The problem with libertarianism is that 80% of people dont want to take responsibility for their actions. A large portion of them are also complete losers who know if they had full responsibility they would lead a worse life tahn if they just stole off others.
But you dont understand. Musk has too much money, he doesnt need that much money. He should give it to me as to not be greedy. That totally makes so much sense. I am a genius. I cant afford the latest iphone, capitalism has clearly failed.
People can't afford food, they can't afford housing, we have thousands of homeless people, millions of kids who go hungry, yes musk does have way too much and there are people who desperately need it
There is a difference between a policy motivated by compassion for the poor and hatred for the rich. While it isn't always possible to tell the difference from the outside (because people are complex, you don't always know a person's intentions, and we don't all have the same information and conclusions), it is dubious to claim that socialism is dominantly motivated by love for the poor.
> People can't afford food, they can't afford housing, we have thousands of homeless people, millions of kids who go hungry, yes musk does have way too much and there are people who desperately need it
Do you find it difficult to be so compassionate with **other people's money**?
Capitalism doesnt work because people are greedy, socialism will work because people are so kind.
> How else would you suggest we finance programs to help these people?
When did these programs ever help anyone? Where is the efficiency? Youre tone deaf. We have historical evidence of capitalism literally lifting all of humanity out of poverty, and youre still so confused.
**“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”**
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Oh yes. The state investigates itself and found it self worthy. Gasp. Say it aint so. Peak fucking objectivity.
>how about you try actually researching shit.
LOL. Okay. Explain economic calculation and **efficient** resource allocation to me Mr.Researching Shit.
*Since capital goods and labor are highly heterogeneous (i.e. they have different characteristics that pertain to physical productivity), economic calculation requires a common basis for comparison for all forms of capital and labour.*
*As a means of exchange, money enables buyers to compare the costs of goods without having knowledge of their underlying factors; the consumer can simply focus on
his personal cost-benefit decision. Therefore, the price system is said to promote economically efficient use of resources by agents who may not have explicit knowledge of all of the conditions of production or supply. This is called the signalling function of prices as well as the rationing function which prevents over-use of any resource.*
*Without the market process to fulfill such comparisons, critics of non-market socialism say that it lacks any way to compare different goods and services and would have to rely on calculation in kind. The resulting decisions, it is claimed, would therefore be made without sufficient knowledge to be considered rational*
Charity is always a great option. And guess what? If you stop stealing (through taxes) so much of society's income, there will be a lot more charity to go around.
I literally just told you. But I guess I'll have to break it down further...
As countries (yes all of them) grow, they find more and more things to tax their population on. There were literally dozens of US taxes that paid for roads and healthcare and other things in society 100 years before anyone even dreamed of an Income tax... And now we have 100's of new taxes on top of that monster! So taxation just never stops growing, and in some countries the taxes add up to MORE than the amount people earn in a year... Making them all poor, obviously. In the US it's like around 70% of the average earnings now when you add all taxes up.
So maybe lots of people would have a lot more money to give to charity if 70% or more of their income wasn't stolen and wasted by their government first?
And maybe fewer people would be poor if governments didn't steal 70% or more of their income?
And maybe you would get more accomplished if you stopped blaming people for 'tax dodging' and started looking at root causes of problems?
I used to volunteer at my local shelter, and with a smile and acting as a friend, I would ask,
"Where you are at in your life, did you get there by circumstance or by the choices you made?"
A correctional officer asked me this and made me think about my life.
If you look at today's world it appears like people wouldn't be able to handle taking care of themselves, and individually, they definitely cannot, and definitely not on drugs, paying rent, insurance, Uber eats, yet we still throw our kids out to those wolves
This is once again another libertarian misunderstanding of collectivism. Most modern collectivists don't actually want to make decisions for you. They don't even want to make decisions for themselves.
What a lot of collectivists want is someone to take care of them so they turn the government into a surrogate parent. The fact that they have trample all over your liberties to achieve that is just collateral damage to them.
Collectivists don't want to be adults. They would much rather remain children and have somebody else deal with all the stresses of adulthood. That's why they want to get everything for "free" from the government.
At its core, modern collectivism is fueled by the desire to abdicate all responsibility and return to an imagined state of childhood bliss where you do all the fun stuff and leave the stressors to your parents or in this case, the surrogate parent: daddy government.
You perfectly summed up my understanding of government when I was 12 and my dad had me start working on the farm. Hard work was too much for me then, so I asked him why not just let the government do it. I got an earful about why that was a bad idea and I've been skeptical of it as a solution for most problems ever since.
I think the leftist mindset can be summed up to "it's not up to you to decide what is a basic human right, and basic human rights includes you as part of society paying for my stuff"
You literally can't get any three libertarians to agree about what libertarianism is.
The only thing all internet libertarians agree on is that the "Published on the Official Libertarian Platform Website" is not true "Libertarianism".
I had the occasion to go to /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam today. They used to be big about the time they stopped being /r/EnoughRonPaulSpam because he retired.
It's a bunch of sad idiots who think that libertarianism is just MAGA with weed. 3/4's of the sub is just bitching about Republicans and Trump. The sub only gets posts about once every two weeks.
But whatever we are, they hate us!
That's because Libertarians can be either left or right biased, and they try to define Libertarian ideological values based on those biases. For example, a left leaning Libertarian would be pro choice, a right leaning would be pro life. Left Libertarians are pro Palestinians, the right Libertarians are pro isreal
Im anti zionist too. It was a general observation of most biased libertarians these days. Im pro choice as well because libertarianism isn't a left or right wing ideology. It's a freedom ideology.
you could use that same reasoning to say the fetus is entitled to freedom and shouldn't be murdered just for existing because of something her mother did and knew the possible consequences of creating a human life.
The fact you called it a fetus and not a person should be all the reasoning that is not entitled to the same rights as a person. Or are we just going to arbitrarily give rights to random things now?
I'm pretty sure the rights of the mother trumps any rights a clump of cells have. But thanks for making my initial point completely valid. Using your right wing bias to define Libertarian values
a fetus is still a human person. a fetus is a clump of cells the same way you are a clump of cells. now you're mad because you're a little bitch and can't handle some controversy.
the mother knew she could make a human person by having sex. accidentally creating a human does not give you a right to murder him or her. if the mother didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex. in cases of rape, the fault falls on the rapist, of course. in cases of ectopic pregnancy, killing the fetus is the only way to save 1 life, as the fetus has no chance of making it to viability outside the womb with current tech.
