Why are Libertarians rarely ever wealthy...

Because people like to blame the taxman for not being rich, rather than realizing they work a shit job or have no skills that'll make them rich.

This makes sense.

>watching all these socialist idiots praising some old farts to control their lives
>living in a bolshevik state where all their fantasies came true
Sardechna zaprashaju u Bielarusj, idyjoty

>Living in an imaginary state in your brain where everyone respects the NAP and everything functions just like in the reddit post you read

>respects
you mean gets killed if they don't
current societies work in favour of two groups: dregs of society and those lording over them

Duh. Reality has a liberal bias.

If you understood the most basic facts about social correlation, it would be instantly obvious next to no one is wealthy on Veeky Forums, and nearly everyone is a flaming racist with major anxiety issues who went all in for tangerine fucktard.

Sane people would notice the rich and powerful are largely all Democrats or moderate Republicans very much in the Romney mold. They are never Klansmen or Trumpists. Even baby hands himself is likely deeply indebted trailer trash, as proven by his incessant refusal to release his tax returns like every other President.

Insane people refuse to acknowledge our election was HACKED, flaunt their pedestrian bigotry, and think magic internet money is an easy ticket to a pimped out car.

You should have let her win. You'd have banked good paying jobs, free mental health treatment,and we'd be halfway to flying cars. Instead our world gets to lose sleep and money worrying about how hard the most powerful man on earth shit his pants on Twitter this week.

Pathetic.

...

everything that's wrong in this world is borne out of state budget
free market solves all problems and has self-regulation built in
this is why we need global balkanization so local communities or regions or city states can use their self-determination to weed out everything that's wrong and cooperate amongst themselves for the benefit of all

Hmm I am a Country Person and I don't leave my Town....

Hmmm.... Hmmmmmmm really makes you think LOL!

That's a tad bit too idealistic view of the world, isn't it?

The only financial demographic Clinton won was average household incomes of under $50,000.

I don't think so, after all such a world would favour k-selected individuals/families of higher intelligence and property owners, the exact opposite of what's happening today
enforced equality and "fair share" bullshit are the biggest hurdles to mankind going forward

This

Things aren't as black and white as a lot of people think they are

this whole board is trying to get rich off the libertarian idea of decentralized blockchains yet people like you are too stupid to realize it

You mean scamming people with shitcoins?

you have no idea what you're talking about
but keep telling yourself that while libertarians are inheriting the world
protip ethereum and a lot of "shit coins" aren't libertarian

Libertarians are good people. There are a few ideas that are absolutely out of it though...

I don't want Private Roads. I don't want Private Banks and I don't want Private Prisons.

Everything else then have at it!

noone is forcing anyone anything
>buy high sell low
must be you

Ah yes im sure wojackcoin will really take off lol

I wouldn't consider private prisons in usa libertarian when the laws that fill them up are anything but

>b...bitcoins are just like tulips
>not going to take off lol amiright???

Libertarianism is a generally positive and overoptimistic ideology, it tends to assume everyone partaking in society is a 110+ IQ white.

Most wealthy people understand the world is mostly populated by stupid people who are barely above animals in their thoughts and desires. They pretend to care just enough for the masses to buy it, then they act in their own interests.

The more your ideology is based on respect and kindness, the less traction it will have in the real world. People have to be coerced. Socialism works (in securing power) because it only pretends to be kind, then forces you to comply. Men need leaders, and meritocracy doesn't work. Strength is the essence of any human interaction.

things are yellow and black tho or at least should be

Only for underaged redditors

...

People who want to get rich are libertarians.

People who are already rich are usually lefty liberals because then they gain social status by virtue signaling their politics.

More like underaged /pol/ users who need to cling to some idiotic and edgy ideology are Libertarians.

The same people who are White Nationalists / Islamist converts / Communists, etc - just detached from society. Just an edgy ideology to cling on to fueled by long nights watching Molyneux.

Rich people have influence in the state, why would they oppose it?

Economic libertarians are retards that feel for something created specifically to make libertarianism look stupid.

