Libertarian Society

All libertarianism is socialism

"Libertarians" who imagine a distinction between statist oppression and corporate oppression are ignorant cuckolds

Lmao you dumb shit, neither Denmark or Venezuela is socialist.

A socialist society is one in which industry is controlled by the workers.

You have much to learn of socialism, if you're saying Denmark and Venezuela isn't socialist countries. Next you're going to tell me that USSR weren't a totalitarian socialist union? That turned out great for everyone.

Denmark is not socialist in the slightest. Absolutely not one bit. A welfare state isn't socialism.

Venezuela is simply the appropriation of private industries by a corrupt and illiberal government.

Yes, let me tell you how interested I am in pontification on freedom from sociopathic minster that vocally supported AUGUSTO FUCKING PINOCHET.

In the end, Friedman, like Hayek, was nothing more than a knowing and self aware propagandist who had no compunction whatsoever with the liquidation of democracy as long as the markets were "free."

A despicable human being, whose ideology should be openly ridiculed.

>capitalism and not chaos

I like how all the bad ideologies and vague "tyranny" are conveniently lumped together on the opposite side of anarcho-capitalism and classical liberalism, really makes you think.

>no armies
This would make a libertarian nation vulnerable to any militarized nation that wants its resources. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that all the citizens would decide to form a serious organized resistance, especially those who don't own whatever resources the invaders are after. Those citizens would have nothing to gain, but a lot to lose, by fighting off the invaders.

funny, the profit motive is what tends to drive technological innovation.

>Start a libertarian thread
>Quote a socialist in the OP
You fucked up, son.

And the profit motive somehow cannot exist in a socialist society?

>You have much to learn of socialism, if you're saying Denmark and Venezuela isn't socialist countries.
Actually he's right you pretentious knob.
In neither of those countries do the workers control their own means of production. Denmark is just a form of extreme Welfarist Capitalism and Venezuela is another matter entirely.

What so you mean by that? I see it said a lot on Veeky Forums.

If that's libertarian then what the fuck is anarchy?

Libertarians are more idealistic than socialists. They're just barely a step above Stanlism and ancaps.

Look up the primary definition of socialism. If workers don't control the means of production, it's only socialist in name. Free hand outs are not the goal or the defining feature of socialism or communism. An abundance of consumer goods is supposed to be the result of workers seizing control of the means of production. Neolibs have twisted it to make you only see the end result of handouts, so they can seize power while being in charge of handouts, undermining socialism.

that is more of an ancap society

I think generally our society leans too much towards "statism", we could legalize weed and prune the government a bit.

>monarchy
>bad

He also '''''supported''''' (by that you mean visited) China and the USSR. Why does nobody talk about that?

a true libertarian society, like all 'pure' forms of society, it impossible to sustain in the real world.

all societies are polities, that is, mixtures of multiple systems that unite into a working whole.

I'm loving this meme. Proper libertarianism just hasn't been tried out yet.

oh, so the idea of polities is a 'meme' now? Well, it's one that's been around for over 2000 years. Read about it in Aristotle's 'Politics.'

XD

ancap rothbard fanboys are a huge embarrassment to the libertarian movement and cancer

youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8

youtube.com/watch?v=3Ha4ea53UGI

Meanwhile in reality...

Venezuela is socialist though.Don't be a dumbass,if the socialist party controls the state and the state controls the means of production,it fits the definition of socialism

No.

No they don't. They don't even control the means of production of toilet paper. They're just socialist in name.

>Cuba was more prosperous when Batista was in power because they built some skyscrapers

You seem to fail to realise that the state can be a tool for the workers to control the means of production.Oh well you autists will just hide yourself in pure sophistry to convince yourself that your dumb ideology may work some day.
Venezuela imports most of the toilet paper.90% of the economy is oil extraction,and that sector is purely control by the goverment

Cuba was objectively more prosperous with Batista.Cuba was wealthier than Italy of Austria before Castro and its median income was 70% of that of the median one of the US.This is supposed to be a history forum,you should know this crap

A socialist government should not be setting price controls on something they do not have control over the means of production of.

