Can anyone tell me how libertarianism could actually work in the real world?
>>672536476
For one, faggots like you would actually know that not ALL government regulations would be eliminated
Second, it worked fine when this country was established. People didn't depend on Big Brother to do everything for them.
>>672537010
Thanks for the buzzwords. Now actually explain how a fire department would operate, and do so neutrally, in a libertarian utopia.
You don't need the government for regulations. Consumers require them. Since in our current society we assume the government "cares for us" by having regulations, we don't actively think about them.
Without it you are forced to actually care. So you can pick to go to a cheap restaurant without fire precautions, or one that might be certified, audited, or the like.
Those who can't afford fire regulations aren't necessarily excluded from operating, and those who care little about their safety have a cheaper option that would otherwise not be available.
Dipshit.
Everyone laughs at the two fuckheads who thought no fire detector was a good idea.
-Libertarianism
>>672536476
Do you mean librarianism?
Basically, it couldn't.
Game theory has shown a million and one cases where the free market (a collection of individuals driven mostly by individual payoff) would be expected to provide an inferior result.
>>672536476
Do you mean librarians?
>>672537636
or we could prevent people from making obviously terrible and dangerous mistakes and acknowledge the fact that we live in a world where your decisions affect others, so we prevent you from acting like a negligent asshole.
Ausfag here, I must say a lot of regulations exist purely for money. For example labor unions in Australia have passed legislation or regulation whatever the fuck it is that if a water pipe bursts in my house, only a licensed plumber can fix it, I can't take a fucking wrench and fix the pipe myself.. What's that all about?
>>672538760
Sorry you're not responsible enough to manage your well being. Be thankful you were born in the last 50 years.
Or could you have whined hard enough to make a wolf not eat you in the 12th century?
>>672538632
>>672536476
That's anarcho-capitalism. Vast majority of libertarians support government services and regulations to a certain degree
>>672539723
Not really to the extent necessary.
For example, externalities cannot be solved by the free market. The environment (for instance) is an externality. Each individual can improve their lot by disregarding the environment, but when the group does this, we end up fucked.
If a libertarian supported environmental regulations I would say they aren't really a libertarian anymore and should find a better label for their views.
>>672540086
liberal with libertarian sympathies seems about right
>>672537171
They would put fires out.Kind of like volunteer fire departments do nowadays where they don't receive tax funding
>>672539474
but asking people not to be reckless doesn't hurt them because everyone else in the marketplace must comply, so there's no unfair advantage.
in fact, regulation protects conscientious business people who would otherwise not pollute or endanger their community from unscrupulous actors who would not, and therefore have an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
it also protects consumers from having to research whether a business complies with their standards by setting a minimum standard of behavior for entering the marketplace.
in short, you're an idiot, and you have bad ideas that were proved terrible in the past, which is why we created regulations in the first place.
>>672541048
>>672537171
Libertarianism and a "utopia" are mutually exclusive.
op is confirmed tard.
>>672541048
>let us keep the consumers mindless
>>672541048
Really everyone should be marched into a grinder to be processed into meat and fertilizer. It would help the world a lot more than it would hurt.
>>672539474
No one is responsible enough, or has ever been.
In modern society, we each need to specialise and become experts in our line of work. We cannot also become experts in fire safety, food safety, etc.
You're right, this is what people had to do in the 12th century, and it didn't work. People died way younger.
>>672537171
You subscribe to the fire and rescue service of your choice at the going market rate. Just like insurance. You really are kind of dumb, huh?
>>672540086
>If a libertarian supported environmental regulations I would say they aren't really a libertarian anymore and should find a better label for their views.
>No true Scotsman
It's a spectrum; the loosest definition is "socially liberal, economically conservative". Seriously, even Thomas Sowell admits government regulations are needed to a certain extent to protect the environment.
>>672542303
So you are saying we need the government to regulate certain aspects, even though you can have a private sector company do that
>>672542394
Then they would be true liberals, not the fake ones of the left wing.
>>672542394
You need to look up why no true scotsman fails rather than just learning what the words are.
For instance if I say
>That's not really a chair
>because it doesn't have anywhere you can sit on it
This isn't no true scotsman fallacy, because how I define chair does indeed necessitate the property.
Likewise, the definition of a libertarian necessitates certain political views. I said
>A person is not really a libertarian
>If they believe in environmental regulations
this is not the no true scotsman fallacy.
The counter that "Thomas Sowell says this", on the other hand, IS a fallacy.
>>672542303
>In modern society, we each need to specialise and become experts in our line of work. We cannot also become experts in fire safety, food safety, etc.
>You're right, this is what people had to do in the 12th century, and it didn't work. People died way younger.
Just kill yourself
SERIOUSLY. If you are too stupid to understand fire safety or food safety in 2016 - which everyone except a complete retard should- then eliminate yourself from our planet. Don't breed just die.
>>672542567
A private company can't enforce regulations what the fuck dude.
>>672536476
difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is safety codes matter. in fact it would be one of the few places the government NEEDS to be involved in, if NO WHERE ELSE. regulating economics for the same reason, that a financial crash is not healthy for the populace.
>>672543060
>everyone except a complete retard should understand food safety
To get the highest qualifications in every aspect of safety would take you a very long time, and then you expect everyone to implement these checks whenever they leave the house.
Just no. Your idea is unworkable. It didn't work for the millennia it was implemented, and it wouldn't work now. Thank goodness we have regulations, so that experts can take care of it instead, which is a WAY more economically efficient and appropriate way of doing it.
>>672543074
>be me
>own private company to keep tabs on other company
>release statements monthly to my subscribers about certain vompany practices
>my subscribers see what bad things companies are doing
>my subscribers no longer do business with bad companies
>bad companies lose money, until they shape up
But but i need papa government to do things for me
>>672542383
that's what we had before, it doesn't work, and costs too much, simply because of logistical problems, it's easier to have one service to keep all of them up-to-date and funded properly. even improperly funded, it's still better than the alternative.
>>672543492
Yeah you need to learn about externalities and game theory. The point at which your idea fails is here
>my subscribers see what bad things companies are doing
>my subscribers no longer do business with bad companies
why exactly? Why would they stop doing business with the bad company, when the bad company is cheaper and more worthwhile for them personally?
In order for a free market to solve this problem, you require every individual (or suitably many) to suddenly act AGAINST their own personal interest.
>>672540086
This is actually not true. Countries with more economic freedom tend to care more about nature and enviroment, while the countries with more government care less about nature and enviroment. Individuals actually value enviromenal-friendly products, goods etc. Not everybody but a lot of people like to life in clean neighbourhoods.
What is needed is a strong justice system(which doesnt govern but judge!) that actually enforces property rights.(eg Company A pollutes the waters of City B, now people of the city, companies there etc etc can actually demand heavy compensations for the damage done, company B,C,D and so on will think twice if they poison the water supplies)
It wouldn't.
Libertarians follow a non-feasible ideology that is propped up by certain political and financial interests as a way to drum up support for certain things that they want to do.
>>672543843
>economic theories arent infallible
>that is why there are more than one
>>672543492
better business bureau
but the fact is if a it's a private company then fincial terms don't have to be public, payola happens. bribes corruption is INEVITABLE.
Government regulated companies running investigations means the controller the group is independent of the group, to help stop bias. when the groups interest is to run the group, then running the business can become corrupted.
this is why those groups DO exist, but the funding is made public through government, and regulated by government, and is one of the facets of liberalism that NEEDS to exist.
Without this, it would simply be anarchy, or worse, fascism.
>>672543846
>individuals value environmental-friendly products
Some do, some don't. The point is that the individual payoff is greater for the environmentally unfriendly one.
>attempting to apply property rights to externalities
hah! No economist has managed this and neither will you. Think, when exactly does B "own" its water? When it's in a cloud above their city? When it's upstream of their city? Everywhere?
>>672536476
>>672537010 >>672538362 >>672538688 >>672539723 >>672543193
>>672537010 >>672538362 >>672538688 >>672539723 >>672543193
>>672537010 >>672538362 >>672538688 >>672539723 >>672543193
>>672537010 >>672538362 >>672538688 >>672539723 >>672543193
>>672537010 >>672538362 >>672538688 >>672539723 >>672543193
>>672544230
>with government there is no corruption or bribes
>>672542383
And if I got fired because of an accident or some such and I didn't pay the last premium - or I'm simply too dirt-fucking-poor to buy it - do I and my kids deserve to die in a fire?
You're saying that poor people literally deserve to be fucking burnt alive? I don't think this is an unfair question at all.
