Are libertarians right or are they just infantile greedy bastards?

they hate paying taxes until they have an heart attack and the ambulance shows up to take them to the hospital

they hate paying taxes until the 1 little poor boy out of the city who's on free lunch grows up and starts a business and creates jobs for the city

they hate regulations until car companies are forced to make a vehicle that wont crunch into a slinky when it hits a light pole and flattens the driver sideways

they love free market capitalism until a monopoly is created and they get fucked up the ass paying for whatever the business wants them to pay for the service

i can go on and on for hours

government isn't perfect

fix it, don't get rid of it you idiots

>they love free market capitalism until a monopoly is created and they get fucked up the ass paying for whatever the business wants them to pay for the service

I'm not against regulations and I'm not a libertarian or a "free market capitalist", but how exactly are monopolies created without the interference of a state?

>just infantile greedy bastards?

One example: I live in Europe, and my healthcare is "free", yet I haven't been at the doctor a single time in the last 1,5 years - and I'm perfectly healthy. I just take really good care of myself. Remember the old Hippocratic oath, "I will help a patient even if he doesn't have money", what happened to that? Church hospital used to take care of the poor for free, but now the government has subsidized everything.

Look, libertarianism is about incentivising people to live a good live, to be good, and to be generous too. Letting people take care of themselves - because they best know how. There are "Libertarians", like Gary Johnson, who are nothing but neo-cons on steroids so this is where people get the negative stereotypes from. True libertarians are people like Ron Paul - watch his political talks on youtube, and you will see that is has nothing to do with "greed".

Idealism is not necessary, only decentralization. Basically just less taxes and more liberties, that fixes a lot of things. No taxes, no wars - for example.

There is not a single "libertarian society", but there are many very feasible steps one can take in a libertarian direction. The "idealism" argument really doesn't hold, you always have the option to decentralize - and the only thing keeping people from it is fearmongering by the statist elites.

>No taxes, no wars - for example.
Sounds like nonsense to me.

Almost all enterprises have a high cost of entry, and it's far easier to justify to taxpayers that a small temporary loss is acceptable as an established company to strangle competition through undercutting prices than it is to convince them that said losses are acceptable as a start-up because you really hope that the bigger guy can't justify his own losses, and you can't raise money to keep going without these private investors because the minute you go public the big guy buys enough of the company to get a guy on the BoD and forces a hostile takeover.
Some industries, such as power and water, are virtually impossible to penetrate at all.

Depends how libertarian they are

Moderate libertarians >>> austrians and ancaps

>No taxes, no wars
The minute one nation starts taxing the whole scheme collapses. This ideology is more nonsensical than communism, which at least has as an endgame a system which can't collapse from a rogue commune.

Natural monopolies can be privately run well if the regulatory system acts to artificially create market mechanisms

It all depends on the regulation, but libertarians may be against that in the first place

Ron Paul is a useful idiot and or a conman. He amends bills to get fedbucks, then votes against the bill anyways to keep his voting record clean.

I to live in Europe and that is fucking bullshit. I grew up in a relatively poor family and I have some serious medical problems. Genetic problems, things you can't just cure by living healthy. If it wasn't for free healthcare I probably wouldn't be alive right.

I used to feel the same as you, thinking I could handle myself and didn't need some pesky government to interfer with my life. Here's the thing. Life's not fair. Shit happens we have no control over. We can't solve all problems through will and hard work alone. When I was at my lowest, I got a chance because an institution out there was willing to help me and for that I'm eternally grateful.

Liberterians are naive. They think life will reward them if they're diligent enough. An admirable thought but ultimately mistaken. Take it from someone who used to be on the same page as you.

>The minute one nation starts taxing the whole scheme collapses.

It doesn't, because the budget needed to wage a defensive war is much less than an offensive war. Lowering military spending to the bare minimum is the best for economic growth.

>Sounds like nonsense to me.

And you are?

>It doesn't, because the budget needed to wage a defensive war is much less than an offensive war.
Which is more than corrected for by the source of income being bombed.

Almost every libertarian I've spoken to is against all regulation on principle, but then, they may have just been calling themselves such because anarcho-whatever sounds edgy.

>He amends bills to get fedbucks

We get into finnicky areas of moral discussion here. Sure, Ron Paul hasn't always been ideal in his financing, but then again, how else was he going to get his word out? How good is the best approach to solve a problem, if nobody even knows of it? He did what he had to do, the minuscule damage he did is nothing compared to the great good.