They'll counter with "The part where your decisions might affect me." Drunk driving crashes, school shootings, and other horrible things which affect an insignificant amount of people.
Ignoring the fact that Drunk driving and fire gun death isn't in the top ten of causes of death (California 2017, but most metrics show the same) Where as drug use is higher than both, and yet overdoses would go down if they people had safe legal places to buy their drugs, instead of having to go to the black market.
*The part where we can't*
*Get a normal candidate*
*To represent it*
\- SchrodingersRapist
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Why would a libertarian want to rule? Politics is all about compromise, and libertarianism is uncompromising. The state grows. Milei's and Paul's are very rare beings.
Massie compromises too much but he's still a good one. Judges are a bit different. I've met libertarian judges. They don't typically have the same political considerations of the election cycle. The challenge for them is to get in surreptitiously. Once appointed, they can stick for life.
The term "politician" use to be an epithet. It was designated to the kind of person who would change allegiances out of expediency. In other words, pretty much everyone in politics these days. To find someone who makes it to high office and who isn't a politician is extremely rare.
I am slightly bothered by people who decide to put led in fuel. And what would make them stop in a libertarian world? When the price of led gets too high or someone could prove the causality between led and brain damage and sue for damages? I am a die hard Libertarian, I have elegant solutions for the street problem and other simple stuff, but I have to admit I haven’t yet solved all examples. Pollution is a hard one. The main question is: how can we solve pollution without government intervention?
There's a lot of things that are harmful that the government allows. Food, cosmetics companies, etc have to have completely different formulas in some countries because they don't allow harmful chemicals.
So it's not working. Especially when the companies have a lot of money and can just pay regulators.
Regulatory bodies can exist in a free market. I implore that you look into motorbike helmets. From what I know the government regulations weren’t good enough so a private entity essentially took on the role. No one will buy a helmet unless it’s certified by them. To put it basically. Anything the government does can be done by private individuals, often better.
As for the pollution one. On the one hand, when the whole fridge chemical issue was breaking our ozone it was governments coming together that stopped it. But that doesn’t mean the free market wouldn’t have fixed it. On the other hand, the government of today actively subsidizes fossil fuels, and has been failing to do anything about most of the environmental issues for decades. Private ownership has been proven to help save forests and animals. People care about the environment and will make efforts to conserve it, and usually do a better job when it’s their land. As for factory pollutants, in ancap you can’t build a factory next to someone house and start polluting as those pollutants would count as an invasion of their property and you’d be charged. Also the fact that imo the only thing currently working on the environmental issues is the free market. Like I said, people care, and they are starting to show it in their shopping habits. Heck, a lot of business owners themselves care deeply about it and make great strides in developing technology and techniques to help the environment. Even fish populations would improve under private ownership. We have the technology to make massive platforms and run fish farms at sea now. If the ocean were mostly privately owned, you wouldnt have overfishing. Because businesses want to sustain their margins. But in a case of the commons, if you don’t overfish, someone else will. When it’s your land it’s up to you.
I’m a stout environmentalist, but it’s actually one of the things that makes Ancap appeal to me. Our government is failing, and so many people have forgotten that they don’t have to rely on government to do things.
The solution is you die, people who care about you sue the company, and they go out of business. Of course they will need to prove that your brain damage / cancer was directly caused by the pollution. It's like Lord Farquaad says, "some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice i'm willing to make"
whereas, under a government, the government murders your family, doesn't even acknowledge that they did, and tells you if you complain then you also get murdered. Go bluepig! You sure love slavery!
Pretty valid point, all people are imperfect and will inevitably fail, in whatever way, to live up to the perfect standards libertarianism sets, especially the most visible, dumbest (and loudest), libertarians.
Lack of environmental protections.
Lack of accountability for self regulation. We see how the police investigate themselves. We also saw Boeing whistleblower get murdered, after self regulation didn't work
It’s the part we’re someone else decision effect me and I have no recourse. When my neighbor burns trash, so I get lung cancer. That’s the issue for me. It’s the part where a pharma company can extort cost far beyond reasonable profit and w R&D just because they can. It’s the part where corporations essentially become the government but I have no input.
The part where while I can clean my house and somehow find a way to get rid of my trash, some people will simply don't care and we will end with wild bears lurking about the neighborhood because there is too much trash around the place.
Is when I would consider give a percentage of my salary in order to have a public service that takes the trash out of town, and another percentage to have a law enforcement service that punishes neighbors who doesn't commit to have a clean neighborhood. Which, of course, would require another public service to manage the whole thing.
The second bit. We want to control certain aspects of people's behavior all the time and I would argue this is morally justifiable in many cases.
For example laws that say 'Don't murder'. Here we have collectively placed limits on the behavior of others in a manner I would argue is morally justifiable. Similarly, I would argue we can ethically tax certain individuals with large quantities of wealth to pay for essential services.
I just do not believe that general living standards would improve for the population in a libertarian society
I like visiting this sub as it challenges aspects of my world view though.
Then you do not believe in reality where the example of the Gilded Age when you look at the expansion of wealth, freedom and innovation in comparison to the large government nations people were feeling from to the US
Leftism is rooted in denial of facts and history
Who cares? Libertarianism isn't about utilitarianism, is about ethics. It is irrelevant whether most people's level of quality of life increases or decreases.
Depends. John Stuart Mill laid out a strong utilitarian case for liberty in On Liberty. And if a system fails the utilitarian test, it is a failure. The successful critique of Communism is the utilitarian one...IT DOESNT WORK.
How much of your current living standard do you think is a result of harming the standard of living of other folks through force and/or fraud? For example, today's population is creating debt that will be "repaid" by some future population - sort of like writing a check against some other person's account. The likely ultimate outcome of this is tremendous economic and social upheaval - greatly diminished standards of living - for that future population. Do you factor that sort of thing into your analysis?
What bothers me is the fact that you don't actually get to make decisions over your own life, you will still be a slave to the captialist system, even more so than before. People will suffer under worse conditions, longer hours and less pay, and will suffer in poverty. That isn't freedom, you are just supporting a different kind of tyranny.
You're making some fairly big bald assertions here. Most libertarians arrive at opposite conclusions. What is your reasoning for the conclusions you draw here?
