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 2008-06-22 3:11

>>199
Ahh, more bullshit with no substance and theoretical basis, ignoring reality for weasel words - there is no argument there other than STAYT IS EEVIL. I seriously wonder, did the state rape you as kids or something?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-22 6:06

prove me wrong crap etc.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-22 7:03

>>201
If you are right you should be able to prove it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-22 8:45

>>203
It's funny because it came right after >>202

Enjoy your butthurt delusions that are in no way connected to reality, your statements are incorrect simply because they lack any sort of factual basis - they are just random strings spurted out by an ignorant fool, proving something so obviously fucking wrong from observation is a waste of time, and since you hilariously keep "defending" these retarded delusions, you should try to "prove" them yourself first (of course, I realize that you can't do this because they are outright wrong). Screaming PROOV ME RONG!!! doesn't make Bush a socialist - sorry, retarded loser.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 18:02

>>204
I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I am asking you to prove your assertion.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 20:24

>>204
Is Bush a Closet Socialist?

You laugh, but fifty years ago my Republican Party would have accused this President Bush of being a socialist and trying to undermine the free market.

Socialism by revolution certainly is the most dramatic, but Republicans have historically recognized that socialism by evolution, a gradual and inexorable expansion of government responsibility, was in some ways a greater danger. Fear of creeping socialism was a primary reason that Republicans were so adamantly against government deficit spending. Republicans recognized that perhaps the ONLY way to control the growth of government was to force voters to pay for it as they used it. Decoupling government spending from taxes almost guaranteed that the amount of money government spends would grow, and thus the government’s intrusion into our economy and lives would grow as well.

As importantly, budget deficits undermined belief in the free market. Explicit in a budget deficit is the idea that the free market won�t grow and prosper on its own, that government intervention and control of supply and demand are necessary for the health of our economy. Republicans were concerned that if voters came to accept the idea that the government needed to manipulate and control the economy to insure growth, then any shortcomings in the economy would lead to demand for government to do more. Once this cycle was started, each swing in the business cycle would result in ever greater government spending, ever larger deficits and even greater intrusion into the economy. Who knew where this might lead - would government eventually lose confidence on people's ability to decide which agricultural products to buy, or to oversee their children's education?

And Republicans recognized that at some point, deficit spending would have to come to an end our country would actually have to pay for all of the services being provided by our government. Modern fiscal conservatives seem to have this fantasy that in this situation the government would largely collapse, unable to pay for everything it is doing. Republicans who had lived through the Depression realized that in a democracy the answer is far more likely to be confiscatory tax policy government would simply increase its tax rates on those who controlled the means of production to pay for the services government provided to those who didn't. Republicans worried that bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of Big Government - it would be the practical end of private ownership of the means of production.

Republicans also recognized that supporters of Socialism were more than willing to lie about what they were trying to accomplish, so sure were they of the rightness of their eventual goal. Republicans were cautious to judge politicians by their policies, not their platitudes; the one thing that doesn't lie is the math of government spending.

Math has many very harsh things to say about this President Bush. He has doubled farm subsidies, greatly increased government involvement in education, has substantially increased government spending and is running the largest deficits in the history of our country. He no longer even bothers to promise a balanced budget his best case scenario plans on a permanent budget deficit. Math says that this President Bush will go down in history as the Republican president who most increased the tax burden on U.S. citizens.

So is Bush a closet socialist? For all of his talk of the free market, does he actually believe that more government is the answer to almost every problem? Unfortunately, it is hard for me to think of a problem he hasn't suggested throwing money at yet. Certainly our historical situation has changed, and we no longer worry about government seizing the means of production. But it is still unsettling to realize that 50 years ago a whole host of prominent Republicans would have been calling the President *Red George* and accusing him of trying to sneak socialism into our government.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 2:35

>>206
Confronted with your entirely valid and watertight argument I have no choice but to accept defeat. Or I could just go "BAAWWW LIBERTARYANISM SOSHALIZM STATISM HURR DURR YOU'RE A RETARDED RETARD BAWWW". Give me some time to decide....