>You seem to fail to realise that the state can be a tool for the workers to control the means of production.
Not him, but that doesn't mean a state run economy is a socialist one. A state needs to be controlled by the workers, and the state needs to control the means of production.

>A state needs to be controlled by the workers
Through the party by representation.Inb4>muh representation has to be direct
> and the state needs to control the means of production.
The Venezuelan state controls 90% of the economy and expropiates daily hundreds of the few factories that are opened.They are just incompetenet(that is a given with any socialist goverment)

>Through the party by representation
A socialist party doesn't always mean socialist policy or socialist governance. There's a whole lot of bullshit attached to the word socialist that has very little to do with actual socialism that socialist parties feel they need to do.

>The Venezuelan state controls 90% of the economy and expropiates daily hundreds of the few factories that are opened.
But they don't own the means of production of toilet paper.

>They are just incompetenet(that is a given with any socialist goverment)
There are lots of incompetent governments. It's just that capitalist ones will get foreign investment from capitalists who want to use their capital. Those capitalists stay the fuck away from places where they might lose it.

It says more about how much control over capital capitalists have, and how vital capital is to economic development.

Is this bait? The value of Bitcoin has collapsed more than once. Even one if it's developers, Mike Hearn, has abandoned it.

>A socialist party doesn't always mean socialist policy or socialist governance. There's a whole lot of bullshit attached to the word socialist that has very little to do with actual socialism that socialist parties feel they need to do.
You posted the definition of socialism above and in Venezuela the ruling party does that.
>But they don't own the means of production of toilet paper.
They don't produce toilet paper,they mostly buy it from abroad.
>There are lots of incompetent governments. It's just that capitalist ones will get foreign investment from capitalists who want to use their capital. Those capitalists stay the fuck away from places where they might lose it.
You don't need foreing invetment to have a functioning economy,you just need an efficient and capitalized economy,something that socialist goverment s always fail to do,as they just focus all the resources in very few projects

>It says more about how much control over capital capitalists have, and how vital capital is to economic development.
It says more about how inflexible and inneficient socialists economies are.

What do you guys think about Messi's trial defence?

>You posted the definition of socialism above and in Venezuela the ruling party does that.
That was a different user, but even then, if you use the flowchart, no they don't control the means of production.

>They don't produce toilet paper,they mostly buy it from abroad.
Exactly comrade.

>You don't need foreing invetment to have a functioning economy
You need capital to have a functioning economy. Unsurprisingly capital resides or flees to capitalist states.

>you just need an efficient and capitalized economy,something that socialist goverment s always fail to do,as they just focus all the resources in very few projects
You do realize there is such a thing as market socialism, yes?

>It says more about how inflexible and inneficient socialists economies are.
Apparently no, you're not aware of market socialism.

The centrally planned economy meme was from trying to rapidly modernize backwards economies, and because the anti-caps lumped together with the socialists, and Marx described a non-market utopia, and they started this retarded anti-market meme because they say the market as part of capitalism.

And the market is part of capitalism. It can also be part of socialism. Marx titled his book Das Capital, not Das Markets, because the issue was capital. Society without money and markets was supposed to be the result of post-scarcity, not the path to communism.

Anti-market socialism is a retarded meme that was memed by both Soviets and western powers.

>That was a different user, but even then, if you use the flowchart, no they don't control the means of production.
They do.Directly and indirectlyThe Venezuelan goverment controls almost every aspect of the economy.
>Exactly comrade.
Socialism=autarchy
>You need capital to have a functioning economy. Unsurprisingly capital resides or flees to capitalist states.
Capital stays,unless they move it or destroy it.The problem is the lack of modernization of it,as resources are always poorly alocated in socialist countries.
>You do realize there is such a thing as market socialism, yes?
A failure.Yugoslavia was shit.Tito was just a meme.
>The centrally planned economy meme was from trying to rapidly modernize backwards economies, and because the anti-caps lumped together with the socialists, and Marx described a non-market utopia, and they started this retarded anti-market meme because they say the market as part of capitalism.

