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.

>>238
It's not what we have now. Some people are forced to pay more for their protection simply because they don't have 8 kids or are white males.

>>239
Instead of competing with them you can cooperate. Obtain an MBA, work for them and purchase shares in the company.

>>242
facepalm.png

Yeah, that way you can compete - by not competing. Perfect.

>>241
How much more do they pay? A few cents? Is it worth it to redo the whole system so you can save a few cents? And what if a big business has the whole private guard business? What if they ask you to pay the same as your neighbor or get lost?
>>242
So essentially if we can't compete with big businesses we should work for them? That's not really freedom of choice isnt'it? And what if they don't have a job for me because all their jobs are filled with people who can't compete with them? What shall I do then? And what about the customer's choice? If stores can't compete with big businesses this would really limit consumer choices wouldn't it? And wouldn't it make it possible for the big business to eventually raise prices because of lack of competition? And if you think that raising prices will allow smaller businesses to offer their products for less, what about the power of the big business to lower their prices until they break the small business?
I would like to suggest that you watch "Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Price" on DVD. And why not also watch "Enron The Smartest Guys in the Room" while you're at it.

I don't get all the criticism against us libertarians. All you do is provide flaws in the capitalist system, but giving no specific answer to them.
But we know there's only two answers... either the  government intervention or there's not. Now, you don't want to sound like a statist so you just leave your post like that, with a big question mark. And we don't have to give you an answer either, each problem is one in its own, and yes, some do require government intervention, I believe. Do all of them? No.
The principle is to have the LEAST government intervention as possible, not just remove the government completely. That's anarchism, you should know very well. Even though it's separated by a very thin line, libertarianism does include government to take care of some things.
What exactly? I don't know. Depends on the situation. That is completely debatable. But we don't want to debate real issues do we. Let's just be trolls and flame ourselves to death. Pff.
But I don't care, I rarely even lurk around this cesspit anymore. Just please, stop equaling libertarianism with anarchism, it's so annoying when I do come around and read this same old shit.

>>245
>We are wrong and I can't answer to factual arguments, so I'll just cry about my ignorance on other schools of thought.

>>246
Where's your argument?

>>245
I don't see flaws in the capitalist system. I have nothing against it. What I know is that the weakest link of any system is the human element. We are not robots and whatever system we have there wil be humans who abuse it. No system is as such perfect or infallible. I am all for a capitalist system with has a governmental control over it for regulations and oversight like we currently have in north america.
We need the government to make regulations for the products we consume and for the environment. We need the government to prevent big monopolies. We need the government to make laws and to protect us with an army and police force. We need the government to take care of the poor, the sick and jobless.

>>247
>I'm a retard who can't read the thread I posted laid out before me.

>>248
Sorry, LIBERTARYAN logic dictates that you're a SOSHALIST, because in our tiny minds STAYT=SOSHALIZM.

>>248
All the issues you have described revolve around the objective of preserving liberty and the role of the state in achieving this, which appears to be something only libertarians understand. Other political parties have a more blunt method of solving problems than deriving their solutions logically from a set of infallible principles, they pass a law which solves one problem and if it causes another they pass another law rather than admit they were wrong, this in turn causes more problems or just masks it and when it eventually surfaces the opposing political party doesn't want to look like it is repealing laws which solve a "problem" and instead pass yet another law and another and another... This makes politicians appear to be problem solvers but it is short sighted and the sprawling bureaucracy needed to administer these laws, along with their loopholes, is not desirable either. This is why libertarianism is associated with small government, it is also why some people view libertarians as ignoring some problems when in reality they have merely taken other issues into account.

>>249
>>250
George Bush is more of a anarcho-liberal leninist maoist, not a socialist. Get your definitions straight.

>>251
I didn't know I was a libertarian!
If libertarians don't promote laissez-faire capitalism, what do you call those who promote laissez-faire capitalism? Objectivists?

>>253
I never said these problems must be solved by a welfare state, just that I recognise them and have come to the conclusion that such statist practices are undesirable. Libertarians are not saying orphans should be thrown out into the snow, they are saying it is unfair for work able adults to be paid unemployment benefit, free healthcare and state pensions when they should have saved and bought health insurance for all these things themselves. Why must to state step in to wipe people's asses and what's more why should the people who wouldn't have these problems if we were not living in a welfare state have to pay for it?

>>254
And what do libertarians say about artificial unemployment to decrease real labor costs?

Yeeah...

>>254
If these people paid insurance, it would be your insurance who would pay for them. So you would still be paying for them. The question is how do you make sure that all the people pay insurance? Make it so that the state takes the money with taxes. This way, everyone pays and if anyone has a problem the state can take care of them. This would not be a welfare state, it would be like a state insurance.