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 3:56

>>207
Ahh the same retard is crying, ignoring the fact that his "watertight" argument is one based on ignorance, and in fact unfortunately yet again exposes his retardation. It doesn't matter how many times or how long you repeat it - socialism is not statism, the amount of crying you do only exposes your ignorance more. Crying BIG GUV'MANT!!! ANYONE NOT FREE-MARKET FUNDEMENTALIST IS A SOSHALIST is not a watertight argument by any degree, sorry retarded loser- you have lost again.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 3:57

>>205
My assertion is that you are hilariously and obviously wrong, and that your claims are unproved - and, unprovable bullshit. Keep crying in denial, retarded loser.

Name: Libertaryan 2008-06-24 4:02

OH MAN I KNEW IT!!! IT'S A KOMMUNIST CONSPIRACY!!! AND THEY TOLD ME I WAS EPICALLY RETARDED WHEN I SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATISM AND SOCIALISM, LOOK AT THAT LONG POST REPEATING THE SAME RETARDED BULLSHIT, NOW IT IS PROOVD, BEKUZ IT'S LONG TEXT!!!! BUSH IS SOOSHALIST!!! AND A LEFT-WING SOSHALIST!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 7:26

>>206
oh god not this shit again

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 12:41

well whether or not bush is a socialist has nothing to do with whether or not libertarianism is infallible. I don't think you could call Bush left-wing, but he certainly has promoted socialist policy in a number of areas as 206 said. Deficit spending is a major socialist move because the debt is obviously socialised.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 13:58

>>212
Again, statism is not socialism, crying "deficit spending is socialism" is epically retarded there is no right-wing socialism so saying "left-wing socialism" is retarded, and uttering these phrases exposes a significant lack of knowledge. But, expectably, retarded libertaryans deny reality and cry about this perpetually, like they do with their "INFALLIBAL" fallacious cock-sucking scheme.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 1:03

>>212
This discussion is not purely about the bush administration. Feel free to submit your queries. See >>199.
>>213
Socialism is not a subjective ideal, it has a set definition. Any instance of communal ownership of property with no private property rights is socialism.
>>208
>>209
>>210
"retard is crying"
"crying in denial, retarded"
"I WAS EPICALLY RETARDED"
Same person. Ad hominems.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 1:54

>>213 Deficit spending means taking on debt. When a government takes on debt, the debt is socialised. Tax payers will pay the debt. I'm not crying you idiot, I'm pointing out the facts. In governments today, both the left and right favour socialism on many issues. I believe this is because socialism tends to be popularist and politics has been reduced to popularism all over the world.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 3:45

>>214
>>215
When will you finally understand the extremely simple fact that socialism is statism, and label every administration which has nothing to do with socialism, like the bush administration as LEFT WING SOSHALIST and instead of cry BAWW AD HOMINEM when you are being called a retarded loser in denial, think on why it is being done?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 6:16

>>216
>socialism is statism
I see that libertaryan brainwashing got to you

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 7:15

>>216 you don't even know what you're saying. What libertarians oppose is COERCION. Like when governments coerce people to pay taxes (or surreptitiously tax through inflation) for the purpose of funding wars. If a socialist-like arrangement occured without coercion from the government or any other group, then that would be fine to libertarians.

The facts are that some of the Bush administration's policies are socialist. That does not make the republicans left-wing. Left-wing and right-wing are comparitive terms. If the republicans changed nothing and the democrats become extremely right-wing then the republicans would, by staying where they were, become left-wing.

Anyway, libertarians are neither left-wing nor right-wing, they believe in personal liberty. Any individual can live their life left-wing or right-wing under a libertarian government.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 10:05

>>218
Thanks for proving that libertaryans are retards who don't understand anything about economics or politics. None of Bush's policies are socialist, and even if they were, they wouldn't be socialist - but as a retarded libertarian you are still insisting that statism is socialism. More hilarity ensues when the retarded libertaryan doesn't understand the meaning of left-wing and right-wing in his period of crying, which is natural because these people make statements like "Bush is left-wing socialist". The only thing you can do about these is cry more.

The fact is, libertarians cry about "coercion" and "evil guv'mant", and think that without it somehow privately owned bodies won't replace that - even though these bodies won't be directly responsible to the people, and only working for the maximization of profit. The only thing their limited mind can respond to this fact is "MARKUT FORSAZ" or "INVIZIBUL HAND", which, of course, is retarded.