And the market is part of capitalism. It can also be part of socialism. Marx titled his book Das Capital, not Das Markets, because the issue was capital. Society without money and markets was supposed to be the result of post-scarcity, not the path to communism.

Anti-market socialism is a retarded meme that was memed by both Soviets and western powers.
Socialism in itself is antimarket.It doesn't allow the free exchange of things,as it aims to control production,and kill any private production or investment.

>Cuba was objectively more prosperous with Batista.
It was a brothel and gambling joint for American MOB members run by a bent military regime backed by America. People toiled in the fields cutting sugar cane all day while their kids starved at home, poverty was abundant. At least under Castro they've managed to acheive a reasonable HDI now regardless of the fact they have a miserable GDP and have been under US blockade since the 60s.
>This is supposed to be a history forum,you should know this crap
Yeah it is. You should.

>You seem to fail to realise that the state can be a tool for the workers to control the means of production.
No I don't. The people of Venezuela have no control over the means of production through their own state, stop spouting bullshit.

No, by supported I mean publicly praised and directly worked with a brutal dictatorship on economic policy.

Friedman, and Hayek with him, were nothing more than knowing and unrepentant propagandists who considered democracy totally fungible so long as capital was free.

>it's called the socialist party therefore the country is socialist
Next you'll tell me that China is communist

>At least under Castro they've managed to acheive a reasonable HDI now regardless of the fact they have a miserable GDP and have been under US blockade since the 60s.
Cuba has the same health stadistics than before Castro you moron.They always were developed.La Havana for example was the first city with a hospital that used X-rays for medical pourposes.Trying to hide that Cuba was more developed in sheer and baseless rhethoric solves nothing.Poverty was fewer,CUba had the lowest levels of desnutrition of the WHOLE AMERICAN CONTINENT YOU MORON.Why do you have to lie?Lies wont make your dumb ideology less true

>Chavez and Maduro aren't socialists

[Citation needed]

I love the lack of a reply to this.

And yet thousands of people use it and find it satisfying.
Besides, Bitcoin is an unprecedented project in the human history. Some hiccups are to be expected.
At least capitalists are working towards their goals unlike socialists who only sit on their asses and bitch about porky while their ideology slides into obscurity.

>I'm studying economy at a keynesian university in Denmark

you mean new keynesian right? you understand that's perfectly compatible with libertarian thought? (as well as other political ideologies aside from extreme ancappers or commies)

>No taxes, no armies, freedom and no state regulations.
>libertarians actually believe that this will work
>they actually believe that you can have rights without duties

Can anyone explain exactly to me why libertarians are so goddamn stupid? What makes a person with a functioning brain come up with such moronic ideas?

...

>functioning brain

Libertarianism is literally applied autism user.

>Socialist society

You're argumenting against yourself. "Democratic control" - That's what the workers have through the socialist party, therefore it is a socialist state.

>No taxes, no armies, freedom and no state regulations.
Which shall be fun for 15 minutes, until the neighbouring country invades you, as has happened throughout history.

Because those are anarchist positions, not libertarian ones

Libertarianism doesn't work for the same reason that "the free market" doesn't work: left to its own devices it essentially destroys itself and transforms into the ideology that it was supposed to contrast with. The only realistic endgame of a libertarian society is one entity devouring all the others and basically becoming the defacto "ruler".

TL;DR - libertarianism is impossible because forming clans and hierarchies that dominate others is apart of human nature.

It might be debatable, if your pic didn't have such poor contrast.

No thanks, we've had enough of feudalism.

>pure ideology

>What are your thoughts on a libertarian society.
My thoughts are that within your society, sub-societies will form and one or many of them will emerge as the 'authoritarian' states you tried to abolish. Eventually they will take over your libertarian society.

I have some great plans for a combo prostitution, drug and chemical weapon retail space and can't wait until I can buy enough children to make my dreams a reality.

Alas, I fear that the jackboot of the state will forever prevent my dreams from coming true.

'Libertarianism' is perfectly compatible with Kantian political and moral philosophy.