I would rather risk dying than live in the current tax-slavery. You hang onto life at any cost, but no good ideology can function that way. Everything dies eventually, and all time intervals are but a moment, compared to eternity.

>I would rather you die than I live in the current tax-slavery.

It doesn't matter. As long as nobody can make a profit off of attacking you, you're 100% safe.

Without government or laws and regulations what stops google from buying private armies and nuclear bombs and take over the world?

In all seriousness, as soon as a libertarian society would be put in place, a war would start after which things will likely go back to normal or close to it.

>It doesn't matter. As long as you don't ever own any valuable land, you're 100% safe.

>what stops google from buying private armies and nuclear bombs and take over the world?

Amazon and Microsoft. The exact same question can be asked for governments. Arm yourself to the point it becomes unprofitable for someone to oppress you.

You do understand that what keeps the world peace is not your government model, bu nuclear weapons? Your government model didn't prevent the US from attacking Iraq.

Lolbertarians are usually out of economics science bc "dude your science is statist lmaooo".

Also, is there a clear distinction between libertarians and neoliberals?

the more valuable your land is, the more armament you can afford to protect it

There's a difference between neoliberals and ancaps

You know that during 1954 Mexican land was worth altogether far more than US land, right?

I mean 1845 ofc

So if google arms itself first? If google unites with amazon and microsoft? If their headquarters are right next to yours and you can't bomb them?

This'l either turn into a civil war of immense proportions or most likely a corporatocracy which might not be such a bad thing, every society is slowly turning into one anyway, even countries like China. Anyway a law and regulation free society will last a few hours at best.

>b-but non-agression principle!

And? What are you trying to say? Some wars were unavoidable in history, regardless of political ideology. Nowadays we have the UN.

So if USA arms itself first? If USA unites with Russia and China?

You people literally can't be this retarded. Back to

What I seem to never be able to get is the idea that with stuff like healthcare the answer is always that it should be privately financed and the assumption is that people will be giving charityt to the hospitals out of the goodness of their own hearts. And that shit just sounds so naive to me. I mean lots of people aren't giving to charities as it is, and if they do they most likely give what, 10bucks per month?

This is where I don't get guys like Ben Shapiro. They equate anything that isn't tax for a strong military as putting a gun to your head and he's all for liberty. And yet a person through no fault of their own can be born in a hugely disadvantaged situation where their only hope for basic dignity and a fair shot to get out of that environment would rely on the goodness of the charity of wealthy individuals. So it's necessary in his view to tax for military to protect the citizens from violence, but if you want to tax everyone to help keep a decent safety net so people can get out of being born in a crappy environment, or if they fall in it later in life, then that is putting a gun to the taxpayer's head and forcing him to do it.

>defensive war is more cheap
Is this even an option in today's world? Has it even been a thing since the advent of nuclear weapons?

>Without government or laws and regulations
but one of the fundamental ideas of libertarianism is that the government will have monopoly on force is it not ? We're not talking anarchy here.

>Nowadays we have the UN
You don't want a government but you rely on the UN?

They are just misunderstood

youtube.com/watch?v=AVKDbpYQTa0

Yeah sure USA will unite with Russia and China. Do you hear yourself? Those are countries with hundreds millions of people that follow the same set of laws, speak the same language and in them anyone can potentially become president.

Companies and corporations are spread all over the globe, they might come from a country but they don't have any allegiance to that country or their people.

They'l take over, so laws will be back as soon as they left the door. The moment you libertarian savages have your anarchy things will start turning back around into a society with laws and regulations.

How does a government get a monopoly on force if the law doesn't stop others from buying excess force?
>Join the US army, fight pakis and get homelessness
>Join the MCdonald army, fight the US and get a happy meal

>f the law doesn't stop others from buying excess force
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. In this hypothetical scenario the government will be the only ones who can amass military grade artillary, nuclear weapons, tanks etc. Again, it's not anarchism we're talking about here.

How so? What stops KFC from buying land in Kentuchy and building the "Chicken Blaster 2000 Spicy Edition" nuclear bomb? Regulations? I thought anarchists were against regulations? It's not anarchy but it's two steps too close.

Thought libertarians were against regulations*

They're against regulations generally but they make an exception with the use of force, which they think should be exclusive to the government.
You're right that it would probably take more regulation than they'd like though.

There are plenty of Walter Mitties. However usually lack of faith in the goverment or society to solve things or frustration over some arbitrary law like the illegalization of cannabis is the gateway to libertarianism. In much the same way that far-left ideologies like socialism will always exist in one form or another due to people's frustration at being born poor and in poverty while others are born wealthy.