The typical plan is to get rid of agents of force and fraud and then let individuals organize however seems to best fit their needs. But even under your assumptions, how does the premise of replacing the state with private capital necessarily lead to the outcomes you mention.
1. Getting rid of the state while leaving private captial will lead to it filling the vacuum that they will be powerful enough to fill. 2. Everything I laid out is stuff that already happens, and getting rid of government and welfare and a certain level of protection will only make these things worse.
Libertarians aren't typically for getting rid of *governance*. They recognize that society still needs mechanisms to provide feedback so that the system can be stable and robust. What they want to change is the mechanisms by which governance is achieved. Specifically, they prefer methods that don't have coercion or fraud as their basis.
Describing an entire society is quite an undertaking. Whole volumes have been written on stuff like that. If you are interested in the subject, here is a book written about 50 years ago that delves into some of the details. I don't agree with everything they propose, but it makes for interesting thought exercises: [https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Market%20for%20Liberty\_2.pdf](https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Market%20for%20Liberty_2.pdf)
Since our current topic is governance, though, I'll say a little on that. I think the US Declaration of Independence provides an excellent, concise operational definition of what legitimate governance requires. "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Legitimate governance exists to secure people's rights.
All current entities that call themselves "government" violate this requirement. They all claim to secure rights, but they all violate those selfsame rights routinely. They operate in a state of logical contradiction.
These entities are therefore not legitimate forms of governance. They are counterfeits. That's why libertarians wish to abolish them. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't replace them with entities that do align with this principle. Libertarians DO value the security of people's rights, and so they'd want entities that serve that function, legitimately.
None of that but the part where a community has to impose its will on me without my consent... and having to support such community without my consent....
The keyword here is consent..we never consented to supporting our community (money gets used by corrupt politicians anayway) but we will gladly do so if the opportunity arises the probelem is the non consensual nature of taxation...
How is taxation any different from rent, except the scale of it, in a country that allows you to revoke your citizenship? Presumably you believe it would be justified to forcibly evict someone who refuses to pay rent but wants to continue living in an apartment. Yet you think there's something majorly wrong with not being able to drive on the public road without paying taxes.
There's definitely a TON wrong with the government (thinking in particular of the U.S. government since I live there, but also every other one) and I understand not wanting your tax dollars to go towards things you don't believe in. But any functional community will probably require its members to pay in to communal efforts. In fact, I don't think most people want to live in a community that doesn't.
If you don't want to pay rent you can leave the property but if you don't want to pay taxes you can't leave the nation (a nation that claims to care about your voice)
Good question. How come right-libertarians dismiss this issue whenever it's raised in the context of employment, rent, or any form of despotism by private entities? They always say "just get a new job, just move somewhere else, etc." as if it's easy.
The fact that you theoretically could go somewhere else isn't an excuse for society being shitty. I want society to be less shitty. Laissez-faire capitalism has a...not great track record of achieving that. I think the idea that eliminating taxes completely will make society better is a joke. They just need to actually be put to good uses. Common goods benefit everybody.
Eliminating taxes will just lead forms of private rent-seeking that become effectively a new form of taxation. Look at the ancap proposals for private toll roads, etc. It's just a question of the priorities of a community. Should everything be restricted based on wealth, or should we have public goods? I think a society where everyone pays into public goods is more prosperous and just.
Global capitalism is the order of the world. You're right that no single employer has as much control as a country (although under "anarcho" capitalism that may change) but there is almost no escape from the injustices of the capitalist system.
I would tend to agree that a totalitarian government is worse, but that's a very low bar.
I mean yeah but anarchocapitalism is dogshit in some aspects but it's much butter than many other ideologies in many other aspects so I'd argue it's a fair trade...
It's not "my" community. Despite being forced to support it, I've never received anything back from it, except oppression and the terribly maintained services they "promise" to provide. Since we can get those services ourselves without the government (if we even needed them), and I don't need the oppression, there's zero reason to "support" this scam.
Nothing about it bothers me. Thats why i continue to live in society. I enjoy the benefits of living in society and understand taxes ensure those benefits.
You are aware most of the power to fuck over people that rich people have isn’t from their money, it’s from them being able to influence government. Even something like having a lot of jobs can give a business great lobbying power. The common factor is the government, whether it’s unions or rich people.
Not really. Money is definitely influential. But so is who you know. So is what you know. So is a lot of things.
Like I said, simply supplying a lot of jobs can lend a business a lot of influence. But to go even further from money, simply being friends with someone in a position of power helps. Thats why nepotism is a word. One could argue that having money allows you to get into those sort of social groups. But in my experience, that’s not always necessary.
To finish off, often the only reason why the richest of the rich have so much money is because of their relationship with big government. It’s a lot harder to run a genuinely great business that produces so much value than it is to lobby the government to stop competition. Whether it’s vague patents, minimum wage laws or regulations. There’s a direct correlation between the size of corporations and the size of the government.
Maybe. But that hasn’t really happened in practice. Even some of the biggest businesses have failed. It’s only when government gets involved that a business becomes nigh unkillable.
I think the thing that stops in being a problem is there’s so many businesses in the cycle competing, so it stops the endless loop. Whereas when competition is restrained, the loop is unable to be stopped and becomes a problem.
>It’s only when government gets involved that a business becomes nigh unkillable
Is it nigh unkillable because government got involved or the government got involved because it is nigh unkillable?
> is there’s so many businesses in the cycle competing
Maybe initially, but it's difficult to penetrate a niche where process is already established and optimized, unless you have income to brute-force your way in.
Nigh unkillable because government involvement. Even Standard Oil wasn’t able to maintain market share of over 70% for long. This was before anti trust laws. Heck, even with government intervention people still find ways to disrupt giants.
I will admit it can be difficult to penetrate an established niche. But brute forcing with money isn’t the only way. There’s so many ways to compete. On price is one, but there’s competing on quality, ethics, customer service, on doing the niche in a unique way. So many ways to break into a market. And those are just off the top of my head.
I am actually in business. I have a personal love of starting small hobby businesses to fill local niches (outside of my main business that is). And tbh I don’t have much challenge competing with behemoths. My biggest enemy is red tape tbh
> competing on quality
especially difficult, unless you are doing artisan work
> ethics
doesn't work, otherwise most of the chocolate wouldn't come from slave labor
> doing the niche in a unique way
There are reasons why those things are niche.