>>672543843
Maybe a better example.
Company A is lying about their product.
Media outlet B is doing its research and reveals the fraud.
Consumers C sues A for a lot of money.
Justice is spoken.
Consumer D doesnt interact with A anymore because he might die.
>>672544146
You know zero about economics if you think that statement is anything but full-retard.
Even with economic differences, no economist claims the non-existence of externalities. This is something which is studied and worked with by all. It is not a matter of debate.
>>672543448
I'm from the government and want to assure you that you are absolutely correct.We know what is best, and I recommend you go eat raw chicken and beef from the supermarket. That will do a body good. We approved it for sale as is. But don't ever buy or sell raw unpasteurized milk. That would be extremely dangerous and illegal.
>>672544381
>not having fire safety measures installed in your home
If you cant be bothered to buy a fire extinguisher or fire alarm, you and your family should die in a fire
>>672544377
there is corruption and bribes, but it distances itself and has regulations on that, specifically, SEPARATE from the business itself. it will happen if possible, but with more checks and balances it happens less.
Oversight committees(government), with over sight committees(BBB), can still be corrupt, you assuming it can't is thinking I AM DELUSIONAL, but the private sector regulating the private sector has been SHOWN TO FAIL AND BE CORRUPT, and is a failure, always and cannot work, it's known, it's past, we don't do that.
we need independent groups to do it, and even if the independant can do it by itself successfully having a government oversight on it DOESN'T MAKE IT MORE CORRUPT.
>>672538760
or we could prevent people from anything. no more (_____) because somebody could be hurt
>>672537636
>You don't need the government for regulations. Consumers require them
Consumers are fucking retarded. If corporations of their own volition gave a fuck, we wouldn't even need to regulate how much rat shit pr. kilogram of meat is allowed.
Libertarianism looks nice and pretty on paper, but would be a fucking nightmarish hellscape in real life. It's a theory no more viable than communism.
>>672544533
Oh shit i forgot ever since this election cycle 4chan has been filled with 80% econ majors. My bad dude
>>672544690
>daddy, why are we burning alive?
>because we're poor, baby
Awesome. Just swell.
You're either retarded or trolling.
>>672544690
but this is why the government makes it mandatory to have fire alarms, and co2 alarms, and electrical and structural safety codes, and more and more laws around fires.
these are not the things libertarians want to remove. that doesn't make people happier and healthier.
>>672536476
Who would want to build a fire-unsafe building?
>>672539723
anyone who uses the 'anarcho-' prefix in a positive light with anything, such as anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist is a retarded cum eating faggot.
>>672544287
>The point is that the individual payoff is greater for the environmentally unfriendly one,
Sometimes people value enviromental payoffs more than monetary payoffs, sometimes they dont. People dont value the same things the same.
For your second point, i actually agree with you partly. Im pretty sure anarchocapitalism is wrong, and im pretty sure there needs to be kinda "public goods" (but i advocate for localized public goods, eg town A streets are property of the townsfolks of A and they can decide if B can use their roads). Here it remains kinda the same B deals damage to the roads because he digs a big hole in it, now he needs to pay for the damage done and is forbidden to use the road again.
>>672544457
we already have the BBB to do this shit, and not wait for B to not reveal the research because advertising for A is counter to their need.
>>672545096
Seriously? If you are too poor to buy a fire alarm, maybe you shouldnt have children
>>672544457
That's an example about something entirely different.
The point is that externalities are cases where individual payoff increases in a way that pushes everyone's payoff to a suboptimal outcome.
>example
Everyone can get to their location quicker by driving than using the bus.
>but
Once there are enough cars on the road, it would have been quicker if everybody had gotten the bus in the first place.
In order for individual freedom to find the right option, we require everyone to choose the bus, in what is termed an "unstable equilibrium" because for every single individual in that system they are better off making a different decision.
Basing your political views off the hope that individuals stick with an unstable equilibrium against their interests is dogmatic and, frankly, retarded.
>>672545321
see the above. Libertarianism doesn't require that "some" people value differently, it requires that "almost all" value differently, when it comes to externalities.
>Ron Paul
SAGE
>>672537171
Libertarianism isn't the same as total communistic anarchy.
Most libertarians (if not all) agree a government is set up to do the basics: build roads, defend the boarders, disperse a common currency, and put out fires (etc etc).
Most people are down to chip in for community fire protection and plumbing to support it. Not so much the funding 8 layers of bureaucracy to ensure enough gays are getting into college
>>672543448
are there regulations about drinking bleach? or putting your dick in fire? I sure hope so, as there are only 7 BILLION PEOPLE on this rock
>>672545459
Haha, this is so absurd. Literally fucking Captain Hindsight to the rescue. You're so ridiculous.
>>672544657
Unpasteurised milk is a fine example. You can go about it two ways
>one
Require everyone to educate themselves about milk, its manufacture, its handling, its dangers, and also make it impossible to trust any milk other than stuff you have personally educated yourself as to the source.
>two
Have one, expert-advised, regulatory body.
The latter is more economically efficient, and more safe for everybody. It is clearly the correct option.
>>672543640
>costs too much
Well then you don't buy it. Libertarianism is about living within your means and if you can't then either fucking get your shit together or collect charity
>>672539723
any true libertarian knows the government's main role is safety regulations, because NO ONE ELSE WILL DO IT. a libertarian government would be more focused on safety then literally any other matter. it's really the only topic left for them to focus on... this can even go as far as legalizing a lot of different drugs, if proper safety can be used with them as well. which sounds degenerate, but it's not trying to break down marijuana and salvia dealers, because certain level of safety is given with the drugs. it's the violence around the business of the drugs is where the concern would be.
>>672545765
This
>>672544077
all people
>>672545799
Regulations are only needed for things where it's not in individual interest anyway.
Nobody gains from you putting your dick in a fire.
Somebody could (potentially) gain from selling cheaper, less fire-safe materials, which indeed people did do. Hence we regulate this group.
>>672545928
it costs too much because of waste, not because of living costs. the price in itself, not to the consumer. the cost of quality of life, the cost of freedom, the cost of safety.
>>672545920
Why does everybody need a safe space?
What are they being protected from?
Why do they need protection?
>>672545928
living within your means doesn't include safety. fire control, health care, and education isn't "within your means" to a happy and free life. steak or ground beef is. infected meat or uninfected meat isn't. it is never a choice of anarchy vs capitalism.
>>672546469
The reason for regulations has been covered at length in this very thread. It's needed because it's the most economically efficient and safe way of going about things.
If you want to live in the past before regulations where people would die randomly from unsafe food and the economy was shit because nobody could afford to spend their time on anything that wasn't survival, then fine, but I'd rather live in a first-world country.
>>672545928
We already live in libertarianism then since it's get your shit together or charity. so huzzah. OLD libertarianism was, because it was pre-1800s in USA, but that's not how it would work modernly.
>>672544230
any human institution WILL be corrupted. a large, powerful organization or neighborhood committee will take every inch it can. it's human nature, you have to choose tomorrows threat today
>>672544690
>what if too poor to buy
>then buy
Retard confirmed.
>>672541013
Volunteer fire departments still receive tax funding for training, and paying for equipment and fire trucks. They just don't maintain professional fire fighters who are on-duty. Dumbass.
>>672539259
because the average person is an overconfident twat who will probably fuck it up and make it even worse. I figure society is trying to make everyone good at one thing, in order to improve efficiency. what we lose in general plumbing skills, we gain in improved skills in woodworking, computer programming, cooking etc.
>>672543492
So Big Brother becomes a businessman instead of a congressman.
>>672545096
because you have an incompetent father, son
Libertarians ITT are a lot of fantasy ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny.
The whole philosophy seems to be an exercise in intellectual gymnastics trying to construct how things "could" work without first studying how they do.
>>672546361
report instead of regulate please
>>672547142
only if there's a reward for it, and it's easily enough for it, as well as the people within it WANT to do it.
When you are in business to make money, you will make money. so to have a government that is paid well enough, but can be charged for going beyond their means with constant surveillance and sacrifice to their private life for the fact to service the community.
rigorous auditing is the part of government, if it's not it should be, on every single level, this includes government officials.
this is something NO PRIVATE BUSINESS HAS. no auditing, no transparency, no surveillance. we don't get to talk to or hear about CEO's unless they want us too, nor do we know what money they have, nor do we even know that's a thing, really.
this is why we don't know how much Trump is worth.
>>672547868
report?