You can meme libertarianism or socialim as much as you want, but you can't escape these essential truths. Also the accusation of being greedy bastards could be laid on both.

If an organisation, such as a company, grows powerful enough it can become a de facto state.

Well meaning but quick to dismiss the state while reaping its benefits and ignoring the securities and comforts it provides them.
They also seem to think that contributing to rights like health and security so they are always available is theft.

> why aren't corporations buying nuclear weapons and going ot war?

bc the main reason for existence of corporations is making profit, and some of them are especially good at it. Nowadays wars are superexpencive and give you no direct profit

A pure libertarian state is probably impossible, but we should take several steps in a libertarian direction.

>Screencaping your own thread.
You got BTFO'd in that thread

Libertarianism is a flawed idea in that thinking humans will just fuck off and leave each other alone is as silly an idea that humans will set aside their differences and set up a perfect communistic world.

>which can't collapse from a rogue commune.
Lyl

The state is the product of class society. If you remove the state from the society, it will rebuild itself.

>I am a dumb shitskin and love leeching from the system

>No true white man can be unhealthy.

>I got dealt dealt a bad hand so you should be forced to pay for my medical treatment because reasons

No, I shouldnt. If I want to give my money to a private Institution that specializes in autoimmune diease that's fine and should be encouraged. Forcing me under the threat of the state jailing me(or worse) is morally objectionable.

>morally objectionable
cried the gazelle

>health and security
>rights

Congratulations on your indoctrination

I'm not a Libertarian per se so I haven't answered posts which don't apply to me or whose criticism I agree with. However, there are a large amount of questions and points raised here which are pretty simple to answer.

>strangle competition through undercutting prices
This seems remarkably like an attempt to use loaded language to contrue a good thing as bad. How is systematically furnishing consumers with goods more cheaply than your opponents can a bad thing?

>Liberterians are naive. They think life will reward them if they're diligent enough.
I don't remotely think that, and I doubt most Libertarians do. I'm fully aware that life can be cruel, I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea that one man's bad luck is an excuse for him (or the state on his behalf) to violently force his will onto third parties. It might be cliche but all these institutions you want have to be funded somehow, they don't come out of thin air, they come from appropriating the earnings of people who may or may not consent. There are institutions that exist that don't need to sustain themselves on force; they sustain themselves because there's a strong demand for them and because a free market makes mutually beneficial exchanges possible.

The problem with this argument is that he's only claiming to have jurisdiction over his own life. You're claiming jurisdiction over your own life and part of his by virtue of a misfortune that he had no part in constructing.

>Also, is there a clear distinction between libertarians and neoliberals?
Massively. The former tend to be against central banks, fiat currency, state monetary policy and so on. Perhaps most importantly (and assuming by Libertarian you basically mean Austrian) neoliberals fully embrace economic statistical analysis in a way that Libs are dogmatically opposed to.

Yeah dude, why doesn't America just unite with China and Russia and take over the world? Beats me.

[1]

>assumption is that people will be giving charityt to the hospitals out of the goodness of their own hearts
There's a straightforward objection to this:
>Not enough people believe in/care about/agree with something to fund it voluntarily
>Other people say that we therefore need the state to intervene
>This action only seems legitimate if a majority of the people agree (otherwise it's a minority who think they know best forcing their moral sentiments on everyone else)
>If such a majority exists, there should be no need to resort to force in the first place

The mere fact that the state is needed to compel people to do something implies that there isn't a sufficient desire for that thing to begin with. This means you enter dodgy waters with using violence to promote what are essentially just your moral sentiments, at the expense of the moral sentiments of everyone else. Perhaps you're secure in the belief that your sentiments are objective and that other people are just all wrong, but I wouldn't be.

[2]

libertarians hate monopoles

libertarians want competition outside the scope of the state

libertarians want full control within the scope of the state

>hey should we let people decide whats good for themselves?
>no people are too retarded for that, we need to get them together every few years to decide what's good for everyone else

>mfw libertarians hate monopolies
>mfw libertarians also hate government regulation of markets
>mfw libertarians want laissez-faire economics
>mfw libertarians don't know about the guilded age
>mfw libertarians will respond to this post with "NOT REAL LAISSEZ-FAIRE, NEVER BEEN PRACTICED"

>mfw libertarians are just as retarded as communists

>yfw the government was used multiple times to kill striking workers
>yfw local police forces were used to intimidate and kill union workers
>yfw you complain that private entities MIGHT do the very things governments have been doing daily since their inception

>guilded age
>guilded
>
Anyway, If you think anything past the ACW and the state interventionism first championed by Lincoln counts as laissez-faire, you're wrong. Hell, half of the friction that caused the war was Northern backed tariffs fucking with Southern industry. Also muh federal land grabs and railroad monopoly granting and so on. This is not including everything that was wrong with the banking system from a Libertarian perspective.

