Libertarians will unironically defend this

BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Explain to me how libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

>implying there's anything wrong with child labor

As a libertarian the government has no authority over you that you haven't specifically given it.

As a socialist your investment in many sectors of society ensures you have a steady income.

The establishment/cathedral/patriarchy/status-quo don't like it because it would require at least some land reform, and that would reveal their success is based on violence and inheritance, not on economic acumen.

Dead wrong, sorry. The government does not exist in libertarian socialism; it is explicitly anti-statist.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

I wish I could have gotten a job as a kid. I would have been able to at least buy things I wanted that my parents wouldn't get me. I bet it would have also instilled a good work ethic in me. I think the reasons Millenials and GenZ are so spoiled is because they never had actual jobs. Their only jobs were summer jobs teaching swimming at the country club or some shit. Fact is, getting rid of child labor hurt the economy and hurt the development of children in future generations. Getting rid of child labor is also responsible for the sexual revolution, degeneracy, and the creation of incels. We would have been better off if the the government had not interfered and left the system a free market. In fact, name one problem the free market can't solve.

>name one problem the free market can't solve

Negative externalities and information assymetries

>Can only respond in memes
Literally what?
Guessing you don't have any actual rebuttals besides made up terms

6/10

>I wish I could work in a sweatshop from 2 years old

Libertarians are retarded. They will defend anything a corporation does, but will shit on anything the government does

>pic related

I'm not a libertarian but that's a retarded arguments

*argument

The reason we don't allow children to work is because they can't consent. Removing every single regulation in the economy (which is not something most libertarians even want btw) we would still not allow children to work.

Then you've never argued with an ancap, where the free market can do no wrong

It's not that the free market can do no wrong, it's that it provides the best results and has the best tradeoffs.

for the 1% it's the best, but everyone else gets fugged

Why do you believe that only the 1% prosper in a free economy?

Between 1980 and 2005, as the world embraced free market policies, living standards rose sharply, while life expectancy, educational attainment, and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined. Doesn't seem like the free market policies benefit only the rich.

>Muh 1%

The idea behind lowering tax rates is not that it will create prosperity at the top which will "trickle down" to others, this is strawman built by Democrats. The primary purpose of lowering taxes is so the government can collect more tax revenues. This happens because people put less money in tax except properties and investments and more in taxable ventures. John F Kennedy agreed with this when he said "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. This is because investors efforts to avoid tax liabilities make certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings and this inhibits our growth and efficiency. Therefore the purpose of cutting taxes is to achieve a more prosperous, expanding economy."

Democrats like to pull a similar fallacy in regards to deregulation. The purpose behind it is that the less money that's spent in compliance with these for most part, completely useless regulations that don't protect consumers or employers the more these companies will have to invest in their business with will provide jobs and more competition which is always a good thing. The amount of money that US companies spend in regulation compliance is in the trillions. That is for the most part wasted money. The purpose of deregulation is not to benefit the top, a free market actually hurts them because they're the ones that actually benefit from the government having lots of regulations. Regulations raise the barrier of entry and keep competition out of the market because newer companies can't afford the cost of compliance.

Lucky little fuck

I like that the one thing EVERYONE can agree on is that ancaps are fucking retarded

Define ancap

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

>ignoring the sharp rise in inequality
>ignoring the increasing divide between productivity and wages
>ignoring the crash in economy that has rekt 1st world countries

It's not.
But I'm not a libertarian socialist so you are going to need to explain why you think I am a socialist to begin with.
False dichotomy much?

That doesn't sound very different than any other form of anarchy, in really just sounds like a bunch of buzzwords.

not him but you can't just shout "buzzwords" to argue against a definition

I think you need to define what inequality means because income mobility is at the highest its ever been. This means that more poor people are becoming rich and more rich people are becoming poor than at any other point in history. The quality of life, thanks largely to capitalism is also at the most equal point in history. We eat the same types of food, we drive the same cars, we use the same computers, have access to the same healthcare, ect. This wasn't the case 100 years ago where the difference between the rich and the poor was porridge for dinner and a nice juicy steak or a decent house and a shack outside of some shitty factory. Even 20 years ago we notice the difference when only the elite 1% could own cell phones or have air conditioners in their houses.

