The dumbest thing I've heard from a Libertarian.

[tempus]

We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work

Excellent. Also, deplore government-fostered forced water consumption, which robs everyone of the right to consume Coke.

Creating an alternative = removing choice. Genius.

Even worse, it robs 8 year olds of the right to work in coal mines at 15 cents an hour, and robs us of the right to buy bread adulterated with sawdust.  Oh, the humanity...

*clutches pearls*

[armandtanzarian]

And what about those who don't have money?

In short? Fuck them.

The objectivists (Ayn Rand's ilk) rationalize this by claiming your wealth is a direct result of your hard-work and ingenuity; i.e. the more hard-working and entrepreneurial you are, the more money you have. Thus poor people are simply lazy fucks who refuse to work for an honest pay. While not all libertarians think like this, its kind of sad that this kind of thinking has been basically co-opted by today's Republican party to be their gospel. As for libertarians who don't believe this, I can't speak for what their rationale is for income disparity.

[Material Defender]

That's the weirdest thing. My boyfriend cares a lot about people and thinks they are just being held back by their government assistance. He talks about communities taking care of people and stuff. Honestly I think he doesn't understand what exactly communism is. Same linguistic beginnings as communal and community. Though he considers himself a libertarian.

If one person buys defense and he lives in a apartment block, nobody else in the apartment will need to buy defense.

Why? I mean What stops the rent-a-cops from ignoring everything that happens to his neighbours? If there is only one paying customer then as long as that customer gets his service they have fullfilled the contract. Put up a sign on his door: "This apartment is protected by Lone Star inc." as long as the invading mongol horde only rapes and pillages his neighbours (If his service also covers noise pollution they might also come if the screams and gunfire are troubling him.)

And knowing that the criminals are a cowardly (and superstitious, but that is not important right now) and prefer defenseless victims they would probably prioritize those who aren't in a protection racket.

After all even if the cops don't get there in time to protect the customer they still would come after you.

I'm not talking about Law Enforcement, but national defense.

If someone bombs your apartment building everyone in it is going to be defended. Wars tend to be non-discriminant.

[Askold]

Wars are usually fought for the purpose of control of a region or a resource. The fighting takes place because there is an opposing army that wants to prevent the previously mentioned objective. If a country does not have a military force defending it (for this example replace nation with "sovereign citizen" or whatever these libertarians prefer.) there is no need to fight a war or bomb the place when you can simply occupy/loot it. Even in the rare occasions where the war has been aimed at the destruction of a nation it can be done with a bit of precicion.

[Material Defender]

Wars are usually fought for the purpose of control of a region or a resource. The fighting takes place because there is an opposing army that wants to prevent the previously mentioned objective. If a country does not have a military force defending it (for this example replace nation with "sovereign citizen" or whatever these libertarians prefer.) there is no need to fight a war or bomb the place when you can simply occupy/loot it. Even in the rare occasions where the war has been aimed at the destruction of a nation it can be done with a bit of precicion.

So basically, you're going to get robbed by any state that has a nation state and government because they can force capitulation of any 'free society.'

[Askold]

That is what happened to americas and africa and australia etc.

There was some free land and resources just waiting to be taken.

(By free I mean that the locals who by most legal interpretations should have been considered owners did not have the means to stop the land being taken away from them.)

[Material Defender]

That is what happened to americas and africa and australia etc.

There was some free land and resources just waiting to be taken.

(By free I mean that the locals who by most legal interpretations should have been considered owners did not have the means to stop the land being taken away from them.)

Africa actually successfully defended their lands in some areas. Like Egypt and Ethiopia. Americas in the middle America and Peru were also similar to European styles, to the point that Spanish just replaced the rulers there with their own ruling class in some areas without changing the structures that much. They were just too weak.

On the other hand, in the Americas where land was owned in common and the like, it was hard for Europeans to understand they were encroaching on the land of Native Americans up there sometimes, and other times they just regarded them as primitive savages to be thrown off their lands. But since it was foreign to them, they just took what they wanted.

Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.

[Canadian Mojo]

Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.

Heh, heh, heh. That's right, forget about your friendly neighbors to the north. We'd never invade.