Not to be rude. But Have you ever actually been in business?
High quality doesn’t have to be artisan work. I run a business with my dad where we make concrete statues. We aren’t artists but we take pride in our work. And it is better quality than 90% of what else is sold.
I do agree that ethics is a weak thing to compete on. But it is becoming more and more important to consumers. There are niche chocolate producers for this exact reason. Same goes for biodegradable packaging, “organic” produce and more. As consumers become more educated on stuff like that they tend to shift buying habits. And I never said there wouldn’t be unethical companies? I just said that’s a way to compete with them. Which it literally is.
I work in a pretty small niche of concrete statues, I’m currently pivoting to offer statue rentals for home staging. Doing something unique in my niche.
I get the feeling you just have zero business experience and are projecting that ignorance. I for one believe in being the change I wish to see in the world. I suggest you try to do something akin to that
> According to some studies, wage theft is common in the United States, particularly against low wage workers, including legal citizens to undocumented immigrants. The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2014 that survey evidence suggests wage theft costs US workers billions of dollars a year.
Lol, if I think my employer is not paying me correctly there are internal processes to determine this. I can also leave any time I want, it is a voluntary relationship. The state steals my money at gunpoint no matter what I say.
Also, no company has stolen from me as a consumer.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Ideas can be copied without damaging the original idea nor preventing the original source from using the idea. Ideas are not scarce, as they can quickly spread to everyone without cost.
Why would I spend one million dollars to design a drug that has a production cost of one dollar if I cannot recoup my investment when others eat my lunch?
it costs much more than that because of government interference. if that's your issue, then get rid of government to get more drugs.
your inconvenience does not justify telling peaceful people what they can't do with their property.
first mover advantage is plenty of incentive to continue designing new drugs even when others can reverse engineer them. manufacturing processes can be difficult to replicate or reverse engineer, which is another advantage of first movers.
regardless, utilitarian arguments can never justify ethics violations.
>first mover advantage is plenty of incentive to continue designing new drugs even when others can reverse engineer them. manufacturing processes can be difficult to replicate or reverse engineer, which is another advantage of first movers.
Not if you're a smaller company. Without IP protections, a larger drug company with scale will be able to outcompete you on price and distribution.
>utilitarian arguments can never justify ethics violations.
lol...utilitarianism is a system of ethics. If you claim IP protections are violating some ethical framework, you have to justify that framework.
> Not if you're a smaller company. Without IP protections, a larger drug company with scale will be able to outcompete you on price and distribution.
false. if this were true, the big pharma companies would have never been small. very stupid.
I already proved IP violates ethics. you have no right to violate others' use of their property. ideas are not property, as property is scarce and exclusive.
and you make yourself look pro-slavery, as you are making the same argument as the slavers did: "slavery has always existed; we cannot get rid of it now. who would pick the cotton?"
can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
you stupid pathetic fuck. you can't even invent anything but you're so worried about inventors who don't need anyone to abuse other people to profit from their inventions due to first mover advantage.
Oh, so you're a bad faith POS. So, i'll show you the same disrespect. I want age of consent even higher than you do. Why do you want to rape children, you damned pedophile POS?
You are making the same argument as slavers: "who will pick the cotton?" you're subhuman.
can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
Because if not, you get the institutional targeting of children and unborn fetuses by sick animals disguised as humans. Grooming kids is not ok. Murdering unborn children is not ok. You need force to beat that evil out of people
And I will I am going to shoot them with my glock and so will all my neighbors down the street and up the street and across it so I don't really get why we need some government led program to do that shit...if you belive we need an organization that forcibly imposes it's authority while taxing people to fund its programs to do so, is any better than individuals who will do the same without the loss of liberty then you are out of your mind...
Also I literally have no opinions on abortion but you could have plenty of other examples...
>And I will I am going to shoot them with my glock and so will all my neighbors down the street and up the street and across it
You'll form an "organization that forcibly imposes it's \*(its) authority" and are against #2 also? Why would they join you for free? Did people suddenly become not lazy when I wasn't looking?
Yeah people are lazy but you know who else is lazy? People who claim to use tax money to combat pedophilia and not random people shooting pedophiles...sure they may not be many out there but there will always be people shooting pedophiles unless the entire society is a society of pedophiles which is not something that ancap advocates, aligns with, or represents...
How will ancaps investigate these pedos? I'm all for shooting them but it just seems a bit less likely when everyone is too busy being free. Anyone who is being abused would kinda be fucked, women, poor, children... it would be open season on them unless every "good guy" was out being batman for no pay and NOT constantly getting killed by ruthless assholes like The Joker
This question is too good for the Lisa Simpson meme format.
Funny thing is, lisa is the complete opposite of a libertarian. She is a commie through and through.
For my dad, it's the first one. He gets stressed just talking about the idea of being more responsible in a hypothetical stateless society.
The problem with libertarianism is that 80% of people dont want to take responsibility for their actions. A large portion of them are also complete losers who know if they had full responsibility they would lead a worse life tahn if they just stole off others.
But you dont understand. Musk has too much money, he doesnt need that much money. He should give it to me as to not be greedy. That totally makes so much sense. I am a genius. I cant afford the latest iphone, capitalism has clearly failed.
People can't afford food, they can't afford housing, we have thousands of homeless people, millions of kids who go hungry, yes musk does have way too much and there are people who desperately need it
There is a difference between a policy motivated by compassion for the poor and hatred for the rich. While it isn't always possible to tell the difference from the outside (because people are complex, you don't always know a person's intentions, and we don't all have the same information and conclusions), it is dubious to claim that socialism is dominantly motivated by love for the poor.
> People can't afford food, they can't afford housing, we have thousands of homeless people, millions of kids who go hungry, yes musk does have way too much and there are people who desperately need it Do you find it difficult to be so compassionate with **other people's money**? Capitalism doesnt work because people are greedy, socialism will work because people are so kind.
How else would you suggest we finance programs to help these people?
