How is it possible that libertarians still exist when history teaches us that free market doesn't self-regulate?

>It's interesting how similar libertarians and communist are.

just shut the fuck up

yeah right, why should i buy oil from shell.
i just gonna go to the local oil producer next door

>customer
Don't buy there

>worker
Don't work there

>Environment
Don't buy there

THAT SURE WORKS!

libertarians do not propose an economy free of all laws and regulations, just one that severely limits those things.

which is a dumb idea, because as history shows us, self-regulation doesn't work

This. Its not anarchism (although there are some that think like that) its just reducing the amount of laws and regulations the government imposes. Making sure that they are actually useful and not just some bloated bureaucratic bullshit

you dont need oil to survive

>I want to smoke weed and not pay taxes

>hurr durr Im 16 years old and think a central planner will solve everything! *wipes ass with newspaper because its the 3rd month in a row without toilet paper.

I don't

please dont use strawman arguments
nobody in this thread proposed planned economy

oil worker here. Yes you do. Oil is the life blood of modern society. You WILL use oil products every single day. What do you think your computer is made out of? What do you think your bike tires are made out of? The streets? most clothes? pills? fucking toothpaste

If you dont want a free market, then you obviously want a planned one.

you can test the food you buy on botulism yourself?

i want a regulated market

It does. Why do you think companies go out of business? They just feel like it?

[Citation Needed]

>implying you need any of those things to survive

>[Citation Needed]
OPs picture

So... you're telling me that a company that is protected by governmental interference shows that self-regulation under a free market does not work?

>They just feel like it?

Yeah, when they sell.

If by that you mean its doesnt work perfectly your right, nether do government laws and regulations, which have often caused unintended problems.

That's why a mix of self-regulation and government regulation only when that fails catastrophically is best.

Cool. Selling out is not going out of business.

So do I, but to a certain extent. Regulation hurts business, theres no way around this, so you have to be careful with the regulations you do impose. The best idea is a free market with the government guiding it and basically playing referee because the government itself is too retarded to handle the economy and a totally FREE market is too crazy. I still tend to hate government workers though. Maybe its different else where, but only scumbags in america get government jobs.

Libertarians don't understand behavioural economics, it destroys their entire "ideology

OPs picture shows that given the choice, companies will decide not to follow climate agreement.
Which proves that mandatory regulation enforced by state is necessary

>OPs picture shows that given the choice, companies will decide not to follow climate agreement
It really doesn't. It shows that companies, when given market protection by multiple governments, will decide not to follow an agreement that is non-binding.

>Regulation hurts business, theres no way around this
Well, that's the point. Regulations protect workers, customers, enviroment, at the cost of businesses.

What? I think you forgot what you were arguing.

In any case consumers are dumb and they don't just stop buying things for reasons. How often do boycotts work?

what exactly do you mean by "market protection"?

But what happens when you regulate the business so much, that it ends up killing it? Now you have all those workers out of jobs. Workers are part of the business to, so your goal shouldnt be to "destroy" the business out of some childish revenge fantasy

Let me rephrase this for you.

>OP's picture shows that given the choice, companies will decide not to follow arbitrary regulations designed to quell an issue that hasn't even been proven to exist

Too much regulation is always relative.
The question is, how good is your workforce at competing with other nations?
If you are great, you can allow a high standard of regulations, if not, you must turn down your regulations to stay competitive

>and they don't just stop buying things for reasons
Are you fucking stupid? Chipotle is in trouble because of two e. coli outbreaks. Pan Am went out of business because of worker strikes which led to customers taking their business elsewhere. You are fucking retarded.

As it stands now, Shell receives market protection from governments as they help price out potential competitors through red tape and regulation and ensure that you can't choose to NOT buy from Big Oil if you're buying oil products. The reality is that government regulation is protecting Shell by removing your ability to choose.

xkcd.com/1732/

Any examples?
What exactly are those red tape and regulations that prevent Shell competitors?

Except they dont always do this. Sometimes they protect some businesses at the cost of others. Sometimes they cut consumers off from products they desire, theoretically for their own protection. Sometimes they just do more damage than they do good.

>Too much regulation is always relative.

exactly, so a blanket regulation isnt always the best. Especially since this shit tends to create monopolies because it just ends up destroying any chance of a new comer making it in that market or best case scenario, they eek on by until one of the big guys buys them out.

Thank you. Neoliberal scum btfo. We don't care about your stockholders or bottom line, Goldberg.

I asked you how often boycotts work because I know there are examples of them working, but think of Chick-fil-a or Uber. They didn't work. Companies even rebrand. People buy cigarettes and fast food despite campaigns against them. The free market is more complex than people being rational agents that are totally in control of their purchases. We're talking about reality here not fantasy markets.

The climate change agreements are feel good nonsense that will not stop global warming and will put us at a competitive disadvantage against developing countries that will not follow them.

sure, regulations are a political tool, and like any political tool, they can be misused.
That doesn't mean that regulations are inherently flawed, though

Counterbalancing veiwpoints and votes are necessary when you also have unabashed communists in your democracy for equally puzzling reasons.