>>672545858
So let me follow your train of thought here, if someone thinks a couple shouldnt have children until they can guarantee their childs safety, that is absurd and ridiculous? Hmm
>>672547461
That makes it alright then, doesn't it :^)
Libertarians/anarchists - and libertarians can so rarely really explain why they're not anarchists - are absolutely fucking ridiculous. Just let poor people burn. Fuck 'em. A drug kills every 1000 people? meh, who cares, they'll discontinue it after a few thousand deaths. Buildings collapse because fuck building codes? Whatever, it's only in 20 years. The sharesholders have moved on by then, doesn't matter!
You're exactly as naïve as the communists.
>>672547995
No, if someone believes you deserve to burn to death because you happen to be poor, or turn poor after making the decision to have babies while being financially able to support them, THEN you're ridiculous. Monstrously so.
>>672537636
Except then all the "restaurants" just say fuck it to save money, because there's nothing to stop them. Now nobody has a choice.
Dumbass. What are they going to do? Vote with their wallets? Nobody goes to restaurants anymore?
>>672548189
But i am merely making the suggestion that these families should have their ducks in a row before undertaking a huge responsibility like children
>>672547088
7 wonders, enlightenment era, industrial revolution, not survival
>>672548385
Yes exactly
>>672548517
And I'm pointing out that the fact that your parents were idiots doesn't mean you deserve to burn. the fuck. alive.
How is this not getting through to you?
>>672547156
Assuming I don't know that faggot? I was using them as a good example of how minimalist Libertarian fire departments might operate, since that seems to be the type of libertarianism they are discussing.
>>672548548
You have a very warped view of history for the majority of people if you think you basically just summed up how it was...
>>672548682
Yes it does.
>>672548884
So you're either a troll, insane, or incredibly fucking stupid. Either way, I can safely dismiss you and your silly opinions, because they're ridiculous and don't hold up to scrutiny - as is so often the case with libertarians.
>>672539259
well because licensed plumber know the correct laws about fixing it, and you don't. the laws were made to keep people safe. they're not fair on EVERY LEVEL but are made ON THE AVERAGE.
if you can fix it with a wrench then you're fine, but if you twist it with a wrench more then needs to be, could cause more problems, and you wouldn't know it.
your ignorance doesn't make your ignorance visible. should plumbers be licensed to help you save money, should you ignorantly buy a ignorant guy? then you'd be complaining about plumbers being dumb.
at least with a licensed plumber you can only complain about the price, if he fails you can sue him, he can lose his license, but even still if you DO sue him, to be license he should have insurance to cover that fact, unlike unlicensed plumbers that can just claim bankruptcy and not be liable at all.
so you're covered on a lot of things that DIDN'T happen, because they DON'T happen, because it's prevented from happening BEFORE THEY DO.
so you look at the pipe and don't get hit with malpractice suits you never filed by people that will skeeve you for money and you STILL HAVE THAT BROKEN PIPE. because he's licensed.
if you fix it yourself, will you be charged a crime? we can make a law that says you can fix your own home, under home improvement laws... why don't you have home insurance to cover it, and blame the government for your faulty house and lack of insurance and lack of knowledge, because of them trying to PREVENT FRAUD and UNSAFE PRACTICES.
>>672547663
Politics is all about fantasy, dipshit.
>>672547977
just tell me when somebody is fucking people over, just tell people when I fuck them over, I don't need regulation. just report whatever you find on a public forum
>>672549174
Let me guess, you are one of those people who thinks all trumps supporters are stupid and we a devolving into a idiocracy type world, yet you want to keep stupid people breeding? It is against your own interests to keep these people alive, yet you want to. That is insane
>>672549351
The problem is that nothing happens with that report, and what could even be reported?
Let's say a company sells lots of different types of fabric, from cheap to expensive, with respectively 1-10 on some fire-safety scale.
If someone just wants the cheapest material, they will buy that, and subsequently if you live in a flat next door, you could end up dying in a fire, having made no economic choice at all.
Reporting just isn't good enough. It needs regulation.
>>672547663
the entire 'philosophy' is to practice things through intelligence, how things should be, is the best way, with the least amount of 'YOU CAN'T DO THAT'.
we don't say you can't do drugs becasue their bad, you can't be gay because that's bad, you can't buy a hooker because that's bad, you can't drink because that's bad.
even if it seems stupid and bad and just morally wrong, it's okay. the more important part is having a part of the government there to educate the populace on how to be safe.
plus social servics for the poor!
OH BURN
>>672548189
Libertarians are not anarchists, they do not believe in a total lack of government. What they do beleive in is limited government oversight on things, take care of basic things, not regulate every aspect of life.
There are social programs that are needed and taxes collected to pay for them, but taxes need to be streamlined. No income tax, but a national sales tax, because nobody beats the register, that way everyone pays their share.
Essentially let me provide for my family, go to work, pay my taxes, and leave me the fuck alone.
Is it flawed, of course, but you can't say the current system is the tits.
>>672547868
newfag reporting, you mean
>>672548754
You think today is better? a few contribute while the masses fuck off. cave to castle to car
>>672543448
This type of common faggot is why the movie Idiocracy is likely to become reality in the future.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
-anonymous
>>672549951
You have a very poor grasp of the argument if you think it can be boiled down to "you can't have drugs because they're bad."
Harder drugs need to be illegal because the level of addiction means that one 'free choice' may remove a person's freedom for the next year (and then cost the economy many more than the original law would have even cost)
>>672550055
>There are social programs that are needed and taxes collected
Oh, you mean communism by stealing from people?
See, you libertarians can never agree on shit like this.
A sales tax would disproportionately tax the poor. I can abso-fucking-lutely tell you that most modern countries have far, far, far better systems than libertarianism.
>>672549898
and I pay the inspector to make all 10 fabrics unsafe, leaving only the fabric I make legal?
>>672536476
most everything is handled in civil suits rather than criminal prosecution
basically you have to prove that some one was harmed for the government to enforce sanctions against someone
safety codes would be along the lines of UL certifications and the ESRB, MPRA(? movie ratings) some one with a reputation for determining if something is safe and/or suitable for a use gives a thing a thumbs up or down
>>672550450
How is that my responsibility?
>>672550198
Today is considerably better. The lowest levels of society are better off. The highest levels of society are better off. In terms of economic and societal improvement, we have in a single day the level of advancement that would have taken 100 years in the 12th century.
>>672536476
Step 1: Libertarianism is not anarchism
Step 2: Kill yourself, you uneducated moron
>>672550572
That would be an example of inappropriate regulation, and crony capitalism, neither of which I am advocating.
>>672550643
what do you mean?
>>672550284
how about put something on the table other than shitposting and lame insults.
>>672550492
How would it tax the poor more, the more expensive things you buy the more tax paid. Rich buy big ticket items, poor do not. It's not rocket surgery.
>>672550994
You were talking about hard drugs needing to be illegal because they can take away someones freedom, and i arked how is that my responsibility? Meaning why is it my problem that someone else does something?
>>672550994
you may not advocate it, but it will happen. it absolutely will.
>>672550055
this is compared to some governments like US that search for communist pinkos, or Iran's Moral Police. These are authoritarians. Libertarians would allow same sex marriage, because it doesn't affect the individual's rights or freedoms.
Not having proper fire code or building codes DOES affect an individual's freedoms in almost every facet of their life, from home, to religion, to workplace, to leisure.
There's never really be a widely known libertarian movement in the public forums, so a lot of speculation of it is taken from the fact that people say 'LACK OF GOVERNMENT" and assume it's anarchy, not hearing them say "OVERSIGHT".
it's not up to the government to dictate what is right and wrong, and most people know that, and expect that from the government. so the libertarian view is already upheld in USA for the majority, since it was part of USA CONCEPTION. USA was made by liberalists.
So when it comes down to the government asking should they go to war overseas, the answer is always easier, since the librettists view is the same "not my country, not my problem" but the conflict happens when you can resolve atrocities. Not to defend the oil companies, like George Bush's Haliburton.
Freedom of pursuit of happiness, is it's the fundamental basis.
>>672551087
tbh the way the basic tax could work is one of the least pressing issues for libertartians at the moment i believe.
>>672537171
It's easy, we donate money to the government or pay the firefighters as a thanks for putting out the fire.
A privately run Fire Department with public funding is an option here
>>672551355
Well I assumed that you supported freedom. Someone has less freedom if they have the ability to remove future freedom.
It also directly affects you because it reduces the health of the overall economy, increases crime, etc.
>>672551087
Because a far greater percentage of the money poor people spend are used on basic shit like food that they can't avoid buying. It's a regressive tax.