Originally it was only social and had no economic component and when viewed that way it makes a lot of sense and lots of people would support it so to make it less attractive the economic bullshit was tacked on later.

t. middle class classical libertarian

>Originally it was only social and had no economic component
i guess rand and rothbard had nothing about economics in their ideology then haha amirite

Libertarianism has it's roots in ancient Greek philosophy, not in the modern crap Americans seem to think it comes from.

lolbergtarians are jewish pawns and too dumb to realize it. they dont understand that a completely unregulated economy leads to jewish oligarchy by default
Im all for a free market but there also needs to be a state that provides basic services like police and building roads and prevents corporations from fucking up the environment and doing evil shit. Im against taxation of course so the state should finance itself by exploiting natural resources, running postal services, railroads and the likes. this is the NatSoc economic model and its the most sane known to man. prevents jew oligarchs from taking over the economy and at the same time doesnt bog down citizens with rules and regulations.

Libertarianism =/= AnCap

But national socialism has tons of rules and regulations... What you are saying doesn't really make sense.

>... has it's roots in ancient Greek philosophy, not in the modern crap...
ah, the first sign of a pseud

i guess adam smith isn't libertarian by your standards either, good thing he never wrote about economics haha amirite

Funny you mention him, actually.

>Hurr

That's just an argument against balls-out retarded ancaps

Any idea is dumb when taken to extremes, doesn't detract from the inherent good of free markets

You need to get off Veeky Forums from time to time. Most libertarians are middle aged white guys who want less taxes.

Not even every libertarian is a Cantwell-tier Hoppian helicopter pilot.

>Reality has a liberal bias.
Then I would assume millennials would be rich considering they overwhelming vote Democrat.But no they come from upper middle class families,who parents got rich through connects and consider the fact the country had lower college tuition and better healthcare at the time.Would only add to the assertion that it would be easier for them to get rich and pay off there debt, because reality has a liberal bias and millennials tend to vote liberal. You fuckers only got rich because daddy did all the work for you and all you need to due was not be a fucktard but since you think reality has a liberal bias then you probably are.

You just described 99.9999999% of Veeky Forums

Because liberty is the greatest wealth

>yay! someone replied to my bait :D

social democracy also requires a nation of intelligent whites
why else would yurop shit its pants at every brown person that swims across the Mediterranean

>omg the world was amazing and our mcburgers country was in great shape but now suddenly everything went to shit because of trump

So, naive facebook-tier opinions thread?

I consider myself libertarian-leaning even though I don't completely support state abolishment.
I just wish every state-sponsorder (((public service))) became optional so you could personally opt in or out of them. There's no point in paying for healthcare/schools/transport when you don't intend to use it. If you were to use it then the state should service you but make you pay more than those who are subscribed to the service.
The only things I consider essential from a state is security, borders, justice and military. Everything else is expandable and should be handled at the city level.
I understand this would never get implemented seeing as the government itself is interested in grabbing as much private money as possible, so this proposition is just too fair for them.

This is awful bait. A great majority of people of every ideology are poor.

Paper thin.

Fascinating. Most fascinating.

smart but lazy

>and prevents corporations from doing evil

I find this meme interesting because it's usually governments and not corporations that commit murder and genocide.

The richest people I know are libertarians. Some of the poorest people I know are the opposite. Work ethic and intelligence seems to correlate fairly well with free market type thinking as far as I have seen.

Think about it, stupid beta losers want a big daddy to make things better for them. They are also too stupid to see how free markets are more efficient. Smart alphas know that they can beat most people at the game of life as long as there's no draconian big government fucking their shit up. Admittedly if you're playing at a level where you can control governments then maybe libertarianism isn't in your interests but that's like 0.00001% of the population.

Are you retarded ? Most wealthy people (Warren buffet, bill gates, silicon valley billionaires, trump, etc) are pretty libertarian.

Commies on the other hand are never successful, wealthy or reputable. They are either poor bastards hoping for welfare so they can scrape by, or insecure college students with rich parents.

The most well balanced and educated people are almost always libertarian leaning (not gary johnson libertarian obviously, more of the classical mold).