>>255
It still all has to be paid for and the resulting bureaucracy and inefficient management due to seperation from market forces is of greater expense than non-intervention.
>>256
"So you would still be paying for them"
And you pay less if the insurance company offers discounts when you install fire alarms, burglar alarms, sprinkler systems, regular check ups with a GP and can prove you are healthy. Of course you have the freedom to sign another deal or go to another insurance company if you believe that these policies unnecessary or you are being charged too much. I'd like to see you talk an IRS agent into giving you a discount for installing a burglar alarm or convince an anal retentive safety inspector your corrugated iron tractor shed doesn't need a sprinkler system.

"The question is how do you make sure that all the people pay insurance?"
Why stop there? Why not employ 10000000s of illegal immigrants to line the streets and look both ways for America's citizens before they cross?

>>257
>It still all has to be paid for and the resulting bureaucracy and inefficient management due to seperation from market forces is of greater expense than non-intervention.

Thanks, but I wanted an answer to the question, not an irrelevant crying consisting of the usual HURR DURR MAGICK MARKAT FORSAZ INEFFISHUNT DURRRR - but of course a retarded drone can't answer to what his masters couldn't find an excuse for in the first place.

>>257
You talk about the freedom to sign another deal and pay less. I have freedom to change banks if they charge high fees, but they all charge high fees. Same for insurance companies (And this is not counting that they do everything they can not to repay you when you need them). I have the freedom to get gas at another station but they all charge the same price. When I talked about the difficulty of competing with Wal-Mart I got replied that I should work for them instead of trying to compete. I don't see much freedom in the so called free-market.

As for market efficiency, I have worked for a large company and saw a lot of inefficiency in it. I know people who work in large businesses and they also see a lot of inneficiencies in them. These businesses are still working and we pay more for some things because of these ineffiencies. Businesses are still run by people and people are not perfect. Market rules don't influence businesses much in efficiency. When a business becomes large enough, it has the power to crush efficient competition. Just think about Linux and Microsoft. Linux is virtually free but Microsoft is so predominant that the cheaper and probably more efficient Linux is still a rarity on home computers.

The current products market is not real. Most of our products are made in "Communist" China (talk about irony here). Wich means that it would be much like having our products made by prisoners. How can businesses compete with a virtual slave force? We pay much less for products than what they are really worth. How can we have a fair market when such an imbalance exists? Market forces need to be equal for all or there can be no competition and we end up with monopolies wich are much like inefficient governments.

I don't see how you can pretend that the market forces would be better than a government. In your world there seems to be so much freedom and choices, but I don't see them in the businesses I deal with. I would like you to explain to me how this could be.

>>259
I don't see much freedom in the so called free-market.
That's because the free market is just an arena for slaying the poor.  The rich and the corporate enjoy rock-solid Socialism from all their buddies in government.  Of course, Libertarians would never admit that that's how their ideal system would run.

Market forces are a wonderful thing.  But the wealthy and the corporations are more and more insulated from those forces, since they now own the government from all the bribery going on.  Look at all those Senators who received sweet mortgage deals from lenders, and so it's not surprising they are all for government bailouts of the entire lending industry.

Why isn't it welfare when a corporation receives it?

>>260
>Why isn't it welfare when a corporation receives it?
It is.

>>261

Well, they call that "Corporate Walfare"
The Liber-turdians usually denounce that.
But they think that the Fed is a part of the gambit too (yeah right) and their "failed" monetary policies are a case of "gambit intervention", so they are pretty much useless.

Liber-turdians are owned by the jews, that's why the don't tell the truth about the Fed (with rare exceptions) and endorse that hateful jewess, Aynd Rand, like that hateful jew, Jim Whales.

>>262

*Welfare

>>262
Jew this jew that... Where do you people come from!

>>264
We come from the USA ... which is ruled by JEWS.  Wake up.

>>265
Oh yes, invisible untouchable enemies whom rule the world and the guy with a big nose who sells me bagels is all part of the plot.

>>266
The Jews who rule the world are NOT invisible and they are NOT untouchable.  They are also NOT the kindly Jew running a bakery down the street from you.

When will you stupid fucking GOYIM finally WAKE UP?!?!  The plot is perfectly TRANSPARENT.  They want you to burn out in ever faster displays of economic stupidity.  They want you to take on MOAR debt, MOAR payments, MOAR spending, and just heat up until you fucking MELT DOWN economically.  They make money on EVERY transaction.  The sinister hand of the filthy Jew is EVERYWHERE in the economy you allowed them to build.

