Why aren't you faggots Libertarian yet? We're for what most people are for. Legalization of weed, gambling, prostitution. Against oppressive government and the intrusion of big banking in our economy. The last two presidents have been two of the worst in the history of the US. Incompetence, cronyism, and disregard for rule of law. Both of them, even Obama's most hard core liberal sheep can't say he isn't a failure, and Bush is the reason our foreign policy is so fucked up. Although Obama isn't helping matters any. Pic related, its what happens when you argue with Portland hipsters.
lol no, the truther movement gives ron paul a bad name
I used to be a libertarian but I think we need to strictly regulate business and the economy or else we'll end up in the gilded age again. I still agree with libertarians on most issues though.
>For legalization of weed, gambling, prostitution
>Against the intrusion of big banking in our economy
pretty selective with what kind of destructive structures you allow there.
I reside on the libertarian end of the spectrum, but pop-libertarians are not only obnoxious, unfunny and delusional, but fail at any argument outside of economics... Which is the weakest of the soft sciences.
i dont do facts... i do muh freedom
I don't believe in efficacy free markets. In an ideal world they might work, but as things are they don't. The super rich are already locked in and will stay that way forever, whereas people are born into poverty and have pretty shitty chances to get out of it.
64% of the Libertarian party in the US are male, 94% are white, now why do you think that is? It's because they are the people who start furthest forward in the genetic lottery, the ones who have the most to preserve through libertarianism.
I am white, anglo and male myself but I don't believe that I deserve to live better than those who aren't just because I won the genetic lottery.
you know... this is funny. The labels are constantly changing, because Republicans, are nothing but democrats. Democrats are nothing but Communists. Libertarians are what Republicans were when being a Republican was a good thing.
What's stopping monopolies from crushing any chances for competition? Doesn't the government have a role in ensuring that competition is possible and that the workers and consumers aren't being screwed?
>government forcibly regulates corporations
>restricts buildout of infrastructure
>impossible to have any competition
>HURRRRRRR THIS IS THE FREE MARKET’S FAULT THE GOVERNMENT MUST STEP IN AND REGULATE MORE
This is how mentally defective you actually are. Go fucking educate yourself.
The last Recession was caused by unregulated banking, too much was loaned out. The property market became inflated because of this. If the US was a liberation state at the time it would have caused a depression.
Because jnregulated business results in the ever widening financial gap that we have now, and puts money in the driver's seat of the government i stead of the people. The world's income inequality is currently on par with how it was in the 1800's. Unless you own two yachts, you're a retard if you support totally uncontrolled capitalism.
The only monopolies are the ones the government FORCES to exist right now. Removing government intervention prevents monopolies.
Says the person who doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about.
Well it certainly couldn't be that educated white males are the only group that makes decisions based on facts and logic instead of emotion.... Most niggers and women cant reason their way out of a paper bag.
Libertarianism seems like it makes a lot of sense on the surface and some of the superficial stuff is great. That's why it's the popular ideology of 14 year old boys.
Problem is when you actually think about it it's terrible.
my main problem with the world right now is the war on drugs.
i'll be in my 40s by the time the majority realize it's a fucking sadistic mess and i can finally buy heroin from the nearest chemist again.
There can never be too much loaned out, that can only happen by government action. All that money that was brought into the system through mortgages was created by the government out of just paper. The mortgage containment field failed.
nah, i just deserve muh own shit.
compared to what? central planning of the productions of left and right shoes...? i mean yea we all had the classical market failing situations but no one could claim flint's having a bad day because of mean capitalists
>Libertarian uses facts, logic, history and reason.
>The only monopolies are the ones the government FORCES to exist right now. Removing government intervention prevents monopolies.
No. No, I'm not seeing it.
You may as well say "Faeries prevent forest fires"
Just look at Britain during the industrial revolution, no worker rights, child labour, a rich and lower class system. That is what an unregulated Liberation state would be like. No healthcare for the masses, private education for the rich etc etc
I agree that no system should ever exist without some common sense rules in place, but our current financial gap is actually being cause by the regulations and not the other way around.