If the sales tax is 10% on a fruit, a person who has 10 bucks pays 10% of their income. A person who makes 20 bucks pays just 5% of their income on that fruit.
>>672551864
But it was their freedom to choose to do the drug, who am i to take that away?
>>672551529
Then I would advocate against that. What's your point? If it's inevitable then it's inevitable in my society as much as yours. This isn't an argument for anything.
>>672548548
except for the industrial revolution none of that was really great. and the industrial revolution lead to more human rights then anything. this is in alignment to the beginning of libertarians as we know it.
companies are not here to make money, they're here to provide safe and healthy jobs for people. if they can't do that, then someone else will. we do not need unsafe workplaces, regardless of the bounty it might provide.
the morals of religion are becoming aged, and to say you're not a christian or jew is easier now than ever, but libertarian view is that it's a freedom to be what religion you want to be.
before you could be persecuted to death for it, or even treated as if you had a mental illness, not even a 100 years ago. you just don't know this, or understand the cultural revolution that libertarian fostered to get here.
>>672550994
>how about put something on the table other than shitposting and lame insults.
Well here's some more table-topping that you'll probably call shitpost.
If people let the government own and parent them, they deserve the same kind of special treatment Hitler gave the Jews. If you don't take care of your problems others will- and YOU are a problem.
>>672552080
The example often given is does someone have the freedom to lock themselves in a cage and lock away the key for 100 days? How about when they are young? 16 say? Which is when people often first take a drug they end up addicted to.
You are not actually advocating for freedom, you are giving *early* freedom infinite priority over *later freedom* without any good reason.
>>672537171
fire insurance
local private firefighting companies funded from premiums
>>672552437
Yeah
>people that don't agree with me need to die
is shitposting. Get something worth discussing before you come into a debate, retard.
>>672545096
Well fuck that's your fault.
>>672550450
well on it's fullest extreme of liberalism would ban a drug for its addictive properties, not it's mind altering property.
when i say drugs, you hear addiction, but drugs are banned not because of addiction rate, because that would decriminalize THC immediately.
but the fact is, you have the right mindset, it may seem like i have a poor grasp of the argument, but infact i have a good grasp.
drugs are illegal because they're bad.
that's not my phrasing, that's just how it goes. WE KNOW WHY THEIR BAD, but that's not how laws are made.
most laws are made based on public opinion, so as STUPID as it sounds to boil it down to a sound bite, THAT'S WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO.
you can't make a law without a sound bite. Libertarian view is you can't make a law without a reason, despite moral outcry, and public opinion.
>>672553034
Which totally un-burns-alive those innocent children, right? Go fuck yourself, buddy.
>>672543843
>Why would they stop doing business with the bad company, when the bad company is cheaper and more worthwhile for them personally?
person makes a bad but informed choice
then that is their business
they must accept the risk of using a more dangerous product/service because it is cheaper
>>672550450
sorry
>>672550643
is not
>>672549951
someone else trying to make me look like a hippy. i take full responsibility for my action and my beliefs because that's what adults do.
libertarians have been kerb-stomped in this thread...
>>672553296
>their business
it is "their business" and you end up dying because of it.
This is why we need regulation.
>>672552731
Well That greentext is nowhere in my post, so nice to know you're the one posting shitposts.
If people are so fucking stupid their genes represent an atrophy of human intelligence, they shouldn't be breeding but should ideally die off. That atrophy in our species is the precursory plot to the movie Idiocracy
>>672550492
TAXES = COMMUNISM
no not like communism, like socialism. but without the moral teachings of lenin and marx.
to benefit people, and yes taxation is part of libertarianism. it's not about deregulating taxes, but deregulating moral choices of the government. something which is widely regarded as the right choice of a government, but the biggest opposition to libertarianism is PUBLIC RELATIONS. mainly the relation of media with politics. Since you need an intellgent public, you can't have libertarianism without proper education.
so until education gets a little bit better, libertarianism won't work. it's almost there.
>>672548189
Do you really think a fire extinguisher or a fire alarm is expensive?
>>672552531
it's nice in theory, and I did used to think that way, but since the effects of drug use are subjective and neither absolutely good or bad I don't think it holds water
>>672553621
>people that don't agree with me need to die
Just go.
>>672543026
You imply that a libertarian by definition must be against environmental regulations. However, the American Heritage Dictionary defines libertarian as:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
Notice how it says minimizing, not eliminating. Also notice how it never mentions environmental regulations at all. I don't know if there is a name for the fallacy have committed, but I do know that you are a colossal faggot.
>>672553732
Do you really think a fire extinguisher can put out any fire? The simple fact of the matter is that if fire fighters run on insurance, poor people fucking burn the fuck alive - just like they're dying from lack of health insurance.
>>672553900
Individual rights are maximised by removing environmental regulations.
Hence why I don't think someone who believes in environmental regulations can really be called libertarian.
>>672553492
please provide an example of someone other than me using an unsafe product/service kills me with out providing me any way to avoid the danger
>>672553250
Why are you staying inside a burning building?
Make a good argument and donct tug at peoples heart strings.
Life is dangerous and these fire codes whether we have them are not, is nkt going to stop anything.
>>672553041
Addiction is not even a real thing in most of the way people describe it.
Some people would spend the rest of their lives playing video games in their mom's basement if they could.
That's not an addiction as much as being lazy and doing what you like as long as you can get away with it without having to work.
>>672552190
it's an argument for the limiting of an organizations power today so it is easier to resist when it becomes tyrannical tomorrow. if you give your neighbor a key to your house while you are on vacation you don't give him a key to your car, PO box, gun safe and wives chastity belt with it. you seem too trusting and I think it would build character for you to get fucked over a few times
>>672554002
Firefighters will get there in 10 mins.
It's worth a fucking shot.
>>672554166
just looked down the conversation chain. In that instance I was talking about externalities.
So it would be something like
>Every individual is better off by buying a more polluting car
>You die from the pollution
but in terms of unsafe products, I used the example of fire safety.
>Person next flat down uses unsafe material
>You die from smoke/fire
>>672553353
libertarians aren't really known, we don't have any big public figures. it's going to be inevitable that future societies will be libertarians. it does take advance technology to really utilize it.
religious doctrines, and moral policing through policy still exist, in the majority of the population, and until that goes away, no libertarian government can exist.
we cannot pander to idiots, and moral opinion based off of baseless trash. with fox news and other "emotional" based information leading the way of politics, you're left with either a Trump or a Hillary. both of which are in bed together, in support of the government that just manipulates public opinion, rather then tries to foster an intelligent debate, with intelligent opinion.
people are too busy, and too poor to be able to do this. with our media and art fostering this stupidity at a young age even.
life isn't about good or evil, or what's acceptable or not, life is suppose to be about freedom, and doing what makes you happy. it's not the normal to find happiness in the normal.
>>672552288
my argument was that mankind accomplished all that without somebody limiting what it was "allowed" to do
>>672554353
>Why are you staying inside a burning building?
>poor people have never lived in large houses in shitty conditions
>Make a good argument and donct tug at peoples heart strings.
Not every argument involving dying children is inherently flawed, buddy.
>Life is dangerous and these fire codes whether we have them are not, is nkt going to stop anything.
Once again, absurd.
>>672554551
>once again implying that fire extinguishers are fixes for all fires
Look buster brown, if fire fighters weren't publicly funded, people would burn alive. You might think that's fine. It's a matter of opinion. However, if burning children from poor parents is a-okay in your perfect world, then I have zero interest in your perfect world.
>>672537636
>certified, audited, or the like
By who, dipshit? By themselves?
>>672554679
>it's going to be inevitable that future societies will be libertarians
you think we'll become *less* educated over time?
Libertarianism requires complete ignorance of externalities and game theory. If anything, the biggest name libertarians are all in the past.
>>672536476
> Can anyone tell me how libertarianism could actually work in the real world?
Keep it relegated to pockets of mini-governments with less than 1k people each.
Seriously, size and cultural unity are the main weak points of libertarianism.
>>672554639
>>Every individual is better off by buying a more polluting car
>>You die from the pollution
you sue car manufacturer and owners for making your air unsafe to breath against your will
car company goes under
>>Person next flat down uses unsafe material
>>You die from smoke/fire
I buy smoke detectors and alarms
they let me know it is unsafe in my flat
I leave
I sue the person the next flat down
most of what is now safety regulations would be done out of fear of lawsuit
>>672554467
that's not as measurable of an addiction as drugs. each drug as a MEASURABLE addiction.
playing video games at home is a libertarians addiction too, because we don't have an alternative in this world. we don't have freedoms and rights. we have choices that seem like freedoms, but they're very few. we want to be able to be ourselves, but can't.
the withdrawing from society is not an addiction but a symptom of a world filled with hatred, and greed, and judgment. i can't be a fat guy with a beard, without being called a name, unless people think i am pretty good looking. i can't be respected in the world. i won't be able to start a job, or get a family, because i am not suppose to be intelligent.
i am suppose to be good looking. it's all about appearance and money. this is why trump married super models.