If you believe income inequality should matter above all then you need to explain why.

>unicef.org/publications/files/pub_sowc97_en.pdf

>An important initiative to protect child workers is unfolding in Bangladesh. The country’s powerful garment industry is committing itself to some dramatic new measures by an agreement signed in 1995.
The country is one of the world’s major garment exporters, and the industry, which employs over a million workers, most of them women, also employed child labour. In 1992, between 50,000 and 75,000 of its workforce were children under 14, mainly girls.
The children were illegally employed according to national law, but the situation captured little attention, in Bangladesh or elsewhere, until the garment factories began to hide the children from United States buyers or lay off the children, following the introduction of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in 1992 by US Senator Tom Harkin. The Bill would have prohibited the importation into the US of goods made using child labour. Then, when Senator Harkin reintroduced the Bill the following year, the impact was far more devastating: garment employers dismissed an estimated 50,000 children from their factories, approximately 75 per cent of all children in the industry.
The consequences for the dismissed children and their parents were not anticipated. The children may have been freed, but at the same time they were trapped in a harsh environment with no skills, little or no education, and precious few alternatives. Schools were either inaccessible, useless or costly. A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production. In several cases, the mothers of dismissed children had to leave their jobs in order to look after their children.

WE WIN Veeky Forums!

>A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production. In several cases, the mothers of dismissed children had to leave their jobs in order to look after their children.

>that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production.

HUH? WHAT DID YOU SAY? NOT SO LOLBERTARIAN NOW AY?

Income inequality (although a better term is the wealth divide) will lead to lower economic mobility coz richer people have more access to resources and shit for their children. Also a study has shown it correlated with a lot of social ills. So it is either the canary in the coal mine at best or the root cause at worse

>youtube.com/watch?v=40gZTKohqCE
>around 12 minutes in

>1% could own cell phones or have air conditioners in their houses.
Disingenuous af, now rich people have all kinds of access to newer technologies just like they did years. Capitalism didn't change or improve that dynamic.

Wealth inequality has no bearing on social mobility. Wealth inequality has no bearing on anything really

>some random subsistence farmer in the backwoods of Burundi doesn't have the latest iPhone 7
>THE INJUSTICE

>purposefully missing the point: the post
I hope you're part of the 1% because defending their wages is laughable.

Then how do you explain the current income inequality doing the exact opposite of what you predict? Economic mobility increases as the market becomes free, which as I said means more people are becoming rich and more rich people are becoming poor. If you prioritize equality of income more than equality of opportunity wouldn't it follow that North Korea be a better place to live? They probably have the most equal income of any other country on earth.

>Disingenuous af, now rich people have all kinds of access to newer technologies just like they did years. Capitalism didn't change or improve that dynamic.

That's not a bad thing. Every new technology is extremely expensive in the beginning and only rich people can by them. If there were no rich people to buy these products then these couldn't finance themselves or research new ways to lower the cost of manufacturing and develop. Without a robust wealthy class of people cell phones would still cost a small fortune to make.

>he said as he didn't see the evidence in the video
Sure whatever makes you sleep better at night

The 1% doesn't work for wages, you nincompoop.

You're telling me top CEO's don't work for wages? Where do they get their money you nincompoop

>If there were no rich people to buy these products then these couldn't finance themselves or research new ways to lower the cost of manufacturing and develop.

>dat word salad

If there were no rich people to buy these products then these companies couldn't finance themselves or research new ways to lower the cost of manufacturing and development.

A big chunk of that gap can be explained by new and efficient manufacturing technology (this includes workplace organization) replacing the need for a large number workers while simultaneously boosting the productivity of those that remain. So you have a lot of people out of work or taking lower-paying positions, thus lowering the rate of wage increase in the aggregate, while productivity rises due to the new technology.

What drove companies to seek such tech in the first place? I'll give you three guesses.

That's income you fucking retard. Also
minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone
APOLOGISE

Salary and/or options, you fucking idiot. Most of their--I mean all top earners, not just CEOs--income is going to be coming from ROI.