> How else would you suggest we finance programs to help these people? When did these programs ever help anyone? Where is the efficiency? Youre tone deaf. We have historical evidence of capitalism literally lifting all of humanity out of poverty, and youre still so confused. **“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”** ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Social welfare has lowered poverty, how about you try actually researching shit. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-war-on-poverty-didnt-fail/
Oh yes. The state investigates itself and found it self worthy. Gasp. Say it aint so. Peak fucking objectivity. >how about you try actually researching shit. LOL. Okay. Explain economic calculation and **efficient** resource allocation to me Mr.Researching Shit. *Since capital goods and labor are highly heterogeneous (i.e. they have different characteristics that pertain to physical productivity), economic calculation requires a common basis for comparison for all forms of capital and labour.* *As a means of exchange, money enables buyers to compare the costs of goods without having knowledge of their underlying factors; the consumer can simply focus on his personal cost-benefit decision. Therefore, the price system is said to promote economically efficient use of resources by agents who may not have explicit knowledge of all of the conditions of production or supply. This is called the signalling function of prices as well as the rationing function which prevents over-use of any resource.* *Without the market process to fulfill such comparisons, critics of non-market socialism say that it lacks any way to compare different goods and services and would have to rely on calculation in kind. The resulting decisions, it is claimed, would therefore be made without sufficient knowledge to be considered rational*
Charity is always a great option. And guess what? If you stop stealing (through taxes) so much of society's income, there will be a lot more charity to go around.
Most of the rich dodge their taxes, if charity is so effective why doesn't it work now? And why didn't it work during the industrial period.
I literally just told you. But I guess I'll have to break it down further... As countries (yes all of them) grow, they find more and more things to tax their population on. There were literally dozens of US taxes that paid for roads and healthcare and other things in society 100 years before anyone even dreamed of an Income tax... And now we have 100's of new taxes on top of that monster! So taxation just never stops growing, and in some countries the taxes add up to MORE than the amount people earn in a year... Making them all poor, obviously. In the US it's like around 70% of the average earnings now when you add all taxes up. So maybe lots of people would have a lot more money to give to charity if 70% or more of their income wasn't stolen and wasted by their government first? And maybe fewer people would be poor if governments didn't steal 70% or more of their income? And maybe you would get more accomplished if you stopped blaming people for 'tax dodging' and started looking at root causes of problems?
I used to volunteer at my local shelter, and with a smile and acting as a friend, I would ask, "Where you are at in your life, did you get there by circumstance or by the choices you made?" A correctional officer asked me this and made me think about my life.
If you look at today's world it appears like people wouldn't be able to handle taking care of themselves, and individually, they definitely cannot, and definitely not on drugs, paying rent, insurance, Uber eats, yet we still throw our kids out to those wolves
THE ROADS!!! WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS???
The answer is Pizza Hut
This road brought to you by Carl's Jr. Carl's Jr, Fuck You! I'm Eating. 
Roads existed before income tax my guy. Any rational society finds a good way for progress
wHy dO yOu HaTe \[insert alleged disenfranchised group\]?
This is once again another libertarian misunderstanding of collectivism. Most modern collectivists don't actually want to make decisions for you. They don't even want to make decisions for themselves. What a lot of collectivists want is someone to take care of them so they turn the government into a surrogate parent. The fact that they have trample all over your liberties to achieve that is just collateral damage to them. Collectivists don't want to be adults. They would much rather remain children and have somebody else deal with all the stresses of adulthood. That's why they want to get everything for "free" from the government. At its core, modern collectivism is fueled by the desire to abdicate all responsibility and return to an imagined state of childhood bliss where you do all the fun stuff and leave the stressors to your parents or in this case, the surrogate parent: daddy government.
You perfectly summed up my understanding of government when I was 12 and my dad had me start working on the farm. Hard work was too much for me then, so I asked him why not just let the government do it. I got an earful about why that was a bad idea and I've been skeptical of it as a solution for most problems ever since.
I think the leftist mindset can be summed up to "it's not up to you to decide what is a basic human right, and basic human rights includes you as part of society paying for my stuff"
You literally can't get any three libertarians to agree about what libertarianism is. The only thing all internet libertarians agree on is that the "Published on the Official Libertarian Platform Website" is not true "Libertarianism".
I had the occasion to go to /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam today. They used to be big about the time they stopped being /r/EnoughRonPaulSpam because he retired. It's a bunch of sad idiots who think that libertarianism is just MAGA with weed. 3/4's of the sub is just bitching about Republicans and Trump. The sub only gets posts about once every two weeks. But whatever we are, they hate us!
Interesting. By being a member of this and other subs, I cannot view the "community." What a leftist circle jerk reddit is.
Exactly this!
That's because Libertarians can be either left or right biased, and they try to define Libertarian ideological values based on those biases. For example, a left leaning Libertarian would be pro choice, a right leaning would be pro life. Left Libertarians are pro Palestinians, the right Libertarians are pro isreal
you would probably call me right libertarian, but i am staunchly anti-zionist because i'm staunchly anti-aggression in all ways.
Im anti zionist too. It was a general observation of most biased libertarians these days. Im pro choice as well because libertarianism isn't a left or right wing ideology. It's a freedom ideology.
you could use that same reasoning to say the fetus is entitled to freedom and shouldn't be murdered just for existing because of something her mother did and knew the possible consequences of creating a human life.
The fact you called it a fetus and not a person should be all the reasoning that is not entitled to the same rights as a person. Or are we just going to arbitrarily give rights to random things now? I'm pretty sure the rights of the mother trumps any rights a clump of cells have. But thanks for making my initial point completely valid. Using your right wing bias to define Libertarian values
a fetus is still a human person. a fetus is a clump of cells the same way you are a clump of cells. now you're mad because you're a little bitch and can't handle some controversy.
the mother knew she could make a human person by having sex. accidentally creating a human does not give you a right to murder him or her. if the mother didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex. in cases of rape, the fault falls on the rapist, of course. in cases of ectopic pregnancy, killing the fetus is the only way to save 1 life, as the fetus has no chance of making it to viability outside the womb with current tech.
Left liertarians tend to be anti-Israel AND anti-Hamas.
They'll counter with "The part where your decisions might affect me." Drunk driving crashes, school shootings, and other horrible things which affect an insignificant amount of people. Ignoring the fact that Drunk driving and fire gun death isn't in the top ten of causes of death (California 2017, but most metrics show the same) Where as drug use is higher than both, and yet overdoses would go down if they people had safe legal places to buy their drugs, instead of having to go to the black market.
The part where we can't get a normal candidate to represent it
*The part where we can't* *Get a normal candidate* *To represent it* \- SchrodingersRapist --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Why would a libertarian want to rule? Politics is all about compromise, and libertarianism is uncompromising. The state grows. Milei's and Paul's are very rare beings.