This. The only real way to stop global warming is to GREATLY reduce the population and also greatly reduce technology back to 1800s preindustrial standards. Anything other than that is feel good horseshit and you faggots know it

>mfw bill nye the cucked guy actually said it was the first world that needed to reduce its population

>and will put us at a competitive disadvantage against developing countries that will not follow them.
But developing countries do follow them. China signed the Paris Climate Agreement

Permits, fees, environmental regulations, etc.
>but think of Chick-fil-a or Uber. They didn't work
Chik-fil-a didn't work because the boycott came from someone that wasn't even their customer base. Uber did work and many moved over to Lyft.

>People buy cigarettes and fast food despite campaigns against them
I don't know what you're getting at here. Are you saying that people of sound mind and body cannot choose for themselves the products they wish to purchase?

>The free market is more complex than people being rational agents that are totally in control of their purchases
You're right because we don't have a free market, you retard. You're comparing an interventionist market with a free one and saying that the free market won't work because the interventionist one doesn't work the way you want it to.

>environmental regulations
ok, so your argument is, that without enviromental regulations, shell competitors would pop up, by igonring those regulation and fucking up the enviroment, right?

>many moved over to Lyft.

Wow, many.

>Are you saying that people of sound mind and body

No I'm saying not everyone is of sound mind and body. People buy products when they're familiar with them. There's no real rational choice.

>You're right because we don't have a free market, you retard.

A freer market wouldn't make people more rational. A non-argument to a point I didn't make.

>People buy cigarettes and fast food despite campaigns against them.

> The free market is more complex than people being rational agents that are totally in control of their purchases.

So people still buy big macs and cigarettes despite KNOWING they are bad for them and constantly being berated non stop with campaigns against them? Almost as if the campaigns mean dick? way to prove yourself wrong.

What are you talking about? Look what happened when the US left Britain or when hong kong split off. Free market capitalism creates prosperity for everyone. We have poverty because there's over 80,000 regulations now.

Not really.

And sometimes market forces fail to arrive a a good solution in a timely manner. The that doesn't mean the theory is flawed.

More regulations always mean less liberty or at least less flexibility for businesses. That isn't always bad, but it is potentially bad and we dont always know the total ramifications of a regulation until its passed, so we ought to be careful about putting them in place.

They both have faith in systems that have never really been implemented.

why dont they just have an optional minimum wage?

>minimum wage is set
>some kids wants a job somewhere
>"sorry, we cant afford to hire anyone else"
>this kid can offer to take a cut in pay below the minimum wage because a little money is better than no money
>the person being hired has to ask for it, company cant suggest it
>few bureaucratic forms to fill out just to make the dick heads in government feel important

>And sometimes market forces fail to arrive a a good solution in a timely manner. The that doesn't mean the theory is flawed.
the self-regulation theory of free market is inheritly flawed.
OPs picture is a good example. According to game theory, it goes against the self-interest of a company to voluntarily follow climate regulations, because this will benefit the companies that don't.
This is sort of a prisoners dilemma: it would be better for everybody if every companies follow the climate regulation, but every individual company benefits from not doing so.
That's why we need mandatory regulations, due to the inherit flaws of free market

except libertarianism is pretty much just tweaking already existing liberal institutions, not remaking government and the economy

They live in bubbles.

No. I'm stating that these regulations which require fucktons of arbitrary testing and permits kill competition by pricing out new companies or outright denying them through lobbying in the bureaucracy.

>Wow, many.
An arbitrary amount for an arbitrary comparison. The point was that the boycott of those who did not like the CEO's political stance took their business elsewhere. The boycott worked. The people moved their business to one they could support. The outcome hurt Uber little, but that's quite irrelevant.

>People buy products when they're familiar with them. There's no real rational choice
Buying products that you enjoy is not a rational choice? Sounds like a rational choice to me. You're falsely implying that people don't ever switch brands when the company changes something or does something they don't like when I can without a doubt say you've done it yourself more than a few times in your life. Everyone has.

>freer market wouldn't make people more rational. A non-argument to a point I didn't make
An argument to the point you're now skirting around. That people in an interventionist market are suddenly comparable to people in a free market despite the situations being different. If I could move my business from Shell to a new company that fits my world view, I certainly would. The government has made it nearly impossible for said company to pop up. Your solution is more government intervention to solve a problem created by government intervention. Do you not see your idiocy here?

Free market capitalism exists by default. Its what you have before a government starts telling you how to run your buisness. What do you mean it's never been implemented?

you just said that people are "sheep" basically and then went on to acknowledge the failure of information campaigns to try and stop people from buying something.

Why do you think Mcdonalds now offers apple slices in kids meals instead of fries?

Just let it go user. We're throwing paper at a brick wall in order to break it down.

I dont think you understand the idea of self regulation. its that the market as a whole will usually find a solution that benefits most. It was never intended to be perfect or without any government interference.