Even if you want to disregard all that, it's hard to deny that economic freedom is massively correlated with prosperity in the modern world. Hong Kong, New Zealand, Chile etc. seem to be doing alright.

most libertarians are people who wanted things like gay marriage, no gun control, no institutionalised racism and frozen peaches and found the first ideology that supports it, despite libertarianism being pretty dumb when you think about it

t.former lolbertarian

I'mean libertarian and greedy as fuck. I just prefer the predictability of the market to become rich than Papa Stalin's temper.

>frozen peaches

Frozen peaches?

It is a far left meme that is a rename for free speech
>frozen peaches
>freeze peach
>free speech

It is meant to try to minimize the value of free speech in hopes that rules prohibiting hate speech and otherwise offensive speech can be barred.

Oops not barred but implemented.

>How is systematically furnishing consumers with goods more cheaply than your opponents can a bad thing?

Because one big company can afford to lower their prices to a point smaller competitors can't, effectively rendering unable to compete and driving them out of business, and that's ignoring the infinite amount of advantages and tools the bigger company has over the smaller one, that's the end of muh free market, then the bigger companies just set the prices back to whatever they want, they can just keep repeating the same method to keep emerging competitors out

>but people can choose not to buy from them

No if they're literally the only ones with enough coverage to put their products at the reach of all consumers and have no important competitors people WILL still buy from them, also there's a point where a company gets so big and has its hands on so many markets, you literally can't help but buy their products. "Vote with your wallet" has consistently been shown to never work.

>but some small company can come up with a tech advance the bigger company hasn't

This rarely happens in real life and even when it does is not enough to actually destroy the bigger company or even make the smaller company become bigger without some exterior entity providing the R&D resources, IE: the state.

>Because one big company can afford to lower their prices to a point smaller competitors can't, effectively rendering unable to compete and driving them out of business, and that's ignoring the infinite amount of advantages and tools the bigger company has over the smaller one, that's the end of muh free market, then the bigger companies just set the prices back to whatever they want, they can just keep repeating the same method to keep emerging competitors out

By in large this has not happened without aid from the government. Very few corporations get to the size and power you're talking about without having their hands in government policy.

Now I dont have an easy answer to how to keep corruption from happening but its not really fair to blame the state of things on free(er) markets, when corporate abuse and government power are going hand in hand

>By in large this has not happened without aid from the government. Very few corporations get to the size and power you're talking about without having their hands in government policy.

>Now I dont have an easy answer to how to keep corruption from happening but its not really fair to blame the state of things on free(er) markets, when corporate abuse and government power are going hand in hand

It's not really fair to blame the state because of the things companies who directly use the economic power their acquired trough the market to influence political decisions and bend/pass laws to their will. Seems to me like the modern state has become nothing more than a facade for companies since politicians have been massively influenced by the economic powers from day 1 and usually belong to the higher classes that benefit directly from these powers; in their fear of governments the people have surrendered all the power to economic cliques to the point that companies being far more relevant that states is becoming the norm.

Remove the state and the big companies are just as powerful but now they don't have to bother with pretending the population has the power

The state is far more than a puppet in this relationship. The state itself derives benefits from housing multinational corporations, they become instruments of soft power, and dare I say population control. Of course they also line the pockets of those with power.

>Remove the state and the big companies are just as powerful but now they don't have to bother with pretending the population has the power

That state could survive in reduced form without mega corporations, however megacorporations would never survive without the government. They would either be to bloated to compete or angry mobs would tear them to pieces

>megacorporations would never survive without the government
>implying they wouldn't become the government

>We get into finnicky areas of moral discussion here. Sure, Ron Paul hasn't always been ideal in his financing, but then again, how else was he going to get his word out? How good is the best approach to solve a problem, if nobody even knows of it? He did what he had to do, the minuscule damage he did is nothing compared to the great good.
What the fuck are you talking about? He literally amends bills to fund whatever congressman pet projects he wants funded, then fucking votes against the bills anyways.

Property is a spook.