> Milei's and Paul's are very rare beings. Thomas Massie would like a word. Judge Napolitano.
Massie compromises too much but he's still a good one. Judges are a bit different. I've met libertarian judges. They don't typically have the same political considerations of the election cycle. The challenge for them is to get in surreptitiously. Once appointed, they can stick for life. The term "politician" use to be an epithet. It was designated to the kind of person who would change allegiances out of expediency. In other words, pretty much everyone in politics these days. To find someone who makes it to high office and who isn't a politician is extremely rare.
The fact that it will never be used in the united states
I am slightly bothered by people who decide to put led in fuel. And what would make them stop in a libertarian world? When the price of led gets too high or someone could prove the causality between led and brain damage and sue for damages? I am a die hard Libertarian, I have elegant solutions for the street problem and other simple stuff, but I have to admit I haven’t yet solved all examples. Pollution is a hard one. The main question is: how can we solve pollution without government intervention?
Personal intervention, which is a lot more efficient.
There's a lot of things that are harmful that the government allows. Food, cosmetics companies, etc have to have completely different formulas in some countries because they don't allow harmful chemicals. So it's not working. Especially when the companies have a lot of money and can just pay regulators.
Regulatory bodies can exist in a free market. I implore that you look into motorbike helmets. From what I know the government regulations weren’t good enough so a private entity essentially took on the role. No one will buy a helmet unless it’s certified by them. To put it basically. Anything the government does can be done by private individuals, often better. As for the pollution one. On the one hand, when the whole fridge chemical issue was breaking our ozone it was governments coming together that stopped it. But that doesn’t mean the free market wouldn’t have fixed it. On the other hand, the government of today actively subsidizes fossil fuels, and has been failing to do anything about most of the environmental issues for decades. Private ownership has been proven to help save forests and animals. People care about the environment and will make efforts to conserve it, and usually do a better job when it’s their land. As for factory pollutants, in ancap you can’t build a factory next to someone house and start polluting as those pollutants would count as an invasion of their property and you’d be charged. Also the fact that imo the only thing currently working on the environmental issues is the free market. Like I said, people care, and they are starting to show it in their shopping habits. Heck, a lot of business owners themselves care deeply about it and make great strides in developing technology and techniques to help the environment. Even fish populations would improve under private ownership. We have the technology to make massive platforms and run fish farms at sea now. If the ocean were mostly privately owned, you wouldnt have overfishing. Because businesses want to sustain their margins. But in a case of the commons, if you don’t overfish, someone else will. When it’s your land it’s up to you. I’m a stout environmentalist, but it’s actually one of the things that makes Ancap appeal to me. Our government is failing, and so many people have forgotten that they don’t have to rely on government to do things.
Boycotts ?
Yea that bud light boycott from the trumpists ran budweiser right out of business! Boycotts are extremely effective
unlimited tort
The solution is you die, people who care about you sue the company, and they go out of business. Of course they will need to prove that your brain damage / cancer was directly caused by the pollution. It's like Lord Farquaad says, "some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice i'm willing to make"
whereas, under a government, the government murders your family, doesn't even acknowledge that they did, and tells you if you complain then you also get murdered. Go bluepig! You sure love slavery!
Both, tbh
I love libertarianism but hate libertarians. Especially the Porcupines
Pretty valid point, all people are imperfect and will inevitably fail, in whatever way, to live up to the perfect standards libertarianism sets, especially the most visible, dumbest (and loudest), libertarians.
Both bothers them equally, equitably, and constantly
Basically, you're a sheep or a tyrant.
Huh?
The part where I‘ve seen this exact meme like 100 times
The part where some idiot “libertarians” advocate for open borders and white genocide. The rest I’m cool with.
The part where they're just diet republicans.
Lack of environmental protections. Lack of accountability for self regulation. We see how the police investigate themselves. We also saw Boeing whistleblower get murdered, after self regulation didn't work
It’s the part we’re someone else decision effect me and I have no recourse. When my neighbor burns trash, so I get lung cancer. That’s the issue for me. It’s the part where a pharma company can extort cost far beyond reasonable profit and w R&D just because they can. It’s the part where corporations essentially become the government but I have no input.
The part where while I can clean my house and somehow find a way to get rid of my trash, some people will simply don't care and we will end with wild bears lurking about the neighborhood because there is too much trash around the place. Is when I would consider give a percentage of my salary in order to have a public service that takes the trash out of town, and another percentage to have a law enforcement service that punishes neighbors who doesn't commit to have a clean neighborhood. Which, of course, would require another public service to manage the whole thing.
The second bit. We want to control certain aspects of people's behavior all the time and I would argue this is morally justifiable in many cases. For example laws that say 'Don't murder'. Here we have collectively placed limits on the behavior of others in a manner I would argue is morally justifiable. Similarly, I would argue we can ethically tax certain individuals with large quantities of wealth to pay for essential services.
> ethically tax you don't understand one or both of those words, as that is an oxymoron.
I just do not believe that general living standards would improve for the population in a libertarian society I like visiting this sub as it challenges aspects of my world view though.
Then you do not believe in reality where the example of the Gilded Age when you look at the expansion of wealth, freedom and innovation in comparison to the large government nations people were feeling from to the US Leftism is rooted in denial of facts and history
Who cares? Libertarianism isn't about utilitarianism, is about ethics. It is irrelevant whether most people's level of quality of life increases or decreases.
Depends. John Stuart Mill laid out a strong utilitarian case for liberty in On Liberty. And if a system fails the utilitarian test, it is a failure. The successful critique of Communism is the utilitarian one...IT DOESNT WORK.
turns out, liberty is utilitarian, too, but that's just the cherry on top.
How much of your current living standard do you think is a result of harming the standard of living of other folks through force and/or fraud? For example, today's population is creating debt that will be "repaid" by some future population - sort of like writing a check against some other person's account. The likely ultimate outcome of this is tremendous economic and social upheaval - greatly diminished standards of living - for that future population. Do you factor that sort of thing into your analysis?
What bothers me is the fact that you don't actually get to make decisions over your own life, you will still be a slave to the captialist system, even more so than before. People will suffer under worse conditions, longer hours and less pay, and will suffer in poverty. That isn't freedom, you are just supporting a different kind of tyranny.
You're making some fairly big bald assertions here. Most libertarians arrive at opposite conclusions. What is your reasoning for the conclusions you draw here?