Faggots go to /pol/
the libertarian platform - very different than republicans.
basically hookers and dope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji4wkemwL3c&list=PLbzApCzsjwK089_ub3mu1BZo8Fal19FFr
Take a watch for some good laughs.
>>672554849
Then how is your argument not flawed?
>>672554679
>libertarians aren't really known, we don't have any big public figures.
Except major political figures, if only light-versions. All the republican fucktards spew the same bullshit you guys do. Cruz wants to abolish the fucking IRS, for fuck's sake.
>it's going to be inevitable that future societies will be libertarians.
>inevitable
Ridiculous. Hard libertarianism is divorced from reality, and there are no signs that we'll get more libertarian at all.
>it does take advance technology to really utilize it.
As robots start doing all our jobs, and unemployment skyrockets, we'll have to move into a communist-like model instead.
It's funny how fucking wrong you are on every level.
things libertarians have done: 0
>>672545765
Seconded
>>672552564
Which, not surprisingly, is where modern, professional fire fighters came from in the first place.
>>672554002
fire extinguisher can put out a small grease fire better then a fire fighter can. there's literally no other way to put out a grease fire, one of the most common fires now that houses aren't aren't wired the same as they use to, and proper electronic codes are followed.
more then ever, a simple fire extinguisher can not only save a family, but their home too.
>>672537636
>Consumers require them
SJW ?
>>672555311
>you sue car company for pollution
Yeah no. That's really poorly thought through. It is the mass of pollution which is the problem, not any individual contribution to it. The car company could counter with "our cars are only 0.01% of the pollution out there" and they'd be right.
Externalities cannot be solved by the courts. They cannot be solved by libertarianism. Sorry, it just fails.
>I leave
the exit is blocked off by fire. You die.
Sorry but no. You aren't going to manage to disprove entire branches of economics when you clearly know nothing about the matter. Just leave.
>>672555653
>Then how is your argument not flawed?
Because I'm pointing out that people would get burnt alive.
>but they deserve it for being poor xD
you say, to which I ask, do their children deserve it too? I don't give a fuck about your heartstrings. I care about the fact that innocent people who have no personal responsibility will be negatively affected by other people and their shitty decisions.
It's fucking asinine.
>>672555857
>all fires are grease fires
>no fire has ever required a fire fighter
Could you please just fuck off and stop wasting my time?
>>672554992
signs of autism, they exist in all parts of the world, but it's an understandable bias to label and outlander as the norm in any other opposition.
did someone really suggest isolating everyone to mini-communities of 1,000 people?
how does that work in places like Los Angelas and New York? we just abandon those?
All the overlapping often conflicting regulation that each corporation has to adhere too instead of a single standard for how many nuts of a certain kind constitute "mixed nuts" - that should be fun, much less all the pollution that doesn't stay isolated to a single area and flows into other states/counties.
>>672555165
dude, you're so close, just zoom out a little, see that everything has failed over a certain limit
>>672536476
just take a look at the business world.
the least regulated industries are the fastest growing ones. always have been, always will be.
>>672544907
>Consumers are fucking retarded.
>You are a consumer
Let that one sink in...
>>672555593
as proposed by a non libertarian.
you for got to include
>kill all puppies because no rules to say we can't
and
>give all niggers guns so they can be "black racists" too
if everything has failed, libertarianism has been rejected universally by all governments on the planet since the dawn of always.
>>672536476
It works by the magic of the marketplace!
You believe in magic right? Libertarians do. You just gotta believe!
>>672536476
What are fire extinguishers?
I'll take OP is a dumbass faggot for 500 Alex.
Libertarian platform
you going to fire extinguisher your way out of a burning building?
have at it, turbo.
>>672553882
>If you make everything in the world idiot-proof, you create a future world over-populated by idiots
>>672536476
Libertarians live their lives in a delusional just world fallacy, that's really all that there is to it.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
>>672552288
>companies are not here to make money, they're here to provide safe and healthy jobs for people. if they can't do that, then someone else will. we do not need unsafe workplaces, regardless of the bounty it might provide.
Ideas and reality are two different things my main man
>>672537171
>>672541013
>>672544690
>>672545191
>>672545226
>>672545459
>>672548189
>>672551781
>>672552564
>>672553732
>>672554002
>>672554353
Fire departments could easily be paid with a service fee if you want to buy in.
Or private insurance.
Or you could "self-insure" and take the risk of rebuilding your house yourself.
Nobody would die in a fire at my house without rescue because you just climb out any window or multiple doors.
Renters in a tall building might have to pay as part of their rent if ladder trucks would be needed to save them.
>>672556240
>economic growth is all that matters ever
When will this meme fucking die already.
>>672556262
Yes, human beings are stupid, and I don't exempt myself from criticism aimed at humanity. I eat a bit too much candy. I shouldn't. I don't have time to double and triple check everything I eat. You don't either. I don't want to have to check on how many have recently died after eating a steady diet of beef from company A, or try to figure out if private rating agencies have been bought by the big businesses. I can't be expected to meticulously study if my cough medicine kills every 1000th person.
Libertarianism is a bad joke that doesn't hold up outside of text books.
>>672555721
it's divorced from reality, because we're not in the future. we don't have education or technology at great point. no sign to you, since you have a view of the future that's set by news and polotics, which is literally a few months ahead.
rise of technology is very predictable, much like the rate of CPU speed as it advances is pretty linear.
technology dictates society, as it turns out, it's what causes human rights and freedom. odd as it may sound to you.
to think in the future we will be more oppressed and morally inclined is imbecilic if you look at what was in our past, on average.
there's always been an optimism about technologies advancement, that could lead to a libertarian utopia, but it's a waiting game.
>>672536476
Well, before it was infected with the SJW virus, it was actually about LIBERTY and things like promoting freedom of speech and the power of the individual.
Now we live in bizzaro earth where Libertarians hate freedom and want language to be policed; offensiveness is the worst crime that can be commited, everything a man does is rape, and people who used to be political enemies are starting to look at each other like "woah, i disagree with you, but this shit is insane, should we do something about it?"
privatized fire departments you subscribe too?
and if your neighbor doesn't and you live in an apartment?
instead of making emergency services only for profit - maybe we could be sane?
>>672556962
>rise of technology is very predictable, much like the rate of CPU speed as it advances is pretty linear.
Um, no. Computing power doubles roughly every two years. That's exponential growth, not linear.
>>672556952
Fuck off you retard
>>672556952
How does it feel to be a young retarded white dude?
>>672556262
I hate that thought. I hate that word. I hate myself.
>>672555871
that is why you can sue more than one person/company in a suit
you don't sue one car company
you sue them all
if your cars only contribute 1% of the pollution, you are only liable for 1% of the settlement
and I'm not saying it would work
I'm saying it does work
all EPA regulations were only implemented after a successful suit regarding the pollutant
the blocked exit would then make it a case of manslaughter
my next of kin would sue the person at fault, or more likely their next of kin
also, the building owner would have certain requirements of their tenets in order to protect their property, the whole fucking building, such as
>you must have a working smoke detector certified by such-and-such company
>you can't use certain appliances in the building because I don't accept the risk they pose
>>672552564
fuck insurance. let me pay for what i actually need, not what i might need, maybe. insurance is a fucking scam in all markets
>>672555721
to think that robots don't do our jobs already, is a view from the 1960's.
welcome to the world of tomorrow, who built your computer? some guy? your monitor, your ipod?
there will always be jobs for humans. at the very least to watch over the robots. people will still buy art, eat food, and want to interact with a human.
we cannot make technology more redundant for the simple sake of keeping people's jobs, without a good reason.
colonizing of mars, this is a whole other point of technology that is our next 5-10 years.
guess what type of government will be on mars.
this seem like a good idea to you?
or the musings of a moron?
>>672556952
>Nobody would die in a fire at my house without rescue because you just climb out any window or multiple doors.
Good thing all houses are made likes yours, eh?
Is it that you're too stupid to imagine scenarios that aren't 100% like yours, or are you just unwilling to try?
>>672556962
>no sign to you, since you have a view of the future that's set by news and polotics, which is literally a few months ahead.
