libertarianism has always creeped me out because i don't know why you guys think the market will solve all problems. how will the market prevent extinction level events (ie global warming, for an ez one we all know about)? how will it maintain roads? how do you figure it will create an educated populace?
i guess i just believe in something bigger than the individual idk
and for the record i'm not happy with our current government in the US or think that it can solve those same issues.
you're not a libertarian, idiot the first person to use that word was Joseph Dejacque, a communist freedom and bosses are incompatible, it says a lot that the people American "libertarians" worship kept slaves
>>26449097 Humans aren't going to kill themselves with climate. Decades of temperature data show that the earth isn't warming.
There were roads before there were governments.
Private schools. Public schools cost more per student than anywhere in the world, and students are still graduating without being able to read.
It's not like public schools are magic either. You can watch a video of a teacher on youtube, you don't have to have a building that it is mandatory for children to attend 40 hours a week for 12 years in order to see a teacher.
>>26449214 >Humans aren't going to kill themselves with climate. Decades of temperature data show that the earth isn't warming. if this is your base position i don't think you and i can rly have a healthy conversation about this subject, but i wish you the best of luck in life
Me. Though I suppose it would be more accuate to call me a Libertarian Nationalist, because I believe that libertarianism can only exist with a certain type of people. Immigration has to be tightly controlled.
Wish I could be but we just don't have the culture to sustain it.
>>26449209 Context, friend. There is a libertarian party in America with a defined agenda. If he can declare himself as a libertarian on his voting registration, I don't see why you wouldn't accept that definition. I don't care what "Joseph Dejacque" said two hundred years ago.
I believe some form of state ought to exist, so I adhere to minarchism. It seems to me a libertarian society would be prone to turbulence. >>26449404 >because I believe that libertarianism can only exist with a certain type of people. This.
>>26449439 >it doesnt, it just knows the government will fuck it up too >you can't eliminate badness you cuck more and more i'm realizing my political alignments lean towards something akin to fascism, and i realize a big part of that is also that while fascism will be fucked up, everything else will be just as fucked up. so might as well have strong government which can solve long term problems. so i guess i feel that. i just don't get why go from one flawed government to another with even less agency, and why not just be an anarchist in that case?
>>26449479 oh you're an angry little lad aren't you. all that reading done you a bit of good. did you read about punching a pillow when you want to say spiteful things to people on the internet? i think you should give it a try :3
>>26449214 Man I always knew libertarians were stupid narcissists, but >There were roads before there were governments. takes the cake. Really, there were roads before civilization (i.e., government) emerged in Mesopotamia? Not trails or beaten paths, but roads?
Anyway, I'm not a libertarian because I don't believe that the world of humans is a simple self-organizing system that just requires some gumption and know-how, and maybe some rags to turn into riches.
>>26449489 I think it was Bakunin who said that there ought to be 'no authority save that of the shoe maker on the authority of making shoes'.
Of course those who know the most regarding a certain subject will probably direct the procedure, but no one will have the ability to fire someone else or otherwise hold their livelihood in the palm of his hand.
An ancap society will probably be better than what we have today, but I can't foresee the future, so there's no way I can guarantee that. Being against the concept of "the state" is worthwile in itself, as the state is just the institutionalized initiation of force.
that would be mandatory though so people can't just go to another boss if theirs is shitty and managing a country is a bit more complex than managing a work place
if you are literally just a militant NEET please note that I don't think there's anything wrong with charity and there's nothing wrong with people choosing to support manchildren like you who dont want to work, and since the economy would be healthier without state interference you'd probably literally get more money for your aspergers or whatever you're doing now from a private autist charity
>>26449685 to accept a free market society in the first place people would need to accept by principle the authority of bosses, if people would just leave or go do something better, why are there shitty products now? where is all this shitty food coming from?
>>26449556 >Man I always knew libertarians were stupid narcissists, but i was trying to avoid saying anything like this to try and have a discussion... but yes... every libertarian i've met has been a creepy manchild. i know thats shit posting but i've never met one who has changed my opinion thusfar.... >Anyway, I'm not a libertarian because I don't believe that the world of humans is a simple self-organizing system that just requires some gumption and know-how, and maybe some rags to turn into riches. well put imo
because we dont live in a totally free market yet, companies can be shitty now because they have the state to give them all sorts of unfair advantages like anti-competition regulations, corporations having legal personhood so the actual bosses are not held accountable for their decisions, various kinds of corporate welfare and selective tax breaks, bailouts when they go tits up, ect
but we are a fuck load better off than countries with less of a free market, eg entire buildings collapse for no reason in turkey or you literally go to jail for trying to start a union in the oh so pro-worker communist one-party state of china
the key point to the authority thing is is it mandatory or not, for example there is nothing wrong with a football team having a coach and you are going to not be a very good team if you dont have one
this applies to if you are a pro footballer and thats your career or just on a local team for fun since shockingly enough getting paid to do a job doesnt make something evil instantly, what makes it evil is if the coach is forcing you to be on his team or he'll lock you up in his basement and rape you
>>26449997 but it is mandatory based on the conditions that other people are willing to accept, if everybody else is willing to work for 10 hours and I want to work for 6 I starve the economy won't truly be free until it eliminates all unnecessary work and places all necessary work under the control of the workers any kind of rule over another person is antithetical to freedom, if you sell yourself into slavery even removing all the economic conditions that might motivate you to do so you're still not free, and real freedom from any kind of bondage is what I want
my answer to that is there's nothing wrong with being self-employed and if you don't want to answer to anyone else it'd be far more easier to be your own boss in a more economically free society
now adays you need to fill out a billion forms (the aforementioned anti-competition regulations) and I've tried to do business with people in china and they simply refuse to deal with you unless you are working for an official government body
It just doesn't make sense for me to be concerned with political issues because with the possible exceptions of net neutrality and .....I was going to say prostitution but I couldn't afford it anyway and I'd likely get bored.