As you see, my dear retarded libertaryan friend - you can deny reality as long as you want to, but it doesn't go away. Just accept that you are into this to suck your masters cock and shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 11:02

>>219

Geez, you're not even trying any more. You're just putting words into my mouth.

To your point that corporations will coerce people if there is no 'protection' from government, there is one big difference between governments and corporations. Corporations operate profitable businesses, if the business isn't profitable it doesn't last long. Governments, on the other hand, are not profitable, they don't actually do anything, they don't offer services, they don't sell products. They take money away from people who earn their money, and then they give that money to other groups.

In order for a business to be profitable, it must supply some product or service that has value to people. Governments don't have that restriction.

Governments do answer to the people, that is right. People need to start calling for a libertarian government. I don't believe in conspiracies, I believe that governments are inherently there to destory value. Politians don't know how to run businesses, if they did they would be working in the corporate world.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 12:49

>>220
Ahh, you and your ever more monotone denial of reality.

Not only you have yet again ignored the fallacies pointed out as always in the style befitting a libertaryan retard with no knowledge or intelligence, you also have admitted inadvertently what makes "free" markets fail, because everyone isn't an expert on everything to buy, and the ones with deeper pockets push for more marketing, and ignorant retards like you buy that crap - remember they aren't there to make better things, they are there to make more money, and having a surplus can safely surpass that necessity for a long while - then again your kind has a knack for things like denying the existence of sputnik etc. If your ignorant sequence of crying had any semblance to truth there wouldn't be a thing such as "badge engineering" - and then we come to the traditional libertaryan BAWWW TAXUS!!! DEY GIV MAH MONEY TO NIGGERS!!!, which is unfortunately not a real argument by any means.

Also, your last paragraph should be shown to everyone ever considering becoming a libertaryan - maybe they'll just decide they are too intelligent to be associated with people who genuinely are that butthurt and ignorant to cry like that. Apparently BUSH IS SOSHALIST!!! CHECK THE ZIONOFASCISM BLOG!!! GUV'MENT IS EEEVIL!!!! etc. is apparently not delusional conspiratorial crap in the pathetically retarded mind of yours.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 13:23

>>221

Libertarians doesn't suppose that everyone will make good decisions with their money. There may be corporations that exist due to there being a large supply of idiots willing to buy their goods. If that were the case that would be fine. No problem there. There are not right or wrong products, just products of different value. Everyone is free to choose how to spend their money.

What you say about surplus is wrong. If a company is jacking up the prices and making a huge surplus then another company can come in and offer the same products at lower prices and steal the marketshare.

But I think your main problem is you are being pessimistic. You say capitalism fails because people will make mistakes about how their spend their money. But if that were the only problem facing society then surely the solution would be for people to begin placing more value on education. Libertarianism fails because people are too stupid, that's what you're saying. But libertarianism actually helps people see how they fail by being uneducated, thus it encourages them to become educated.

Giving people freedom to make their own choices is not dangerous, it allows people to learn from their choices and become better people. Restricting choice, like, for example, through censorship, doesn't make people stronger, it makes them weaker, it makes them less able to make their own decisions. By allowing people to make decisions for themselves from day 1, they will inevitably become master decision makers. Society will be a better place for everyone.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 14:11

>>222
Again, you are just spurting out fallacious misconceptions with no connection to reality. Wishful thinking is not a proper way to handle things, leaving everything alone and hoping the best outcome is extremely retarded, and calling reality - what is happening now - "pessimistic" is unfortunately retarded. But oh, in the retarded libertaryan mind the current secret is crypto-socialist so reality is not applicable to your retarded delusions, right?

And, LIBERTARYANIZM!!! magically encourages people to be educated! That's nice to know! How? Magic market forces? Bush is socialist? I mean, how fucking retarded are you so that you can spurt out such shit while not realizing how empty and ridiculous they are? And, isn't the fact that almost every libertarian is like you, retarded and uneducated, tell something about your ideology?

I think you'll just have to cry more, retarded loser.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 14:18

>>223
Where the fuck did he say that Bush is socialist?!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 14:21

I'll say it...BUSH IS A LEFT WING SOCIALIST!