When governments are allowed to pick winners and loosers the people always loose. This administration and the prior are perfect examples of this.
Libertarians are generally a bunch of potheads and rednecks.
I hate the whole "free-market", people generally agree with it because of the pretty word 'free' it gives you the freedom to exploit and make children work. (Just one example) I perfect fair trade.
Anyways, freedom without socialism is privilege and injust, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality
>Libertarian uses facts, logic, history and reason.
>Is confronted with facts and says 'propaganda bullshit'
You argument that there are 'groups of African Americans' is subjective conjecture. Even if there are, that doesn't mean there are more than the remaining 6%.
I said efficacy not efficiency. I don't really understand what you're trying to say in the second bit, what are you asking me?
>How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb
>None, the Free market will take care of it.
Because I don't want to pay a toll on every road I drive on. Libertarianism is fucking retarded. It's utopian at its best and at its worst it will inevitably lead to monopolies and oligarchs controlling everything.
libertarians favor the "freedoms" provided by Citizens United, which allows unlimited, anonymous campaign cash from big donors to buy off politicians, then they turn around and bitch about politicians being corrupt, all while acting so smug and superior as to make you want to barf.
honestly, I'm not getting your point. What's wrong with children working? I've never understood this. Farmers train their children to work and do their job. A shoemaker could teach his child how to do his job.... I literally don't understand why this bothers people... it teaches him or her a trade... a way to be self sufficient... There's always going to be someone making more or less money. Therefore, there is always going to be "class"... and healthcare? why should I be forced to pay for healthcare that I don't need or want? idiot.
>subscribing to preset political views rather than being independent
>What's wrong with children working?
Because if they're working, they're not learning, and if they're not learning, your workforce is not educated.
You are advocating a return to an agrarian society. Let's go take a look at Pakistan or Colombia to see how this scheme of yours is working for them...ah.
no social safety net, no public education, private education, only the rich go to university, no unions or worker rights, unregulated booms and busts which cause depressions, the wealth accumulates at the top because of no progressive taxes, no healthcare for the masses, the environment is destroyed because of no protection laws, mass pollution. How is that progress? Learn from other countries.
Listen close. You will never, ever, win an election until you get a candidate who can explain what they're for in less than 50k words. Stop wasting your vote. There are more important issues than legalizing drugs. Piss off.
dats some delusional hokum.
regulations prevents monopolies if done correctly.
anarchy, no regulations, would be a nightmare. we have gov for the corporations/filthy rich.
this bs saying otherwise is f n dumb/retarded. we have fascism, goverment collusion woth private milatary(Boeing, lockhead, carlyle, halliburton), monsanto, GE, pharmacuticals, the federal reserve cartle, koch industries, exxon, bp ETC ETC ETC YA FUK TARD.
Lack of regulations on corporations, banks/$, Rx, military industrial complex, and industry in general is the real problem.
how anyone can be litterate yet so fucking stupids is beyond me
oooooooooooooooooooooo, here, this is for you
>implying any political opinion or motive you have in Murricah will do fuck all... before completely banning money from politics by a constitutional amendment.
You have no democracy, and your opinions on how to rule is irrelevant since you're not a CEO of lockheed or koch industries who can pay someone to be your representative. You dont have that kind of "free speech" at your disposal.
You don't have to be educated to work in a factory on a production line. There's no need to educate children if there's no economic benefit in it. It's an uneconomic investment, and it makes people less wealthy. Socialist countries in Europe are starting to get this now finally, after people with university educations can only find jobs as fast food employees.
You understand that government regulation is what created that situation, right? Or do you think it's a coincidence that there's only one cable company in every market in the country?
Government is the only thing that can cause a monopoly. They're impossible in a free market.
Banking is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. In what way did unregulated banking cause it? It was caused by interest rates set so low by the Fed that banks were literally being paid to lend money. And by Fanny May and Freddie Mac backing all loans, so the banks would get paid even if the loans failed. That's not lack of regulation. It's the other thing.