There really aren't any political issues that matter to me, but if the government did implode I'd probably go on a crime spree, the sort that would be frowned upon regardless of the political system installed in the gov. so it matters not.
>>26450117 >but it is mandatory based on the conditions that other people are willing to accept, if everybody else is willing to work for 10 hours and I want to work for 6 I starve
in a free market you get charities that work to prevent anyone from starving, unlike under state run communism where millions of people starve to death because of a centralized government cocking it up/doing it on purpose to enemies
>the economy won't truly be free until it eliminates all unnecessary work and places all necessary work under the control of the workers
how is the boss not a worker if he started the company and handles the logistics every day and no one else in the company has his skill set? what if you're middle management? are you half a capitalist bastard if you can fire the staff but still have to answer to the CEO?
and the workers could hold power over the boss by all going on strike, and then the boss's company would collapse and he'd be out of a job with a very specific skill set acclimatized for that one business model that would be harder to find a replacement for than average manual labor skills, so then his life would be fucked, how come that dynamic doesnt make him oppressed?
>any kind of rule over another person is antithetical to freedom, if you sell yourself into slavery even removing all the economic conditions that might motivate you to do so you're still not free, and real freedom from any kind of bondage is what I want
the thing about that is if you want to live that way that's fine by me, you can live in an anarcho-communist community or just be self-employed, the government should not force you to live by a capitalist system for not having the right business papers or whatever statist bullshit, all I ask for in return is you dont try to force me to live under your system if I'm fine having a boss
basically just put anarcho- in front of anything and it's fine by me, be anarcho-drinkdogpiss, just dont force anyone to do it or it gets governmenty
>>26450515 a boss isn't a worker because he doesn't do the work, having 1 person to specifically handle logistics is not only morally wrong but also inefficient and stupid no, if people stand up to oppression the oppressor is not being oppressed you keep talking about state-run communism, which is not only an oxymoron but something I was never arguing for also government in a market society takes its form in private security and other violent institutions to force people to recognise "voluntary" property rights of the bosses >>26450570 there's no point in taking action if we don't know what we're doing, and the way we find out what we're doing is through the conflict of opposing beliefs
>>26449434 Work or die is the natural order of things. Do animals in the wild have a choice? No. They either hunt and fight or they die. Did early humans have a choice? No. They had to hunt and fight or die. No one is entitled to live off a government.
>>26450733 as anarchists, we want to eliminate unnecessary work to allow for greater personal freedom that's why there are washing machines, tractors, trains and so on it's wrong to be forced to work for others, and it's especially wrong to be forced to do more work than necessary by others that's why capitalism should be abolished, not because the extra work is inevitable, but because it's certainly avoidable but forced with violence anyway
>>26450733 Hunting, fighting and gathering back then is totally different from how 'working' (slaving) is today. There's nothing fulfilling, interesting or motivating about making money for your Jewish overlord and then buying a bunch of processed garbage food with your measly bits of paper Mr Shekelstein gave you in exchange for being a slave.
This current system we live in is disgusting. I'm moving back to the country as soon as I'm able.
>>26450733 >be anarchist >decide to go hunting >getting hunting permit >I learn that I need to take a hunter safety class before I can get the permit >the government is literally stopping me from hunting to feed myself
>>26450793 I don't disagree with you that the current system is fucked. There is no simple solution. Under capitalism you are a slave to companies, under socialism or fascism you are a slave to one really big company. You can go as far left or as far right as you want, you will still be a slave to someone.
>>26450970 you have to take it away from actual reality and make some dubious metaphor because you can't argue, bringing that statement into reality would be >The first helicopters were hand powered, so a B-29 bomber is a helicopter
>1775 >Be Patriot in the original sense of the word, proudly standing against the barbarism of hereditary monarchy >Every day go to the meeting house to hear the great new leader Samuel Adams lay out the crimes of King George >See the great Gadsden colors flying over the navy of the new Republic, the republic we Patriots want to see formed >Join the Continental Army >Witness my fellow Patriots spill their blood at Trenton and Boston in pursuit of a better nation free of the tyranny of outsized government gluttons >Draw strength to carry on through the sight of the Gadsden snake, readying to strike at the hard of tyranny >Achieve victory, get married, have children, basking in the glow of the new republic of the people, by the people, for the people >my great great great great great great great grandson posts the Gadsden colors on a Tahitian boogieboarding forum
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.