Obviously I meant fucking salary when I said wages, though that's my fault bc I'm from the UK. Now you're just distracting from the original point. Why is their salary so high, and why do they get so much more money?

My point is it's incredibly vague and two people identifying as an "anarcho capitalist" could have drastically different beliefs

Do you recognize the value of organization and the ideas and effort that go behind running a successful corporation? I only ask this because I know Marx didn't.

>Then how do you explain the current income inequality doing the exact opposite of what you predict?
I just look at the data

>They probably have the most equal income of any other country on earth.
No they don't... North Korea is literally the apex of inequality and one guy living in decadent luxury and everyone else in abject poverty

> If there were no rich people to buy these products then these couldn't finance themselves or research new ways to lower the cost of manufacturing and develop. Without a robust wealthy class of people cell phones would still cost a small fortune to make.
And Capitalism never changed that dynamic. So you can't say that it improves anything. Also most innovation comes from government research with the private sector making it commercial

>thus making it the one thing EVERYONE can agree is fucking retarded
Except the top guys don't do that, they hire people to do that for them, then take the most money

Changes in the labour market that favoured high skilled workers over low skilled workers, this is the academic consensus

CEOs make up a small portion of "the 1%". Again, at the highest income brackets, income is coming from returns on investment.

As for why CEOs get paid a lot of money, that depends on the company they work for, internal customs and norms, etc. It's not really up to you to decide how much any given person is to make. If a company hires someone to run their operations, and they decide he's worth $600 million, then that's how much he's worth to them.

>Except the top guys don't do that, they hire people to do that for them, then take the most money

Give an example. Be specific.

Innovation didn't suddenly start at the midpoint. But the New Deal made the productivity move in step with income. Make no mistake, technological advancement didn't cause this, only neoliberalism policies

That was talking about the other point of the difference in productivity and wages
I didn't cite those sources

>And Capitalism never changed that dynamic. So you can't say that it improves anything. Also most innovation comes from government research with the private sector making it commercial
And capitalism creates the wealth and productivity making that innovation possible

Nigger what is your point? I've just explained everything to you. Changes to the labour market is the reason income inequality increased, and wages have fallen inline with productivity increases

>And Capitalism never changed that dynamic. So you can't say that it improves anything. Also most innovation comes from government research with the private sector making it commercial

We don't want to change that dynamic because it works. The government sucks at everything they do which is why the invest millions of taxpayer money in completely useless projects like solar roadways. Sometimes the government will hit on a decent product that can be commercialize that commercialization involves lowering the costs to make it available to consumers, If you know about government institutions you would know that they don't give two shits about lowering costs, and in many cases they actually have incentives to increase costs in everything they do in order to increase their budgets.

>Innovation didn't suddenly start at the midpoint.

Labor-saving innovations certainly took a huge upswing when profits were being squeezed to the point of nonexistence.

And i am saying you are wrong
Changes to the labour market always happens, it wasn't the dominant force that created the gap. The social democratic policies of the New Deal was replaced with neoliberal policies and that started the fire

Yea and the factories moving overseas to lower costs had no impact whatsoever.

>Yea and the factories moving overseas to lower costs had no impact whatsoever.

Yes, that is one strategy to lower costs. It's not the only strategy that was employed, but it's one that folks like you like to harp on about. All those poor folks in their single-family homes with their refrigerators and washing machines and lawnmowers, suddenly hit with a moderately reduced income. In the meantime, a whole bunch of people in underdeveloped countries suddenly have an influx of money and activity. What a tragedy.

>The government sucks at everything they do which is why the invest millions of taxpayer money in completely useless projects like solar roadways.
>he says as he uses the Internet, a creation made by government spending, with WWW created by someone who refused to patented it
I hope you don't use any of the Space Race technology either.

>If you know about government institutions you would know that they don't give two shits about lowering costs
Yes it never intended to do that anyway. They invest in research to see if it benefits the country.

>The social democratic policies of the New Deal was replaced with neoliberal policies and that started the fire

This is a GROSSLY simplistic explanation. And WHAT policies? NAME them. POINT them OUT and DEMONSTRATE their impact.

