

>>166
What part of "or" don't you understand?

>>167
I do understand, actually - though I also do understand why you made such a comment, as "understanding" is a completely foreign concept to your limited mind.

>>164
US may be less statist than Sweden, but Sweden is less of a state.

>>169
Nice pointless and meaningless piece of whining to keep yourself deluding with libertarian logic.

>>170
lolwtf? It's not even a real country.

>>171
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sweden
cry moar

>>172
So? Canada's not a real country and it gets a wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_canada

>>173
Sorry, I wrongfully assumed you had the ability to read and comprehend what was inside, but apparently to your retarded mind it corresponded to "getting a wikipedia article". Sorry I keep underestimating your stupidity.

>>174
It's obvious they are just pretending to be a country, in truth they would not be able to withstand total war against the US.

The US can't stand a partial war with Iraq, and you think that Canada would not do the same as the Iraqis? It would be far easier for Canadians to infiltrate the US in a war and the US would have a situation similar to Iraq but in the US.

>>176
But the US would win a total war. Also the surge is working, cry harder over the fact that the US has won.

>>177
AMERIKA FUK YEAH!!! WHAT A NATION IS ONLY DETERMINED BY ABSOLUTE MILITARY POWAH!!!

>>177
You butterballs cant even keep a few rag heads down in a fucking bunch of hills

US has a history of - what, ten seconds?

>>178
>>179
>>180
Is that jealousy I hear? Besides, America's success is only an effect of it's freedoms. I consider Switzerland a country and they have no nukes. Can you guess why? They will never submit to the will of tyranny, even as the axis surrounded their country they knew they had 0 chance of occupying Switzerland. This is also why I do not consider liberals true americans since they seem to enjoy spreading their ass cheeks the moment the next obscure political/religion group from fuck knows where on this planet decides to stir some shit up.

>>181
Aww look, the retarded loser shares us what he considers a country and what he does not! Man, I'm interested in learning what epically retarded ignorant American morons tell themselves to sleep at night!

Not Jealousy, I'm just tired of the US messing up other countries for no good reasons (who helped Fidel in Cuba? who gave weapons to Saddam, to the Taliban?).

Why did the US go in Iraq? Because they were AFRAID Iraq MIGHT send nukes to the US. Even though most other countries said there was no menace to begin with (wich was later proven). Why do most US gun carrying people have guns? Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked. A courageous country? No, a fearful country. Nothing to be jealous about. And if I were you, I would not declare victory yet, the Bush admin did this and eventually came to realize it was a huge mistake.

>>183
(wich was later proven).
Prove it then. Show the evidence.
Why do most US gun carrying people have guns?
Why do most European clothes-wearing people have clothes?
Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked. A courageous country? No, a fearful country.
We have feral niggers, you have mudslimes. We can, if necessary, protect ourselves and you can't because the government doesn't trust you enough to give you the right to bear arms. Saying that it's because the government *fears you* and that's awesome is pretty asinine, because one could make a similar argument against free speech.
Nothing to be jealous about.
You seem butthurt enough to whine here.
And if I were you, I would not declare victory yet, the Bush admin did this and eventually came to realize it was a huge mistake.
Proof.

Oh, and I'm not anyone else ITT, in case you want to assume that.

No WMD:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/06/20060406-112119-5897r/
"President Bush said yesterday that he was "just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..."
"I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is," Mr. Bush said.

>Why do most European clothes-wearing people have clothes?<
You forgot this part: "Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked." It was a rhetorical question.

We can't because we don't want to. We don't live in FEAR unlike a lot of people in the US.

I'm not "butthurt" like you say. If I reply you will say that I'm "butthurt" and if I don't you will say that I was afraid to reply. You setup a lose-lose situation so you can't lose by default, but I think that most people here know this.

Huge Mistake:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080430-5.html

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said "mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission." And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner." Said by Dana Perino.

WMD or not, the US still attacked because it was AFRAID.

>>183
The US also gave industrial support to the USSR, does that mean the US is responsible for everything the USSR has done since it avoided obliteration by the nazis? I'm tired of demagogues who base their arguments on how "non-conformist" or "shocking" it is, when in fact most uptight conservative christians have heard the same arguments since the 60s and no one really cares anymore. The world is far more complex than that, go tell your conspiracy theories to 16 year old girls who listen to greenday.

>>184
facepalm.png

>>186
Oh you poor retard, crying so hard to deny reality. Lern2weltpolitik before you do so next time.

>>187
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>188
Aww look, the retarded loser is again butthurt, trying to avoid reality in every way he can so that he can stick to his retarded libertaryan delusions.

>>189
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>190
Retarded loser is still crying, his meager mind unable to face facts and reality...

>>191
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>192
Still crying, retarded loser? Facts must be shocking for you. I'll wait until you finish crying to reality.

>>193
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>190
>>192
>>194

Given that neither of you delivered an argument so far, there's no argumentum ad hominem. Those are just plain old insults.

>>195
You must be new here. There were arguments, but they are long lost in the stream of denial this retard created to run away from getting owned. The most lauded example of his "arguments" is, of course "Bush is left-wing socialist".

>>196
No, actually, I'm way longer here than anybody else. You already had a talk with me, Mr. computer engieer. And up to this date the entire board is devoid of any arguments whatsoever and probably will stay that way indefinitely.

>>197
Then I suggest you re-read the thing, though it is a waste of time seeing that any facts mentioned are long buried in the stream of libertaryan denial.

>>195
Have you tried reading post >>1?

Coercion is unethical. Liberty is the absence of coercion.

This is not a perfect world and people will always attempt to coerce others thus it is ethical to coerce people not to coerce others since this is the best way of keeping coercion to a minimum.

The state represent a monopoly over violence. In order for a state to be ethical it must define justice as the preservation of liberty, for the state to be controlled by consensus through a system of representation and for the state's only authority to be the enforcement of justice.

200 get