You can tell that OP has brain damage. This is typical in people with anti-libertarian views. Nearly 20% of the posts in the thread are his, and none of his posts are even close to constituting an intelligent thought.

Are you going to back this up with any hard data or are we just supposed to blindly accept the premise that Libertarians generally aren't as wealthy as followers of other ideologies?

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/libertarianism-rich-white-males-of-the-republican-party/

>If you're playing at the level where you control governments
There is a large amount of retards like that actually think they can influence shit when it comes to governments. You can tell because they watch the news and make big efforts to advocate things that don't matter or won't change. These people are losing their minds over Trump because they've lost their false sense of control when in reality none of the establishment ever actually gave a shit about what they thought and Trump isn't even materially much different in his actions.

They're not wealthy because the're libertarians, it's the other way around

Rich people are hacks and sometimes it might shock you just how stupid they are

Alot of you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

In some extreme forms of it, yes, I can see how people would think that.

Libertarianism still relys on government as it's a body necessary to protect individual freedoms-- as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate, so I'm going going to say that even that claim is debatable.

The regulating bodies is the protection of individual rights, so that doesn't mean a company can pollute freely as they still need to respect other people's property. Theoretically, if one were to contain air pollution just over a person's property then they can pollute. Obviously this can't happen-- yet, so the government would come in and say they're encroaching on someone else's property.

Government and regulation still exists in libertarianism.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. Just helping people understand that libertarianism is not anarchy.

>confusing ancap with libertarianism
This happens in literally every libertarian thread on /pol/ too. Mostly NatSoc sperging out. Was it autism? Probably

I have became far more wealthy after refining my political thoughts and becoming libertarian. I know of many stories of people meeting a libertarian, learning and becoming far more wealthy after a few years.

When you realise that making money is a positive thing you are much more likely to do it. Only indoctrinated people and worthless scrubs thank money is bad. If you think money is bad you'll never make much and you'll never be very useful to humanity.

There is no animal more lazy and aggressive than the neet

God damn. How can a person who participates in reading Veeky Forums- probably the least censored sources of information you could find in this Orwellian dystopia, BE SO FUCKING ABYSMALLY DILUTED.

I hope you are trolling because if not, it is remarkable, the level of inattentiveness you must operate with on a daily basis to be so fucking stupid. FFS the information has been dumped all over Veeky Forums for you to read time and time again. People have sacrificed their lives to make this information available to you, yet somehow you manage to regurgitate the only cucked out tagline you could muster through your facebook feed.

Hilary is a war-mongering, new world order satanist, who trades children like crypto, and plots to eradicate countries of their sovereignty to suit her globalist overlords. She put it down on paper herself, I merely read it, and if you haven't than nobody gives a flying fuck about your cognitively dissonant ideas on how to run the economy. Go kill yourself

This is the most accurate statement made lol.

I sell cars for a living and the stupidest people you will ever meet come in and pay cash for a car.

Buying a car cash is not stupid, it's the smartest thing you could do dumbass.

I bought a brand new Toyota Tacoma 4x4 with cash 6 years ago.

Do the math on that idiot. You can't touch down payment+lease+(or interest) what I've paid for maintenance and time owned. Best of all, if I were to trade in this truck now, I would get back 40% of what I paid for it.

Knowing the value of your car and paying cash is the BEST thing you can do.

Fuck off.

>stupidest people
The stupidest people I met were the salesmen I talked to who wouldn't return my calls/messages.
I would've financed with them, but after going through this with three different dealers, I paid cash to a private seller.

Why is paying cash for a car stupid?

I'm seriously asking here. So you don't have to pay interest. What's the downside?

>paying cash for a car is stupid
The assumption is that you can get a better return on the money you haven't paid in yet, than you'll have to shell out in interest.
Having never financed, I couldn't say whether that's sometimes, always, or never true.

Collateralized loans have very little interest and by making such a large purchase in cash you are tying up capital that could be earning you money in other avenues. If you could be making 6% apy in an investment why would you use cash for a car when that is saving you 3% apr?