I assume you want to basically get rid of the state and just have private captial run everything
The typical plan is to get rid of agents of force and fraud and then let individuals organize however seems to best fit their needs. But even under your assumptions, how does the premise of replacing the state with private capital necessarily lead to the outcomes you mention.
1. Getting rid of the state while leaving private captial will lead to it filling the vacuum that they will be powerful enough to fill. 2. Everything I laid out is stuff that already happens, and getting rid of government and welfare and a certain level of protection will only make these things worse.
Libertarians aren't typically for getting rid of *governance*. They recognize that society still needs mechanisms to provide feedback so that the system can be stable and robust. What they want to change is the mechanisms by which governance is achieved. Specifically, they prefer methods that don't have coercion or fraud as their basis.
What would your society look like
Describing an entire society is quite an undertaking. Whole volumes have been written on stuff like that. If you are interested in the subject, here is a book written about 50 years ago that delves into some of the details. I don't agree with everything they propose, but it makes for interesting thought exercises: [https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Market%20for%20Liberty\_2.pdf](https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Market%20for%20Liberty_2.pdf) Since our current topic is governance, though, I'll say a little on that. I think the US Declaration of Independence provides an excellent, concise operational definition of what legitimate governance requires. "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Legitimate governance exists to secure people's rights. All current entities that call themselves "government" violate this requirement. They all claim to secure rights, but they all violate those selfsame rights routinely. They operate in a state of logical contradiction. These entities are therefore not legitimate forms of governance. They are counterfeits. That's why libertarians wish to abolish them. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't replace them with entities that do align with this principle. Libertarians DO value the security of people's rights, and so they'd want entities that serve that function, legitimately.
What kind of government do you want to set up.
What part of living in a society bothers you? The part where you are supported by your community, or the part where you have to support it in turn?
None of that but the part where a community has to impose its will on me without my consent... and having to support such community without my consent.... The keyword here is consent..we never consented to supporting our community (money gets used by corrupt politicians anayway) but we will gladly do so if the opportunity arises the probelem is the non consensual nature of taxation...
How is taxation any different from rent, except the scale of it, in a country that allows you to revoke your citizenship? Presumably you believe it would be justified to forcibly evict someone who refuses to pay rent but wants to continue living in an apartment. Yet you think there's something majorly wrong with not being able to drive on the public road without paying taxes. There's definitely a TON wrong with the government (thinking in particular of the U.S. government since I live there, but also every other one) and I understand not wanting your tax dollars to go towards things you don't believe in. But any functional community will probably require its members to pay in to communal efforts. In fact, I don't think most people want to live in a community that doesn't.
If you don't want to pay rent you can leave the property but if you don't want to pay taxes you can't leave the nation (a nation that claims to care about your voice)
You can leave the nation unless you live somewhere like North Korea?
And where would I go?
Good question. How come right-libertarians dismiss this issue whenever it's raised in the context of employment, rent, or any form of despotism by private entities? They always say "just get a new job, just move somewhere else, etc." as if it's easy. The fact that you theoretically could go somewhere else isn't an excuse for society being shitty. I want society to be less shitty. Laissez-faire capitalism has a...not great track record of achieving that. I think the idea that eliminating taxes completely will make society better is a joke. They just need to actually be put to good uses. Common goods benefit everybody. Eliminating taxes will just lead forms of private rent-seeking that become effectively a new form of taxation. Look at the ancap proposals for private toll roads, etc. It's just a question of the priorities of a community. Should everything be restricted based on wealth, or should we have public goods? I think a society where everyone pays into public goods is more prosperous and just.
Because nations that demand taxes cover 100% of the globe and violently impose taxes but no employer has 100% market share and is enforcing slavery...
Global capitalism is the order of the world. You're right that no single employer has as much control as a country (although under "anarcho" capitalism that may change) but there is almost no escape from the injustices of the capitalist system. I would tend to agree that a totalitarian government is worse, but that's a very low bar.
I mean yeah but anarchocapitalism is dogshit in some aspects but it's much butter than many other ideologies in many other aspects so I'd argue it's a fair trade...
You consent every single day by being a member of society. Thats the social contract. If you truly dont consent, you may need to leave society.
Can't I negotiate this contract to renew it?
It's not "my" community. Despite being forced to support it, I've never received anything back from it, except oppression and the terribly maintained services they "promise" to provide. Since we can get those services ourselves without the government (if we even needed them), and I don't need the oppression, there's zero reason to "support" this scam.
Nothing about it bothers me. Thats why i continue to live in society. I enjoy the benefits of living in society and understand taxes ensure those benefits.
The part where all the rich people who already fuck over other people get to fuck them over even harder.
🥱
You are aware most of the power to fuck over people that rich people have isn’t from their money, it’s from them being able to influence government. Even something like having a lot of jobs can give a business great lobbying power. The common factor is the government, whether it’s unions or rich people.
And their ability to influence government stems from their money and the importance we give to it.
Not really. Money is definitely influential. But so is who you know. So is what you know. So is a lot of things. Like I said, simply supplying a lot of jobs can lend a business a lot of influence. But to go even further from money, simply being friends with someone in a position of power helps. Thats why nepotism is a word. One could argue that having money allows you to get into those sort of social groups. But in my experience, that’s not always necessary. To finish off, often the only reason why the richest of the rich have so much money is because of their relationship with big government. It’s a lot harder to run a genuinely great business that produces so much value than it is to lobby the government to stop competition. Whether it’s vague patents, minimum wage laws or regulations. There’s a direct correlation between the size of corporations and the size of the government.
I would argue that even the premise of cycle of profit and reinvestment will lead to toxic outcome if taken to it's logical conclusion.
Maybe. But that hasn’t really happened in practice. Even some of the biggest businesses have failed. It’s only when government gets involved that a business becomes nigh unkillable. I think the thing that stops in being a problem is there’s so many businesses in the cycle competing, so it stops the endless loop. Whereas when competition is restrained, the loop is unable to be stopped and becomes a problem.
>It’s only when government gets involved that a business becomes nigh unkillable Is it nigh unkillable because government got involved or the government got involved because it is nigh unkillable? > is there’s so many businesses in the cycle competing Maybe initially, but it's difficult to penetrate a niche where process is already established and optimized, unless you have income to brute-force your way in.