Any examples for those "arbitary testing"?
Enviroment protection doesn't really seem arbitary to me

well then i am glad that we agree that market regulation is necessary

>An arbitrary amount for an arbitrary comparison

Again that's why I specifically asked for 'how often' boycotts are successful. 'How often' is more than just arbitrary anecdotes.

>but that's quite irrelevant.

No.

>Buying products that you enjoy is not a rational choice?

How does one find out they enjoy something without buying it? They rationally conclude by weighing up the options how they would be enjoying it?

>I certainly would.

I don't care if you would because you could just be saying that to prove a point. And you are not representative of society at large. Even you participate in an interventionalist market so why are you using your own example to explain how you would work in a free market?

>Your solution is more government intervention

Is it? Where did I even imply that? I'm just contending the idea that people freely change their purchases based on rational inquiry.

Free market could work if the majority of people participating in it make logical decisions and aim for long-term profit.

We're talking about introducing information to people after they are regular customers. If someone is already familiar with a product then they'll have some loyalty to it. How does that not prove people are 'sheep'?

>Why do you think Mcdonalds now offers apple slices in kids meals instead of fries?

Regulations probably

Or, whenever there are successes they claim that such successes stem from some realistic applications of their ideology, therefore supposedly validating their own assumptions. It's like make-belief, really. It's like the "faith seeking understanding" dogma.

Or maybe they just dont give a shit if something is unhealthy because they are hungry and dont feel like cooking something, or need something quick to eat while at work ect.

Yeah but there are many different options to eat that those customers aren't aware of because they're so familiar with McDonald's. McDonald's is essentially 'just what people eat' so you don't really need to think about it rationally, just buy the same shit as everyone else because that's what you do.

bullshit. Everyone has their own local little burger joint that they love, or some place like jack in the box or whataburger ect. People eat at McDonalds mostly because it has the most places spread out. The entire purpose of fast food is convenience, so people are obviously just going to go to the place closest to them

Okay let's say someone gets food poisoning and they blame it on that local place. Does that stop people from going to it? Maybe they'll take their chances because their experiences have been good. Maybe the other person didn't actually get it from there. Maybe their kids or their friends want them to go there with them, etc.

Anybody who isn't in favour of strong environmental protection is violating NAP against the entire planet, therefore can be justly killed in self-defence.

it would be fun to execute them then resell their shares

call it "are you a smart profiter?"

That was never the issue, its how much and how eager we should be to impose it.

You seem to think we need alot more, libertarians tend to think there is already too much

>You seem to think we need alot more
That depends on what country you live in. If you are American, then yes, you guys need a whole lot more of regulations

We certainly do not, there might be some areas we could improve with regulation, but overall we have too many taxes and too many regulations

From my perspective, as an European, it seems like you guys have a lot of corruption going on, when it comes to regulations.
Stuff like counting pizza as a vegetable sounds almost comical to us

If you have enough vegetable topping it does give you some vegetable intake.
You really need some more regulations in a lot of areas. You need better protection for employees, you need to ban some food additives that are dangerous, you need better consumer rights.

I'm not in it for the free markets. I'm in it because I believe that whilst states inherently infringe upon peoples rights, a minimal state is necessary to secure those rights.

guess who else infringes upon peoples rights: everybody
That's why we have a social contract

Rights are a social construct. The "rights" you believe in are just as artificial as the rights you want to take away.

>are a social construct
I've never understood this argument. Social constructs are what separate us from apes. They've evolved over millennia to create a more civilized society. Deconstructionism has gone too far and you belong on in the trash with it.

I just use it as a meme word desu
My point is that the rights you believe in are not natural any more than other rights. You guys seem to have a blind belief in property rights, above all else, but property is just an invented right, just like the right to food. It is not an objective fact that your right to hoard all food for yourself is more important than other people's right to eat. But you guys seem to have, for some reason, taken to the idea that property is the only right, and everything else is worthless. When in reality, it's just as much of a fake right as everything else.

>My point is that the rights you believe in are not natural any more than other righ
Who's to say they aren't? They progressed over time in a natural way through humanities social engineering. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that people should be forced to provide you with services while you provide nothing in return. Those are called positive rights and are definitely unnatural. There's no such thing a free lunch, especially in nature.

That was a regulation, relating to federal mismanagement of school lunches, something they shouldn't be involved in to begin with.

Rather than talking in vague terms why dont you mention specifics?

>It's interesting how similar libertarians and communist are

Even then if thier models are correct. we'd need to be running this low population, low standard of living small footprint society around the concept of REMOVING what's already in the atmosphere already, or we'd just be delaying the inevitable.

>implying you need any of those things to survive
Okay now that you've established human decency is irrelevant I'm just going to kill you and take your shit.

>POL products
>required for human decency
Jesus Christ.

The logical conclusion of your argument is "You don't NEED ANYTHING" because no one else cares if you die because all your water is polluted as long as theirs isn't and you can't bother them with your suffering.
So yeah, standards of common decency are important.

>The logical conclusion of your argument is "You don't NEED ANYTHING"
It isn't though. Take your strawman and skip back down the yellow brick road to Reddit.