Furthermore buying a new car in of itself is stupid.

I am also a car salesman and I think everyone is stupid.

Ok....but then why not just pay cash and then find the lowest possible interest loan I can afford for the same amount?

So what you're saying then is that financing a car is a good option because it's simply the best possible interest rate for a loan that I could get?

The downside is if you buy a piece of shit car that constantly needs repairs.

For the most part, cars these days can do 100k miles with basic maintenance. At that point you've already changed tires twice and brake pads twice before the 100k mark. I got fucked and had to change front wheel bearings.

$1000k tires (two sets of 4) + $1000 (twice front pads) + $600 (front bearings once + $800 (20 oil changes @ 5k miles intervals) = $3400 before 100k miles; a rough estimate.

Front pads you can do for $80 if you know how to work on cars yourself.

I would say that with in 5-6 years people would have driven for 100k miles.

on a $25000 car (no money down) @ 2.99% interest, assuming you're not a degenerate piece of shit with poor credit, you would pay roughly $55/month just for interest, then multiply that by 60 months (100k mark for your car), would be $3300 just in jew fees.

Knowing the depreciating value of your car, reliability of the car, and maintenance costs, you will ALWAYS WIN PAYING IN CASH, vs leasing OR making payments.

Ok so what I said here is true: Got it.

Unfortunately I, being the moron I am and having no credit because I simply used savings, debit cards, and lived way waaay below my means for my entire life, had to buy a car outright instead of financing it because my credit card inquiry came back with nothing.

If have more money than you to begin with and know how to work on cars myself, I will always buy cash.

Take your jewish philosophy elsewhere. I don't need to rely on debt as my capital is significant.

>Paying interest

You fell for their tricks I see

sorry, this was meant for post:

Don't you have to pay maintenance costs regardless of whether you finance it or pay cash? And you can sell it after you've paid it off right?

So what do depreciation and maintenance fees have to do with whether you should finance or pay cash?

I'm not seeing the connection..

lol, I made a mistake

>$1000k tires

you know what i meant.

>$1000k tires
fuck that's expensive, mine are only $635 per, and that's really just the back ones

Can or anyone explain to me? I really want to understand the connection here.

Because so far the guy saying that financing a car is the lowest possible rate I can get for a loan and so if I could guarantee even just 1% gains higher than the interest for that loan, it seems like it makes sense. What's the flaw there, because others are saying its a jewish trick?

What do depreciation and maintenance have to do with that?

Basically there's two schools of thoughts here:

1.) People that know how to handle debt, CAN use the extra capital to invest in something else to make up for the interest AND PROFIT, rather than putting all that capital down up front, where it couldve been used to make money. This makes sense if you're tight on capital to begin with.

2.) option I prefer, is if you were to compare monthly payments with interest OR leasing VS buying cash with cash and calculating (maintenance cost + depreciating value (calculated loss after 6 years), then the money saved this way would increase your monthly cash flow.

Either way works if you're smart, but in the end cash is always king as it will always increase cash flow. Most people are not investors to know how to use the extra capital to make up for expenses taking on debt.

damn, i can't type worth shit today-- FUCK.

I meant to say:

>buying a car with cash...

I also forgot to add,

Taking on debt with an asset that increases in value, such as a home, makes more sense than taking on debt that depreciates like a car.

For example,

If I have $40,000 cash, and want to buy a home for 100k @ 3.5% interest on my mortgage, it would make WAY more sense to just put down the 20% (which is $20,000), and use the other $20,000 for renovations that would increase the value of the home, or put it into other avenues, as the interest rate is very low-- This school of though I agree with 100% if money is practically free.

I do NOT agree doing this with cars-- ever.

Are maintenance costs and depreciating value not the exact same regardless of how you pay for the car?

That's what I'm not getting.

they are the same. Sorry for the confusion.

...

Liberals tend to stick to social norms and do what is expected, consuming everything
But ofcourse there are enough liberals that do have a lot of money but I'd say it's less than conservative

Not talking about public figures because they have to be liberal in public