We don't have a capitalist system now. You don't get to blame the current situation on capitalism. Our current system borders on socialism. Why aren't we blaming that?
umm... the world worked that way for thousands of years, which is why you have last names like Taylor (Tailor), or Shepherd... because in society, people had a position. A guaranteed place in society... You are advocating people to be homeless... look at the homeless... there are ridiculous amounts of homeless people. Your reasoning created those people.
socialism in its purest form will collapse, but so would a completely laissez-faire market. CLUE: most of the world has figured out that a mix between these two is the secret sauce for long term survival.
Rrrriigghht... because the police are so fucking awful. Look faggot, unfortunately you need a few members of a society to act like assholes and run around ruining people's days in order to keep.things safe. Its the sheep/ sheepdog mentality. And as much as you hate to admit it, cops are needed. Otherwise the niggers and spics would burn down every goddamn city in the nation.
I'd like libertarians if only they weren't such socialists. Capitalism creates jobs, if you got a psychology degree go work at starbucks but don't pretend that it's anyone else's fault that you're such an idiot. Also, fuck taxes.
>facts, logic, history and reason in the OP's pic
>all the libertarian arguments are either being made as statements with no proof, or simply calling other people wrong, usually followed by a rude name
Not here to argue, just read the thread and found this particularly funny.
"its just a matter of time"
How much time?. Could you be any more vague?.
This is unfalsifiable conjecture, since every state, government or country will eventually "collapse" however you would care to define that. You could claim viking civilization failed due to their unnatural love of boats, or the pikts were undone by their blue facepaint...
Your argument is not an argument. it's diarrhea in text format. Learn to make an argument or stfu.
I generally agree with you, however all of the EU countries have taken socialism to far and are doomed to collapse, just like Greece. The US is on the edge of overdoing socialism and the next few years will determine if our country survives.
Because capitalism is exploitative and unsustainable and ultimately doomed to fail. Libertards are a bunch of nutty Austrian goldbugs who pretend that their house of cards is collapsing because it isnt deregulated enough.
I like you nutters more than those batshit fundies on the right, and even probably more those spineless neoliberals on the "left," both are corporate cronies dedicated to the status quo. But fundamentally, I disagree with the economic argument ubderlying your position.
Not sure if I reject libertarianism completely but I don't believe in the non-aggression principle because there are so many zero-sum mini games in the world that it's impossible to live a life without negatively impacting others. What one person takes, others cannot as long as it's taken. NAP will not call it violence to corner a market or to buy things just so others can't have them. If a man stalks the grocery store during restocking and buys out the Lucky Charms just so the kids can't have any and goes home and pours it into a giant bowl and shits and pisses and cums on it, NAP says it's that man's right to do that because the purchase between him and the store was voluntary and no force was used to prevent other shoppers from buying. But as hard to define as they are, wastefulness and sadism are immoral, and NAP fails to identify these kinds of actions.
You need to educate yourself on what fractional lending is. All loan money is created the second it's lended, and payments towards the principle are destroyed as soon as the bank receives them.
The issue with a monopoly is low quality goods at high prices. What prevents a new company from entering the market with either higher quality or lower prices? Any answer to that question involves a government regulation.
He's talking about victimless crimes.
So your argument is the poor don't have to make their children work now because the middle classes are being forced to carry their burden for them? How is that fair or right?
so youre saying "if you want a government for the people, you need to stop regulating the financially powerful".
what prevents you from asking the logical follow-up question of "what can such a government control in the first place?"
Let me guess? You have never had a history class or read a history book? Socialism fails every time its tried. The only other sure failure is communism. If people can vote themselves free money, the corrupt politicians oblige them and print more worthless money to stay in power. Once the currency collapses, so does society and all of the brainless sheeple on the government dole riot for free food, and then starve to death.
Pakistan and Colombia only sucks because non-whites. Pick a Libertarian country that isn't ruined by niggers. Oh that's right, there isn't one yet.