We'll just wait for you to Balkanize, invite the blue states to join us in a nice new North American confederacy and let the red states rot.

[Material Defender]

Any libertarian free society would be at the mercy of any sovereign state essentially. Though I think the best example, I've found, of Libertarian society is the description of America in Snow Crash. It sort of runs decently because other people aren't interested terribly in invading.

Heh, heh, heh. That's right, forget about your friendly neighbors to the north. We'd never invade.









We'll just wait for you to Balkanize, invite the blue states to join us in a nice new North American confederacy and let the red states rot.

Oh, well, in Snow Crash Canada and Europe have the same thing happen as America. Japan I think has it happen as well. China is the primary remaining sovereign state.

[Canadian Mojo]

Road warrior, North American edition, it is then. 

[Material Defender]

Road warrior, North American edition, it is then. 

Just read the book, it's fascinating. But it really makes me happy to be living in a sovereign state instead of a "Free Society." Since he approaches the idea from a neutral perspective. There's some good to the society, but there's also a lot of bad too.

[Lt. Fred]

That's the weirdest thing. My boyfriend cares a lot about people and thinks they are just being held back by their government assistance. He talks about communities taking care of people and stuff. Honestly I think he doesn't understand what exactly communism is. Same linguistic beginnings as communal and community. Though he considers himself a libertarian.

It is incredible how many normally rational people can make an implicit case that black people are being held back by push factors and then complain, in virtually the same breath, about the bad job market. Double think, bitches.

[/quote]

A libertarian/anarchist coworker once said the following to me in response to my argument that socialism is the natural extension of democracy and capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.

If you think about it, the market is really a better form of democracy than voting.  In democracy, I get to vote only once every few years, and I have no influence over the process other than that, but Bill Gates can do a lot more than just vote.  He can use his money to influence politicians.  If we let the market decide everything, then I can "vote" every time I buy something, so it's much more fair.

High school and early university economics regularly claims this. When I pointed out that, you know, 1% of people get 30% of the votes, the teacher didn't really have anything to say about it. I imagine he went on to tell the next year the same thing.

To be a bit Marxist for a minute, the underlying means of production to capitalism are far from democratic. Nor are they really market-based. Corporations aren't run like markets. It's a bureaucratic, hieratic economic system. It's about information and always has been. It's about achieving a single, simple task quickly. You do not typically use much reason. This is not a system you would call democracy.

[Material Defender]

A libertarian/anarchist coworker once said the following to me in response to my argument that socialism is the natural extension of democracy and capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.

If you think about it, the market is really a better form of democracy than voting.  In democracy, I get to vote only once every few years, and I have no influence over the process other than that, but Bill Gates can do a lot more than just vote.  He can use his money to influence politicians.  If we let the market decide everything, then I can "vote" every time I buy something, so it's much more fair.

High school and early university economics regularly claims this. When I pointed out that, you know, 1% of people get 30% of the votes, the teacher didn't really have anything to say about it. I imagine he went on to tell the next year the same thing.

My microeconomics Teacher (An early university Economics class) was a big on the idea that the government can more efficiently distribute some services, while capitalism more efficiently distributes most of them. Thus why government tends to be good, and how taxes either increase the supply costs (Thus shifting its line) or decrease demand income (Thus reducing its line) depending on who they are laid upon. Also how minimum wage is a complicated, but sensible process. It figures upon the idea that the loss of demand will be made up by how much better it will be for those who are hired. Most of the time, Minimum wage is put slightly over where the Labor market would be during the good years and helps Counter dropping wages during bad years.  He... was a big on regulated capitalism because it helps control the dips in the economy that happen naturally due to the fact economics is a pendulum more or less.

[MrsYoungie]

Privatized law enforcement?  All I can picture is gangs of toughs headed up by the likes of Tony Soprano. 
Yeah, buy our insurance.  Cause like maybe one day you're walkin' past the construction site and a guy drops a concrete block on your head?  We can make this thing not happen. 
And if you don't, suddenly you find yourself hauled into some kangaroo court on trumped up charges and sent to a labour camp in North Dakota.
Yeah, that would work.  Can't see a problem there at all.

[Cataclysm]

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.

If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.