Y'all niggers know it, too.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 15:12

>>224
Do you think there are more than one epically retarded libertaryans here? I think it's nigh-impossible for that many retards to be at the same place at the same time. Besides, look at his stereotypical denial of reality and ignoring the arguments in favor of repeating disproved delusions over and over again.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-26 9:38

>>223
You talk a lot about how everyone else is not in tune with reality yet provide no evidence to back up your statements.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-26 10:00

It should have been a banner year for the libertarians.  The republicans are in the toilet and the nation has not fully turned to the democrats.  It was a once in a generation chance for the libertarian party to stand up.

But no.  Reality had to intervene and prove how totally fallible libertarianism is.  Ron Paul fans would whoop and holler, but not only did Ron Paul lose almost every primary he was in, in some states he actually lost to other candidate who had already dropped out!  Ron Paul is getting beat by a republican who openly admits he doesn't know much about the economy.

It's time to put this tired faux-political philosophy to bed.  The libertarians don't have a chance in hell to win anything, they can't even come together to rally around Bob Barr.  Why all the trouble?  Maybe because anybody older than 18 with a fucking brain realizes how naive and juvenile the whole platform is.  LOL

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-26 10:19

>>227
Anything that needs to be is already so, you must have missed that in your sequence of whining. But then again, as someone who thinks on the lines of "BUSH IS SOSHALIST", "ZIONOFASCIST CONSPIRACY" etc. it is easy for you to ignore them and keep repeating the disproven bullshit you were fed over and over again...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-27 18:41

>>228
Ron Paul did not win the primaries because the US is a notorious 2 party system with republicans and democrats alike afraid to support 3rd parties in fear of losing to the other.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-27 18:42

>>229
Strawman. I never said bush is socialist.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-27 18:45

>>231
Oh, yes, it was another epically retarded libertarian completely out of touch with reality to the degree he perpetrated the bullshit seen in this thread? I see...

Name: Libertaryan 2008-06-27 18:52

>>230
Oh, riight he lost only because of that, in a functioning democracy libertaryans always win, just look at euro-err... forget what I said. THEY ARE SECRETLY COMMUNIST!!! BUSH IS SOSHALIST THAT'S WHY WE LOSE!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-27 21:48

>>230
The democrats lost at least once, I guess they must be 100% wrong about 100% of everything aswell.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-27 21:48

>>233
The democrats lost at least once, I guess they must be 100% wrong about 100% of everything aswell.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-28 4:16

>>234
>>235
But conservatives haven't? And unlike libertarians they haven't always lost.

Also notice how retarded libertarian mind still lumps together every ideology which isn't free market fundamentalism together, assuming the person exposing their retardation to be a democrat.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-28 4:23

>>236
I should add, though, because libertaryans aren't intelligent enough to derive this themselves from the post - it wasn't only about their epic failure at the polls, but also their historical failure and lack of movement, geographic exclusivity (because people in developed countries with better education for some reason don't give a shit about this ideology) and worst of all, in this limited climate it is only perpetrated by very limited people, i.e. handful basement retards who believe bush to be socialist etc.

Name: Great Idea! 2008-06-29 15:35

Let's privatize the police force!

I'm going to hire a persoal guard to protect my house. But then since he costs so much I'll ask my neighbor if he would like to pay 50/50 and have the guard protect both our houses. But since crimes are rather rare, we'll ask if all the people on our street would like to divide the guard's salary between us and have him guard the whole street on a bike that we could buy him. Heck, why not have him protect the whole neighborhood and split his salary even more. If we get even more people, we could buy the guard a car so he could cover more territory and cost even less. But then we could hire a few guards to guard the whole city and hire someone we could call so that this person could dispatch the guards when there is trouble. Liberalism is so much better! But, wait, isn't this what we currently have?! D-Oh!

Name: Great Idea! 2008-06-29 15:48

Anyone can compete!

Let's open a small store (that's all we can do, there's no way we can start as a big chain) and sell at lower prices so we can get customers from the big chains! But wait, we have to buy 1,000 units of a single product to get a good price. Wall-Mart is getting it's stock at even lower prices than we can get them even if we bought 1,000 and they can sell them at our cost! And Amazon is selling it's books also almost at our cost! But let's try to have a very small margin to try to get some business. But the big store is lowering it's prices below our cost to crush us... We're doomed! D-Oh!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-29 15:54

in b4 privatize my penis copypasta

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List