Innovation through capitalism only creates shit that is profitable.

If you want to put a man on the moon or level an entire city with a single bomb, you need something else.

The internet was pretty useless until private corporations got their hand on it and commercialized it so that just reinforces what I said.

yeah, wars are pretty nice.

I'm literally not. This is the academic consensus.

>All those poor folks in their single-family homes with their refrigerators and washing machines and lawnmowers, suddenly hit with a moderately reduced income. In the meantime, a whole bunch of people in underdeveloped countries suddenly have an influx of money and activity.
And the income decreases further as they are forced to compete with foreign workers who are much willing to work for lower wages coz the lower living costs in their country (no refrigerators and washing machines and lawnmowers). It is a race to the bottom

But none of those private corporations had any incentive to get the infrastructure off the ground. They only ran with it later after the government had done the hard work of maturing the technology to the point of being commercially viable

APOLOGISE YOU FUCKING NIGGER. APOLOGISE. I WANT AN APOLOGY FOR EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE MADE IN THIS THREAD. FUCK YOU.

THIS ONE
THIS ONE
THIS ONE
THIS ONE
THIS ONE
THIS ONE
AND THIS ONE
igmchicago.org/surveys/inequality-and-skills

No coz without the government spending on 'completely useless projects' there would not be anything the corporations can commercialize

Sureee

>It is a race to the bottom

Except that's not what the data shows. The number of people living in absolute poverty has been declining continuously for the past two centuries, and has sharply decreased in the past 4 decades.

Look at the DATA for FUCK'S SAKE. Stop referring to this insipid story you've got on loop in your head. Christ.

ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/

To be fair, the internet was created because of Soviet nuclear threat.

No one created the internet in the 1980's because it wasn't profitable. There was the AOL but it wasn't the internet.

Really, if you want to thank someone for creating the internet, you should thank the Rosenbergs for giving the Soviets the nuclear bomb.

I'm sure it would have come around eventually, but it would just been an oversized AOL because it was the only thing profitable.

It wasn't until the 1990's did the internet emerge from universities and military into something you could sell.

So? Again I said sometimes they'll hit on something. This doesn't mean the government is efficient or smart in how they invest the money. The best innovation comes from the private sector because it's made up of individuals who are putting their own money at risk. It's an incentive to make good decisions that the government doesn't have. The government loses millions on solar road ways and it's no big deal for them but for an individual that's their livelihood.

>igmchicago.org/surveys/inequality-and-skills
This is an opinion poll. And it doesn't take away anything from what i have said. Blue collar (and some white collar) jobs are shipped overseas to be paid at a lower rate. I didn't say technological advancement had no impact on the divide, but it was not dominant force. Interestingly a lot of the people that strongly agreed said the same thing

Definitely. The reason why I didn't grow as tall as projected is because I spent hours slouched over watching tv or playing games. If I was on my feet working I would be at least 6'3

LMAO FUCK YOU FAGGOT. I HAVE LITERALLY ASSRAPED YOU ON EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU HAVE TRIED TO MAKE. DO YOU ENJOY THE FEELING OF GETTING MY EVIDENCE BASED ARGUMENTS RAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT LIKE YOUR DAD ON A FRIDAY NIGHT

I didn't say shit about absolute poverty, only about inequality. Learn to read

>Eric Maskin
>Luigi Zingales
>Daron Acemoglu
>David Autor
>Judith Chevalier
>Janet Currie
>Angus Deaton
>Darrell Duffie
Yea we are done here

>reinforcing the youth with a capitalist work ethic
but that's good.

> perpetuating a system that works to my disadvantage.
I doubt it.

Income inequality between countries for median incomes has also been reduced dramatically over the same period.