I love me some good misplaced condescension in the evening from idiots so far up their own asses they've forgotten sunlight. Your rosey red view of the long term world is flawed as fuck.
We're not talking about whether we'll be more or less oppressed. You've lost touch with the conversation as much as libertarianism is divorced from reality.
>>672557362
Is dis nigga serious
Libertarians LOL
>>672556694
A brave new world
>>672557539
Sucks to be that guy
>>672557316
>sue every individual on earth for mass pollution
Good luck with that
>>672555864
i dunno, does it follow the doctrine of a SJW?
or just a concerned citizen?
or is there a difference, or is SJW just a slur like nigger, or is there no such thing as SJW at all, and is just something one side calls another side, instead of thinking of something more detailed and intelligent to say?
MAYBE I AM A SJW! t
hat hates feminists, and loves loli and gore?!
WHO KNOWS!
ONE LINE COMMENT = NEWFAGS!
Here is how the unregulated free market would work as an analogy.
Imagine if you will, a Lake surrounded by 500 fisheries. Each of these fisheries pulls in 1,000 dollars a month.
Now over time, because they keep fishing the water, they begin to pollute it and slowly the quality goes down and each fishery begins to make less and less. Let's say by 100 dollars a month (for sake of argument)
So they all agree to put a filtration system in place, and over time the quality goes back but it costs about 100 dollars a month to run.
So all the fisheries are pulling in 900 dollars.
But then one day, with n o regulation, Fishery A decides to turn off his filter unit and he finds he can make 1,000 dollars, while the rest of the suckers are making 900 dollars with minimal damage to his lake.
meanwhile, the others start coming to that conclusion and before you know it - the problem is even worse and irreversible.
hence, the need for a regulation.
because without it, that fishery becomes your drinking water'gets overfished/becomes a dumping ground, and times it by "everywhere" and you get the picture?
>>672536476
Because libertarianism isn't anarchy.
>>672555625
I'll send peter schiff.
>>672557362
I agree regarding mandatory insurance
just "Sue" the companies that pollute -how would you even prove they contributed to the pollution and you were specifically harmed by that - even if you had the money to do that?
>>672556091
I didn't say all fires were grease fires, but the most common type of kitchen fires, nor did i imply we don't need fire fighters, but that ask a fire fighter if you should have a fire extinguisher, and they'll agree, that it's needed because, IT CAN PUT OUT A FIRE FASTER THEN THEY CAN.
unless fire fighters were a private company, then they'd say THEY CAN PUT IT OUT FASTER
>>672556091
>Could you please just fuck off and stop wasting my time?
>>672557256
>>672557264
Wow, intelligent replies there.
have you ever dealt with the cable company?
if they were your fire department and the only one in the area - you think they are going to put it out "Faster"?
>>672556694
Only the correlation goes entirely the other way. Regulations have increased and intelligence has increased.
>>672546764
This
>>672556262
consumers is a general average, individuals are not a general average, therefore, you're wrong.
nice try.
>>672557473
>to think that robots don't do our jobs already, is a view from the 1960's.
The clear difference you people seem incapable of imagining is that humans have always been smarter than robots. We're relatively close to a world where this is no longer the case.
We cannot all be doctors, lawyers, or engineers.
>there will always be jobs for humans
Soon, no.
I'm not arguing we should stop technological progress. I'm telling you that we'll have to move towards a communism-like approach, because there will not be enough jobs for human beings.
>>672557942
>Let me just mention this irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the conversation.
So because a bandaid is easier and quicker than going to the doctor universal healthcare is unnecessary? Again, please stop wasting my time and shut the fuck up.
>>672557473
>
there will always be jobs for humans. at the very least to watch over the robots. people will still buy art, eat food, and want to interact with a human.
I doubt this very much. The kind of automation you're citing from the 1960's has been automation of rote processes. You program the machine with specific instructions and it performs those. What hasn't really taken off yet (and is going to very soon) is artificial intelligence - you give the machine a goal and it finds the best way to do that.
Bots powered by AI can produce art, music and all sorts of creative tasks. Combine this with how much people bitch about having to interact with the wait staff when eating and you can see why there might be a problem. Even if "there will always be jobs for humans" is true, that isn't the problem. The problem is that there might not be *enough* jobs for the humans that exist.
>>672556911
it's getting closer too then further away, we have higher health and safety codes then ever. that's a goal of liberalism.
>>672557765
This explains socialism as well.
I think just hearing their plans to make fire departments only for people who can afford them, and the fact they don't understand negative externalities like you not having insurance and causing damange to OTHERS you can't pay for - should be evidence enough why their ideas are peter pan nonsense.
>>672558116
education has increased, not intelligence. I know people who can do math but can't figure out a manual can opener
>>672558116
>Intelligence has increased
According to SJW's
>>672556952
>WE HAD THAT
>IT FAILED
THIS IS WHY WE DON'T DO THAT
too much fraud corruption and discrepancy of quality, it's actually cheaper for the government to run public safety groups, ON TOP OF SAFER.
also the fact of it's more then just fire fighters, but the fact your house has multiple windows is because of fire safety codes from the government.
it's also code for a lot of apartments to have to have multiple points of escape in case of fires, including larger windows, even if it didn't exsist previously.
>>672558717
All the studies disagree with you, but that's fine, I'm sure you consider your can opener anecdote stronger evidence anyway.
>>672557201
libertarians don't believe in making more private sectors for what is already government own.
>>672557563
>Is it that you're too stupid to imagine scenarios that aren't 100% like yours
I stated three other ways around
>>672558579
B-b-but if you're too poor to buy insurance or a fire extinguisher, your children deserve to burn - and so does the neighbour's, actually.
Really, just skip the middle man and burn all poor people. Soon robots will do their jobs. Fuck 'em. Who needs that many riff raff anyway? Burn 99.9999% and stick some in a zoo so we can laugh at them while sipping martinis.
Maybe arrange some gladiatorial battles and let the winner join our upper class. It'll be glorious, I say.
>>672559004
stuff I see with my own eyes or something told to me by another human being... my eyes don't consistently lie for their own benefit, I'll trust them more
>>672557207
I knew you'd say that, but in a mathematical way it's exponential. From a practical standpoint it's linear in that it's a steady growth.
But that's only on average, there is non-linear elements to it too, as in research labs, and military use, as well as underdeveloped countries using older systems.
>>672542673
>true liberals
Im assuming youre referring to classical liberalism? If so their economic policy is more centrist than anything
>>672557765
Your pic is dumb because the boat would still level so the guys in front get their feet wet, too.
Also the guys bailing could grab an oar and hit the others until they helped.
>>672559004
Oh shit guys they got studies!
Studies!
Showing education hasn't increased and intelligence has increased.
Not anectdotal at all.
>>672560267
plus the lack of safety equipment protecting them from drowning themselves after drilling holes into their boat
>>672559430
>my eyes don't consistently lie
Read into it for five minutes to find how wrong that is
>>672557765
The question is, why cant a private union of fishermen or companies actually provide the same kind of regulations via a mandatory contract. And every fisherman and company that breaks the contract is pursued by the law(which should be in hands of goverment imo)
>>672560443
>mocking studies
Redneck detected
>>672560873
I think I made my point without getting technical and "sciency"
libertarians don't believe in making private sectors of what government is already doing?
have you ever read your platform? it calls for privatization of everything that isn't specifically in the constitution.
>>672558290
hey both of those were me
a) robots do allow more people to do jobs they couldn't before. i've worked in steel plants with robot welders, but they don't do all the jobs because 1) welders can be fired to save money, robots can't 2) robots work better at doing detailed work, where as humans can do different jobs easier, and fix mistakes easier 3) robots cost money to make and to pay the technicans to use them
aside from that, as robots ENCROACH on 'mah jobs' it does displace employment, but new job opportunities do arise. that's hard to explain since it doesn't relate to robotics, as much as technology as a whole. the new jobs that arise in the future can't even be speculated at now.
but also small to medium sized business will always need humans, if only because it's cheaper. at the very least, becoming a technican for a robot will become cheaper, so instead of 100 humans building something 100 humans regulat 100k robots building something.
robots are not removing jobs, at worst displacing. you have a very old fear, that isn't talked about by anyone but the fringe. read up on it, it's not as bad as you think.
and a fire extinguisher is not a band-aid. it's usually something any firefighter tell your to have, because unlike a band aid covering a wound, a fire extinguisher can heal the wounded entirely.
fire extinguisher isn't a replacement for a firefighter, but a simple enough tool that it's mandatory because it can stop fires.
water cannot put out a grease fire, and it's that simple you need a fire extinguisher, or wait for firefighters to put out your house.
either extinguish a burning pot, or extinguish an entire home. ANY FIREFIGHTER WILL TELL YOU TO HAVE A FIRE EXTINGUISHER. It's not a band aid, it's not a placebo, it's not a magical charm.
no libertarian thinks you shouldn't have fire services or fire extinguisher, or universal health care or bandages.