Invisible Hand of the Jew

>>267
I find it funny that you claim that they are not invisible then spend the rest of your post spewing forth moar diatribe instead of naming individuals and the crimes you are accusing them of.

>>269
The names of the Jews in the media and government are well known.  Google those lists for yourself.  Also note that the heads of corporations are profoundly staffed with Jews, far in excess of the 1% of the population they are supposed to be.  Check that for yourself.  You will find Boards of Directors staffed as high as 25% with Jews.

But no, you're not going to check on any of that, will you?  You're just going to continue poasting here, eventually screaming ANTI-SEMITE over and over until yet another enemy of the Zionist Takeover Of The West is eliminated ... as you were trained FROM BIRTH to do.

>>270
So what? Not only does correlation not imply causation but even if did you still don't know what that cause is. Asians are more likely to get into universities, whites are more likely to get rich and blacks are more likely to succeed as athletes. Does this mean each race has a secrety society which uses intrigue to help them gain dominance in each arena?

Also I never said "anti-semite" until this sentence. You're like this guy who told me I think bush is a socialist when we were discussing something completely different.

Why don't you write a book on the subject

>>271
Then why are Asians richer than Whites?

>>273
Brain drain. America has the freedoms so smart people are more likely to move here.

Libertarianism is socialist by my standards. The government handles the military and courts? Fucking statist assholes want the state to run everything.

Anarcho-liberalism for the win!

I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I've nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
You see, I've just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!

You really must admit it's a delightful revelation:
To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!

I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market's hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!

His very slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes him the very model of a modern Libertarian!

All "public wealth" is robbery, we never will accede to it;
You have no rights in anything if you can't show your deed to it.
(But don't fear repossession by our Amerind minority:
Those treaties aren't valid---Uncle Sam had no authority!)
We realize whales and wolves and moose find wilderness quite vital,
And we'll give them back their habitats---if they can prove their title.
But people like unspoiled lands (we too will say "hooray" for them),
So we have faith that someone else will freely choose to pay for them.

Yes, when the parks are auctioned it will be a lucky day for them---
We're confident that someone else will freely choose to pay for them!

We'll guard the health of nature by self-interest most astute:
Since pollution is destructive, no one ever will pollute.
Thus factories will safeguard our communities riparian---
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Yes, factories will safeguard our communities riparian,
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!

In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
Why markets cannot err within the system I've described,
Why poor folk won't be bullied and why rich folk won't be bribed,
And why all vast inequities of power and position
Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter "competition!"---

He's so much more exciting than a common politician,
Inequities will vanish when he hollers "Competition!"

---And why my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, "Ridiculous!",
And why my social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
I'll be the very model of a modern Libertarian!

His novel social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Well, that about wraps it up. As mature adults no one should need the state to wipe their ass. Libertarianism it is.

>>276
Sorry but libertarianism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism.

I think most smart people already know libertarianism works, in principle. We just need to bring it to the surface as it were.

1: Thinking in practical terms. You look at what you can actually do in the real world rather than fixate on "the ideal" and utopias.

2: Comparing things to alternatives, looking at the opportunity cost. Too often I see capitalism in practice compared to utopian socialism.

3: Structural functionalism, capitalism is not some giant entity, it is part of a whole, it shares the crib with statists and other unsavory types and most of the problems attributed to capitalism are really due to his bedfellows. Understanding how different factors affect each other to different degrees and how they are all inter-related.

4: Market forces, autonomy and self-organizing systems. How they work and how coercion is the usual cause of chaos and that tyranny is not the only way of putting order.

5: The necessity of individualism in forming functional groups, how it is necessary for people to think for themselves in order for the group to serve them. How collectivism leads to abusive authority.

6: Objectivity, looking at both the advantages and disadvantages of something, recognizing this is a sign of strength in an argument and better than just purely looking at the advantages of things you have decided are right and only looking at the disadvantages of everything else.

7: Understanding that utilitarian ethics are often misinterpreted. Utilitarianism is not collective hedonism, we are not animals, we are sapient beings there are concepts such as "greater happiness" and philosophy to look into. Lack of information and fallibility means that not everyone can make a snap decision about how many people live or die. We oppose pushing people off bridges because it is very unlikely that they will be in a situation where pushing someone off a bridge to stop a train will save 5 workers down the line.

8: Understanding that utilitarian ethics are compatible with libertarianism and capitalism, that sapient beings need freedom in order to better organize their lives and achieve happiness and greater happiness.

Hope I cleared a few things up.

People just don't care about true American values anymore.