>So? Again I said sometimes they'll hit on something.
Like the single most important and revolutionary technology of the 20th century?
Telecommunications, the internet, and computers all come from technologies developed by state research facilities and state universities.
>The best innovation comes from the private sector because it's made up of individuals who are putting their own money at risk.
That's exactly what makes the private sector risk-adverse and more inclined to stick with incrementalism instead of bold visionary projects which require a vast quantity of start up capital
>. It's an incentive to make good decisions that the government doesn't have.
What the government does have is a mandate to serve the public good, and that means making investments in the economy like every country in history has done.
>The government loses millions on solar road ways and it's no big deal for them but for an individual that's their livelihood.
But for every one bad investment there are 10 others buoying the investment portfolio. And you bashing the government's investments in solar tells me that you don't know jackshit about the industry and how overall successful it's becoming, even in states without massive tax incentives for solar

Honestly. I don't think capitalism will solve issues like asteroids and Venus like atmospheres.

Hopefully, the robots that survive us will build a giant "I told you so!" monument in the side of a mountain.

Cunt do you want to start spewing some other bullshit? I have raped you so hard I can't believe that you haven't deleted your comments yet. Maybe you are a little cuck who enjoys the feeling of getting squashed by your intellectual superiors?

Libertarians merely hold the position the less regulation and government interference in business is for the best and that is what we should pursue. History has shown time and time again that prosperity follows freedom while poverty follows regulation. A great example of this is Sweden. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the relatively free economy gave rise to all sorts of great inventors and entrepreneurs like Nobel, Wingquistm Dalen, and Platen and it allowed Sweden to have the highest per capital income growth in the world between 1870 to 1950. Starting in the 1930's Swedish politicians began moving towards a fascist style socialist "planning." With an ever growing welfare state, high taxes and new regulations, government spending and the number government employees rose, and while they were able to live off the hard work and innovation of the previous generation for a while, they couldn't avoid economic reality. By the 1980's economic growth collapsed and the real estate and stock market bubbles burst. Interest rates at the Swedish central bank rose 500 percent by 1990. Sweden fell from 4 to 20 in international income comparisons. This thankfully led to a revolt against the socialist regime that led to a more conservative government that abolished currency controls, reduced marginal income tax rates, deregulated bank lending, privatized central government enterprises among other things. Sweden's national debt went from 80% of GDP in 1992 to 40% by 2008. This is just one of many examples of countries that are slowing being restored from destructive socialist policies. An even easier example of prosperity following freedom would be Britain before and after Margaret Thatcher began deregulating their economy.

If the world went bat shit insane tomorrow and every country went libertarian, and then the day after that it was discovered that an asteroid was going to hit us boiling away the oceans and exterminatus on our ass...

...would the free market solve that issue? Who would even get the bill? Would be bill for the space program be mandatory at that point?

The one thing that defines the socialist is the incredible amount of envy that they possess. First, there is the fact that so many people refuse to accept the reality that those who accumulate wealth in a capitalist society do so simply by pleasing large numbers of their fellow citizens with the products or services that they sell. In terms of making money, the movie star outstrips the philosopher. This often creates a lifelong feeling of envy and hatred towards capitalism and capitalists in the mind of the "philosopher." Many people also insist that they should be judged by some kind of absolute standard (defined by the government, of course) as opposed to the dollar "votes" of their fellow citizens. Consequently, they are frustrated and envious of the more successful among them. The less successful (including the lazy or incompetent) often express hate and enmity against all those who superseded them. Political demagogues take advantage of such people by promising them something for nothing ("free" healthcare! "free" education! "free" you name it!) in the name of egalitarianism. This is how we get Bernie Sanders.

People just need to grow up

You are such a little baby lmao.
>resorting to implying that I'm an austrian
WOW. I'M RIGHT AGAIN. YOU REALLY DO ENJOY THE TASTE OF INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY AND EVIDENCED BASED ARGUMENTS BLASTED ALL OVER YOUR ZIT COVERED FACE

I'm not that guy, but you didn't answer who would pay for the asteroid deflection in a libertarian system.

Everybody that has an interest in the planet not being destroyed, I would imagine. N=the population of the planet.

So what about the asteroid impact deniers? They get a free ride?

>libertarian means austrian

>libertarian
>not everything from neoliberal moderates, to gary johnson, to (yes) austrians

There's nothing wrong with the government paying for that. You guys just build up this strawman of libertarians where the government has no legitimate role.

Yep. Let's call it a positive externality.