>>672561461
Not even the guy you replied to, but your perception from your eyes consistently lies to you. The fact that you don't know is is quite funny since that information is freely available, and common as far as I'm concerned.
the libertarian lives in a gated community type metnality, where the concept of forest fires that would rage or building fires, or explosive chemical fires at a factory are something their mommy and daddy will protect them from.
Thats why their ideas sound like something a 9th grader on adderal would think up.
>>672543492
this would absolutely never work. you are underestimating how selfish and stupid humans are and financially tight-assed humans are.
>>672545305
How was he using it in a positive light you retarded cum guzzling faggot?
>>672558436
libertarians are socialists, without the authoritarian part of communism's. literacy, education, health care, and other emergency services, without the need to persecute people for their beliefs and regulating what people can and cannot do.
>>672561168
>Using vague allusions to academia or science to back up a claim without any citations.
Redneck detector detected
>>672554160
I'm going to assume rights is synonymous with liberties in this case.
Liberty:
The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.
I find it hard to believe that all libertarians consider environmental regulation oppressive. Even if some do, I think it is a bit of a stretch to include the freedom from environmental regulation as part of the definition of individual liberty. You are doing the same thing you did before. You are trying to argue by supplying your own erroneous definitions, which brings me to my own next definition.
Insanity:
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
>>672560443
well the measurement of intelligence is subjective, you know this? increase in IQ without increase in education, is oddly attributed to IQ having to do with social norms then intellgence.
>>672561872
>libertarians are socialists
>>672561842
yeah mommy and daddy. that's exactly it. you must have met a lot of people in your travels wise sir. please teach me the way of being a master as yourself.
>>672536476
It would only work if everyone in the country you wanted to be libertarian had top-notch educations and could easily tell the difference between good and bad based on years of knowledge and study.
The world is too stupid and tribalistic to make it work, OP. We need the power of law enforcement to run the vital needs of society.
>>672546764
populism doesn't have any fixed social or economic policy tenets, it's purely about appealing to the masses and the everyman
>>672562219
>one line response
>newfags....
thanks for the macro
>>672558912
Here is a much better example of over-regulation:
>Had a house that was in some kind of flood plain.
>Wanted to build a garage.
>Could not get building permit.
>Told the inspector I would build it myself for $2500, self-insure, take the loss if it gets flooded.
>NOPE, WE WILL SEND A BULLDOZER TO DESTROY IT AND THEN BILL YOU FOR THAT EXPENSE.
Got to love this fucking government.
>>672543448
i have to assume this i b8, you can't be this out of touch
>>672562506
that's what makes it authoritarian, if everyone thinks guys with the name bob should fuck off, it's law.
>>672562667
it's mostly to stop shady practices of immoral contractors then the average home improver. you don't understand the fucking backflips and loopholes those guys will use to fleece people.
it's not a reaction to you, but to the unethical practices of con men. it's really more than just money they take, but peoples lives as well.
>>672536476
I registered to vote as a libertarian when Obama won his first term. Since then my town doesn''t recognized libertarians and I'm not allowed to vote in the primaries unless I go to the town clerk and re-register as independant. Fuck them. I like being told that I''m not allowed to vote not that any vote counts in the presidential elections, anyway. I have no idea what libertarians think and don't care but wasn't willing to sign up as communist.
>>672562621
>attempt to be clever
>>672562751
people can't be safety concious about everything ever. even just food alone. there's a lot. time for food to expire, in a fridge vs not in a fridge, proper cooking times, proper preparations. there's a lot of details. to get a job as a food inspector isn't easy nor is it lenient.
the strict regulations for food is something that was pushed more by corporations then it was consumers, is also another example of how little people know. average consumer doesn't know they should ask the government to regulate what temperature meat should be cooked at in a restaurant.
So are we all on board with the notion that game theory / prisoner's dilemma issues make libertarianism unfeasible?
Or are there still some holdouts who think that the average slob doesn't need to be kept in line by his betters?
>>672563518
you or me?
i guess i wasn't clear, but libertarians are more socialists than conservatives, and other than the centralization of government, follow socialist mandate.
>>672563721
>the strict regulations for food is something that was pushed more by corporations then it was consumers
bullshit
>>672563909
nope
>>672563261
Very much true.
The problem is govt regulation only gets slowly ratcheted up, because there are too many bureaucrats who need to churn out more regs every year to justify their own salary.
Nobody ever mentions maybe we should roll back some of these things in the name of common sense, like my garage thing.
>>672563902
i think libertarianism is still closer to what most people want in a government, but unfortunately it does have to be centralized.
the need for a political figurehead like a President seems fucking foolish, and who actually thinks this is helpful or a good use of resources. it runs like a STUDENT COUNCIL when it should really be ran more like a well oiled machine, free from the need of PUBLIC OPINION, rather studies and information regarding the topics at hand.
It should be the government saying this is the information, instead of THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
>>672564237
nope, this is why you don't get sick from eating mcd. they get better quality food then grocery stores.
check out the jack-in-the-box e coli outbreak that killed like a dozen kids. that's what started a lot of it.
the government regulations is negligible, FDA hardly inspects and food business. the rules are there for business to sue their own suppliers/employees for wrongdoing, and are still liable if it's seen as a corporate mandate to undermine the rules comes along, if say, to save money.
>>672564392
the bigger problem is pandering to public opinion. that's really the biggest issue facing librarians. this is why there's not a bigger political force.
from the get go, governments are against it, and they all exist to service and manipulate public opinion. not to educate it and maintain it. that's the biggest difference.
>>672563721
i'm as far from a libertarian as it gets but i really disagree with you.
i mean sure we needed the FDA back during the Upton Sinclair Jungle days of Chicago meatpacking. But just cooking a steak or a vegetable soup at a restaurant? Keeping things refrigerated?
In these cases the restaurant / food company is highly motivated to have customers NOT get sick. And it's really not rocket science.
I just think this whole food safety thing is a really bad angle to approach the anti-libertarian argument.
The best arguments are with things like infrastructure, the military, violent crime, and advanced research and development.
>>672565044
yep stop embarrassing yourself faggot
the government started to intervene in business about 100 years ago. Corporations have no allegiance to anything but profit, and that's why it started happening.
>>672564494
well that sounds like a strong state, which is great
>>672565408
>these cases the restaurant / food company is highly motivated to have customers NOT get sick. And it's really not rocket science.
I love how you think this isn't a result of regulation., or that before regulations restaurants had to worry much about reprisal.
How is 8th grade, btw?
>>672556444
>>672555751
>>672554992
These shitty attempts at memes are making look libertarians better than the alternative tbh fam.
>>672565420
unhealthy food is bad for business. now the safety of the employees is something the government regulates fiercely, which is different then food safety. this is where a lot of people get butthurt about opinions, like women firefighters or gays being bashed. people think it shouldn't matter, but regulations say otherwise.
>>672565843
i'm in grad school at an ivy league university
i'm not saying i'm a genius but i know i'm not a complete retard...and i'm pretty sure you're wrong
>>672565408
>i'm as far from a libertarian as it gets
Wow, the first person I met who brags about being an authoritarian!
Sure, I've read about Stalin and Mao, but they died before I was born.
>>672566666
OKAY, SATAN
>>672566666
Quints checkd. You're right.
>>672566666
I'm pretty sure you don't know to google "history of food safety." You'd better be trolling faggot.
>>672566666
wasted quints
>i'm in grad school at an ivy league university
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
no
>>672566847
not stalin and mao, more like mussolini and hitler dude
>>672566666
Fucking checked Satan. BTFO.
>>672567104
>implying there's a difference
>>672536476
Picture incorrect. In the libertarian ideal, the government still exists and has laws, but those laws do not interfere with private lives or impose moral codes. The exist only to protect people and their property from objective harm or being exploited (ie laws against murder, and a minimum wage). Fire codes fall under that purview. Laws abolished under a libertarian ideal would include Sunday shopping or drinking bans, drug laws, anti-sodomy laws or other legislature which imposes a subjective moral code upon society as a whole. Other examples include bans on sex shops, prohibition of liquor, and censorship laws. Laws like fire or building codes, which are designed to prevent people from being harmed rather than to force them to behave a certain way, would remain.