>You seem to fail to realise that the state can be a tool for the workers to control the means of production.
But it's not unless the state is controlled by the workers.

Except not all "socialist parties" are actually democratic.

Denmark is socialliberalism, a product of Social Democracy.

Social Democracy is not socialism. Social Democracy is capitalism with socialist elements. Which elements depends on which state.

To this date, Social Democracy is the ideology that has produced the most well off states in terms of egalitarianism. Though ideology alone cannot be attributed to these countries success, there are other factors as well.

>libertarian society

It would simply be conquered and destroyed by the neighboring non-libertarian societies.

Gotta love when retards like (You) jump into the debate without knowing any statistical facts and just spout memes, propaganda and appeals to emotion.

>ONLY MARXIST DEFINITIONS ARE VALID !!!

No, fuck off. There are many forms of socialism.

Autism
Autism

Retarded commie

And if USA just fucked off and not tried to cuck Cuba cause muhhh commie threat? Would Cuba under Casto be a much better place if it wasn't raped by the US and A?

>shieeeeet, the white mans economics is why i's be po

Cuba should be annexed by the US, it was a mistake letting them declare independence after we won that territory from Spain.

It's a natural state of being. People naturally participate in commerce. Socialism and it's system of bureaucracy and welfare naturally finds a home for criminals and other dejects within its system. So called "sick pups". Look at any school, hospital or police force and you find abuses of power everywhere.

We should just annihilate all these forms of government intervention which are in fact hindrances to economic growth, which shouldn't come as a surprise since economists since time eternal have been pointing out that government intervention is always a source of inefficiency.

You waste the first 18 years of your life being institutionalized by socialized education and you learn nothing about life or the real world - then maybe, you fall sucker to the college scam, and waste another 3 - 5 years. Or even more. And you get older and you continue to learn nothing about life. Then you graduate, have insane debt, and learned nothing about surviving in a commercial capitalist society - all because of socialism. Why not just get rid of all of it?

Why not drop out at 13, get a job doing whatever, and work your way up early on. Get ahead while you're ahead, instead of listening to socialist dribble about degrees and worrying about pointless grades.

Here's some statistics to support your argument,

ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FACTS_Web/Cuba Facts Issue 43 December.htm

your welcome I have college work to do right now but ill just drop this and at some point I'll post some links to history papers I wrote here or in its own thread. This is my first post on Veeky Forums im a /int/ and /pol/ poster originally /int/ though.

t. Cuban American

You have to go back

...

im not a nazi or a trump supporter im actually center right no need to expel me for browsing /pol/

plus I was born and raised in the US I'd get on the next boat or plane to cuba if it was democratic and free with some semblance of a capitalist economy again If thats what you mean

im not a nazi or a trump supporter im actually center right no need to expel me for browsing /pol/. Plus I was born and raised in the US I'd get on the next boat or plane to Cuba after I finish my education if it was democratic and free with some semblance of a capitalist economy again If that's what you mean.

>get a job doing whatever, and work your way up early on
How exactly do you expect to "work your way up" without even having a basic knowledge of economics or algebra?

Learn on your own, read a book.

I think that asking a society to do nothing collectively is asking far more than asking them to do something collectively.
Humans in their natural state have always, and will always view inequality, oppression (of which there are many forms), cruelty, exploitation as a negative things. For an ideological standpoint to essentially prevent people from collectively addressing that problem is not only unrealistic, but morally reprehensible.

MNR was an AnCap. Many libertarians aren't. Minarchy really is the best form of government. As a minarchist myself, I think children below the age of reason are the only conceivable example where positive duties can be forced upon individuals. Depriving a child of food, because of its inability to feed itself, is tantamount to aggression against it.

Jesus christ, you people are now infecting Europe too! You're like a zombie outbreak, stop infecting the lecture halls. Go back over the pond!

only the kids hit puberty kick him straight to the curb imo

>muh private property

I think when most people say "libertarian" they immediately think of anarchy.

Yeah meanwhile you're making a great image for yourself.