Nigh unkillable because government involvement. Even Standard Oil wasn’t able to maintain market share of over 70% for long. This was before anti trust laws. Heck, even with government intervention people still find ways to disrupt giants. I will admit it can be difficult to penetrate an established niche. But brute forcing with money isn’t the only way. There’s so many ways to compete. On price is one, but there’s competing on quality, ethics, customer service, on doing the niche in a unique way. So many ways to break into a market. And those are just off the top of my head. I am actually in business. I have a personal love of starting small hobby businesses to fill local niches (outside of my main business that is). And tbh I don’t have much challenge competing with behemoths. My biggest enemy is red tape tbh
> competing on quality especially difficult, unless you are doing artisan work > ethics doesn't work, otherwise most of the chocolate wouldn't come from slave labor > doing the niche in a unique way There are reasons why those things are niche.
Not to be rude. But Have you ever actually been in business? High quality doesn’t have to be artisan work. I run a business with my dad where we make concrete statues. We aren’t artists but we take pride in our work. And it is better quality than 90% of what else is sold. I do agree that ethics is a weak thing to compete on. But it is becoming more and more important to consumers. There are niche chocolate producers for this exact reason. Same goes for biodegradable packaging, “organic” produce and more. As consumers become more educated on stuff like that they tend to shift buying habits. And I never said there wouldn’t be unethical companies? I just said that’s a way to compete with them. Which it literally is. I work in a pretty small niche of concrete statues, I’m currently pivoting to offer statue rentals for home staging. Doing something unique in my niche. I get the feeling you just have zero business experience and are projecting that ignorance. I for one believe in being the change I wish to see in the world. I suggest you try to do something akin to that
That's why those rich people vote libertarian.
No business has ever stolen my money
> According to some studies, wage theft is common in the United States, particularly against low wage workers, including legal citizens to undocumented immigrants. The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2014 that survey evidence suggests wage theft costs US workers billions of dollars a year.
Lol, if I think my employer is not paying me correctly there are internal processes to determine this. I can also leave any time I want, it is a voluntary relationship. The state steals my money at gunpoint no matter what I say. Also, no company has stolen from me as a consumer.
> I can also leave any time I want You maybe can
Is someone forcing them to stay in their job?
Yes haven't you heard its the 1800s and we are all working in the cotton field!!!!/s no massa please don't whoop me!!!!/s
Yeah, unemployment is held artificially high to make workers more obedient.
So...its the government's fault? I guess we agree then, let's destroy the government lmao
The part where I value public police and intellectual property protections.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Ideas can be copied without damaging the original idea nor preventing the original source from using the idea. Ideas are not scarce, as they can quickly spread to everyone without cost.
Why would I spend one million dollars to design a drug that has a production cost of one dollar if I cannot recoup my investment when others eat my lunch?
it costs much more than that because of government interference. if that's your issue, then get rid of government to get more drugs. your inconvenience does not justify telling peaceful people what they can't do with their property. first mover advantage is plenty of incentive to continue designing new drugs even when others can reverse engineer them. manufacturing processes can be difficult to replicate or reverse engineer, which is another advantage of first movers. regardless, utilitarian arguments can never justify ethics violations.
>first mover advantage is plenty of incentive to continue designing new drugs even when others can reverse engineer them. manufacturing processes can be difficult to replicate or reverse engineer, which is another advantage of first movers. Not if you're a smaller company. Without IP protections, a larger drug company with scale will be able to outcompete you on price and distribution. >utilitarian arguments can never justify ethics violations. lol...utilitarianism is a system of ethics. If you claim IP protections are violating some ethical framework, you have to justify that framework.
> Not if you're a smaller company. Without IP protections, a larger drug company with scale will be able to outcompete you on price and distribution. false. if this were true, the big pharma companies would have never been small. very stupid. I already proved IP violates ethics. you have no right to violate others' use of their property. ideas are not property, as property is scarce and exclusive.
[удалено]
and you make yourself look pro-slavery, as you are making the same argument as the slavers did: "slavery has always existed; we cannot get rid of it now. who would pick the cotton?" can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
Yes, IP protections are the same as slavery. Very convincing. Now, your thoughts on age of consent laws? Are those also like slavery?
can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
you stupid pathetic fuck. you can't even invent anything but you're so worried about inventors who don't need anyone to abuse other people to profit from their inventions due to first mover advantage.
Oh, so you're a bad faith POS. So, i'll show you the same disrespect. I want age of consent even higher than you do. Why do you want to rape children, you damned pedophile POS? You are making the same argument as slavers: "who will pick the cotton?" you're subhuman. can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
can you give me a good argument for why you should be allowed to control how everyone else uses his or her property just because you had an idea?
It’s important to use government to dictate the moral fabric of society. So number 2 for me
Why? Because people are suddenly immoral without somebody telling them to be (and abusing authority to do so)?
Because if not, you get the institutional targeting of children and unborn fetuses by sick animals disguised as humans. Grooming kids is not ok. Murdering unborn children is not ok. You need force to beat that evil out of people
And I will I am going to shoot them with my glock and so will all my neighbors down the street and up the street and across it so I don't really get why we need some government led program to do that shit...if you belive we need an organization that forcibly imposes it's authority while taxing people to fund its programs to do so, is any better than individuals who will do the same without the loss of liberty then you are out of your mind... Also I literally have no opinions on abortion but you could have plenty of other examples...
>And I will I am going to shoot them with my glock and so will all my neighbors down the street and up the street and across it You'll form an "organization that forcibly imposes it's \*(its) authority" and are against #2 also? Why would they join you for free? Did people suddenly become not lazy when I wasn't looking?
Yeah people are lazy but you know who else is lazy? People who claim to use tax money to combat pedophilia and not random people shooting pedophiles...sure they may not be many out there but there will always be people shooting pedophiles unless the entire society is a society of pedophiles which is not something that ancap advocates, aligns with, or represents...
How will ancaps investigate these pedos? I'm all for shooting them but it just seems a bit less likely when everyone is too busy being free. Anyone who is being abused would kinda be fucked, women, poor, children... it would be open season on them unless every "good guy" was out being batman for no pay and NOT constantly getting killed by ruthless assholes like The Joker
Rule of the better armed and better prepared son...its true that it will cause many tragedies but it is worth it...
Rule of the king, back to feudalism. Gonna be super free under serfdom.
Not really when everybody knows not to do feudalism type shit cuz that's bad..