>>672565408
>The best arguments are with things like infrastructure, the military, violent crime, and advanced research and development.
we need to keep transportation safe. this might not have happened with a libertarian government PRE cars, but since FORD got the government to pay for roads, we would keep that going, only because that's the way the society developed.
Military is really the main thing that would get cut. foreign policy of libertarian is a meek as it gets. we wouldn't have invade iraq, we wouldn't have fought in vietnam. police and counter-terrorist would still be needed, but more like japan or germany.
violent crimes is on the other end of federal laws, but wouldn't differ much. obviously it would be up to judges, and if anything to give them less mandatory sentences would be something. i'd push for more regulations on judges, but that's actually come a long way recently, you'd be surprised.
advance research and development would probably gain the most from libertarianism, but a lot of safety standards are already in practice today that kind of make that easy. stem cell research, cloning wouldn't be as taboo, it's just the fact is it's about public opinion, and lobbyist groups and religious interest parties, that make it so the government has to intervene, or else fucking terrorist go ballistic.
but this why with less military, there would be an increase in counter-terrorism and police, if there were to be more lack laws, the laws in place would have to be enforced a bit easily. less drug crimes means more focus on violent crimes and private sector corruption, as well as counter-terrorism intelligence being a part of peoples safety and freedom. even though it might be violating privacy, with more deregulations on drugs and sexual freedoms would make it easier for the cops not harder.
we're not quite at that point yet, because it's a world that is more centralized than ever, but doesn't need to be.
>>672537010
so you are actually proposing that you would prefer to live in the 1800s as oppose to modern time.
Found the retard.
>>672566666
well let me say, yes corporations want to make sure food is healthy, but the regulations enforced are to MAKE SURE THEY DO, and any new business also follow the same policy.
because on an individual case, store from store, the quality could deviate, even though a business mandates a certain level of quality. the threat of government intervention keeps employers on track.
it started with business, but is sustained by government. government has a longer memory then business do, it seems. what seemed like good practice before, with the changing of 15 CEOS suddenly becomes bad practice.
the cleanliness of restaurants is something that happened because of the OCD of McD inc. founder, then of anything else. it isn't mandatory to sweep every 2 hours, but since McD it it seems like it. it doesn't matter either way, but putting upa sign that say caution wet floor, is legal obligations upheld by government.
>>672567104
mussolini i can understand, but hitler? the guy killed himself, after failing so hard, that even the jews felt bad.
>>672556960
>Libertarianism is a bad joke that doesn't hold up outside of text books
The food safety stuff is a terrible example.
Want to know what really scares companies about safety?
>Not FDA or USDA or OSHA fines.
>Personal or class action lawsuits, and/or people finding out that their stuff sucks and their sales fall off a cliff.
i think libertarianism is still closer to what most people want in a government, but unfortunately it does have to be centralized.
the need for a political figurehead like a President seems fucking foolish, and who actually thinks this is helpful or a good use of resources. it runs like a STUDENT COUNCIL when it should really be ran more like a well oiled machine, free from the need of PUBLIC OPINION, rather studies and information regarding the topics at hand.
It should be the government saying this is the information, instead of THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
>>672569090
it's been estimated that FDA checks each company about once in their entire business lifetime.
the business ENTIRE practice, EVER, once.
not just each factory and business franchise, but the COMPANY AS A WHOLE, even once.
>>672568665
i mean not hitler himself (also mussolini had a pretty cowardly and ignominious end) but national socialist / fascism in general is appealing to me for its corporatist leanings, potent nationalism, and traditionalism
>>672569274
yeah, i think libertarian is too broad too, mostly because it's true, we do need centralization.
>this thread libertarians
>>672536476
Take a political science class. Absolute libertarianism cannot exist in the real world.
>>672569360
>it's been estimated that FDA checks each company about once in their entire business lifetime
Yup, and each customer checks is with every sale.
I have a long mental list of foods I won't ever buy again.
>>672544381
Not him but I think poor people should die in the fire in that example. Why should the fire department take a loss and fight the fire?
You wouldn't BE poor if you weren't stupid.
>>672558290
Just want to give this guy some recognicion for single handedly proving every retarded libertarian itt wrong.
>>672537636
>consumers require them
kek like the average consumer knows enough about fire code to actively boycott businesses that don't enforce them. Who would inspect the business? Some makeshift, unregulated fire department who would take bribes from businesses to get their certificate? Or why even bother getting a real certificate? why not forge one? That would be free, and nobody would enforce it cuz that would be super tyrannical.
>>672569538
yeah but nationalism, and traditionalism?
i mean these are the things that destroy people, and ideas.
it's not about freedom or progress , it's about stagnation and retardation.
There is a very strong tie between human rights and technology. Transportations at the least, is the most obvious, but it's all encompassing. With colonization of mars happening in less than half a decade those are some of the most obsolete ideas to have, more then EVER.
the way the world is going is always going to be towards liberalism, if it ever reaches it was doubtful, but with colonization of mars, it's hopeful.
we're always moving further away from authoritism. it may not be obvious or predictable, but it's been something that has been happening. I'm just trying to warn you, it's better to want to progress then stick to any old doctrine. we are developing on an exponential rate, and progress is faster than ever, and what happened 50 years ago is like what happened 100 years ago to them, or more.
ideas of fascism and communism were never made to include computers. technology can allow for a decentralized government. the idea of a New Order global government of the Illuminati, is a librarian idea, a world decentralized government. it seems counter intuitive, but who knows what the next 100 years will hold. most countries will be where we're at.
we had sweat shops with kids 100 years ago and used coal like china. they're are advancing so fast now, that eventually we'll get to a point of a balanced population. then liberties might be. it's hard to see it become radically racist or moral.
>>672569906
>Take a political science class
Please...
Colleges are staffed with left-wing clowns who couldn't make it in the real world, so they chose taxpayer funded liberal propaganda instead.
Come back when you get a real job and have to start paying your own way in life.
>>672537010
>things worked fine over 200 years ago when this country was 1/300th of the size it is now
I use to go throughout my days just fine without needing to know how to write.... then i grew up and life got more complicated.
>>672569538
also with the way corporations are so multi-national it's hard to see nationalism making a rise other than on the lowest most civilian level. McD doesn't stand for USA, as much as it does hamburgers. Even in radically nationalist areas it's accepted.
>>672569906
>Absolute {insert any political ethos} cannot exist in the real world
>>672571459
Why is it every argument for libertarianism relies on untested theories, loose rhetoric, and arguments similar to yours that claim big government stops libertarianism from working by attacking it constantly? Maybe, just maybe, it's a stupid idea and the reason "liberals" bash it is because it won't work, has never worked, and doesn't work.
>>672569906
not in the way the world currently is. this is a world that couldn't even have partial libertarianism since it's made against it. World Wars and Cold Wars worked against the idea of it. it would take a world movement to change.
we go to mars, let's see what your political class says about that? or about technology in 40 years. Technology and Society is more important to understand then political sciences, and even is the reason for political movements that didn't even have names.
>>672571459
lol you do realize that some profs do consulting work on the side right?
>>672572098
>big government
is a monster that only exist to feed itself and grow
You are a chump to think they exist to serve you
>>672572098
>Championing political science courses
>Complaining about untested theories, loose rhetoric and ideas untested or failing in the real world
>>672571459
>Get a real job and pay taxes.
>Being this butthurt.
I've had the same job for the past ten years. I work my balls off five/six days a week. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking higher education.
>>672546469
well it allows people to focus more of their time and enrgy on other things. Being an expert in everything is difficutl
>>672572098
because the world is made by conservatives or liberals, and they're both halves of libertarianism. so fundamentally the world's political structures are against some part of libertarianism, because of the popularity vote of world leaders.
libertarianism doesn't have world leaders.
that's one of the main things that makes it so difficult to see functioning in this world, although, it could happen.
it's hard for you to think of a country without one guy "running" everything, even communism and fascism had leader, MORE SO THEN DEMOCRACIES!
If governments worked like their suppose to, you wouldn't need a political leader. the fundamental of a government is to make sure we're safe. it's just there was so much before we didn't have statistics like we do now. Because of Google and other computer companies we now have a vast amount of information that can be used to make proper policies, independent of popular opinion.
before the internet and computers, it was more of a pseudo-science, and would only work on a small scale. now it can work on a global scale, and that is part of a ideology that is still relatively new. but no other ideology is so influenced by the rise of technology more.
