cool strawman bro

>libertarians
shit thread

>>4480431
prove me wrong

>>4480433
what is the difference between liberals and libertarians???

>>4480455
Liberals in the American sense are Leftists. They want 'social freedom' but no economic freedom.

So they're down with you marrying whoever, smoking whatever, but you have no right to your own paycheck.

Libertarians think you have the right to both. To marry who you want, to smoke what you want, to spend your money how you want.

>>4480464
thanks

>>4480464
So they're liberals who are against free health care and taxes?

>never heard of biopolitical production or metaphor theory

The artists are the only true producers, upon which human consciousness depends.

>>4480481
HA HA HA i dislike neoliberal art...
I love traditional art. fuck em libs

>>4480464
>Liberals in the American sense are Leftists
Confirmed for not knowing what 'leftism' is.

>>4480475
Or conservatives who are for gay marriage and legalized marijuana

Libertarians are usually conservatives or liberals that got sick of their own party's bullshit

>>4480464
>economic freedom

I don't think you know what that word means.

Freedom means more than being able to exploit the labor of others. The most free economy is one wherein there are no bosses.

>>4480501
then please enlighten me, oh grand master of retards, what liberal means in America

>>4480475
Yes, but liberals are not against economic freedom, but they're not as extreme on it like libertarians or right-wingers. Spent your money as you want, but social spending (taxes) are needed for the society and don't fuck the society with your economic power.

>>4480455

Liberalism is an umbrella term which covers any set of political beliefs that espouse freedom, democracy and equal rights.

Libertarianism is one form of liberalism than incorporates strong elements of Social Darwinism, ie. the idea that the strong should dominate the weak and reap more of societies benefits.

It should also be noted that in the bizzaro-world of American politics, "iberal" is often (incorrectly) used as a synonym for "communist". This is incorrect and should be ignored.

>>4480506
It means the freedom to hire who you want, for a wage that you and that person agree on. To use your property how you want. To use your money how you want. To be able to work where you want, for how much, for how long, etc. All without the government stepping in to stop you.

That is economic freedom.

Your herpaderp world without no bosses is something else. If you want to try and work for a world without any form of hierarchy, that's fine, but don't go telling me that red means green and that 2 + 2 = 5

>>4480515
>>4480517
>Liberalism is an umbrella term which covers any set of political beliefs that espouse freedom, equal rights
>espouse freedom and rights

Except for when it comes to the right to bear arms

The right to NOT buy medical insurance when you don't need it

The right to work without having to join a fucking union and surrender my paycheck to them in some industries

The right to be employed if they want to pay me less than 9 dollars an hour (in my state).

etc etc

>>4480427

it depends on what type of "artists" you destroy.

If it's Mark Rothkoesque types devoid of all talent that spend their entire lives having the equivalent of an existential temper tantrum and use artistic mediums to create ugly shit and then pretend it has some great deeper meaning when in reality they are simply trying to rationalize their own lack of artistic merit then yeah KILL 'EM ALL and nothing of value will be lost

>>4480475
No.

Libertarians are rightists. More rightist than that Republicans. They're called "paleo-conservatives".

For all the faggots who think libertarians don't want taxes, etc etc, pic related

Liberals, stop deluding yourselves. Obama has done NOTHING for freedom of any sort.

He sent feds over to California to shut down all the medicinal marijuana dispensaries

The healthcare mandate is NOT freedom, nor is ANY mandate.

My liberal state is still allowed to tell me what I can do with my OWN property. I can literally only build on a fraction of my land, if I cut down half of the trees on my 2 acre property then I get fined or thrown in jail.

Why do libertarians live in Western society when they hate its fundamental principles? Better yet why do they live at all?

>>4480548
Depends on how you define Rightist.

Libertarians simply want a society in which the government does less, not more. Where its main role is to enforce the law (don't steal, don't kill, etc), and a very basic social safety net.

Other than that you're free to live your life like you want to.

>>4480525
>implying the Republicans or Democrats are that authoritarian

Fascists and commies they are not. They'd be somewhere in the middle of the line between authoritarian and libertarian.

>>4480556
>Western society
>not the most capitalist society

Pic related. That's why libertarians live here.

>>4480557
Rightists combine the conservatives and the reactionaries.

That is, they're either for the status quo or want to roll back changes to something they were before.

Which, at least in the American context, the Libertarians are to a T.

>>4480563
Western society exsisted before capitalism. More importantly the powerfull economies of the West were built upon imperialism and national protectionism. Which the libertarians opposse because they hate nationalism and worship the market.

Libertarians are social workers and liberal arts majors?

I wat'd and then I laughed at the obvious troll. And then I facepalm'd at the 22 replies. Oh, /int/, you're so easy to troll.

>>4480548

libertarianism and paleo-conservatism are not equivalent

>>4480578
>Libertarians are social workers and liberal arts majors?

Not OP, but In my experience they usually are. The only I met who wasn't was a drug dealer.

>>4480568
you can call libertarians rightists, but keep in mind that libertarians are against both:

Imperialism/Militarism: They've opposed most of our recent wars, vehemently

Laws on Morality: Libertarians are pro legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, etc.

So that's not typically very right-wing in the popular conception of the word.

>>4480571
Yeah, and Western society was poor and plague-ridden until capitalism. Now we're the most capitalist society in the world, BY FAR (except Singapore and Hong Kong). Hence the image I posted.

Actually most farms now are machine operated corporate farms

>>4480592
you must mean liberals, you fucking retard

>>4480563
How is Australia more free than America?

Game censorship, movie censorship, internet censorship etc etc

You're wrong.

>>4480594
>poor and plague-ridden
>The Roman Empire

Also I noticed you ignored the part where I said the libertarians ignore our economic practices which conflict with their retarded narrative of freedom.

>>4480594

Right-wing, by definition, is the support of social hierarchies. Libertarians tend to be big fans of social-darwinism, and this is why they get classed as right-wing.

>>4480538
I'm with you, those fucking liberals don't let me have as many slaves as I want and can pay because "is a bad thing".
Fucking hippies.

>>4480606
Is about economic freedom.
Note how Sweden and Canada (free healthcare, education, welfare) are more free that America.

>>4480606
>see a well-defined map based on economic indexes compiled by economists
>doesn't fit my stereotypical view of the world
>fucking must be wrong

Not the same exact index, but check here: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

You can click on the various countries and see WHY they're ranked where they are.

>kill all the liberal artists

OP confirmed for retard.

>>4480594
There's more than one way to be rightist. It all has to do with your political philosophy as a whole. You can't point to one part of their ideology that seems liberal to the uninitiated and say "see, they're semi-liberal!". It's all about what connects the ideas together.

There's NOTHING liberal or leftist about the Libertarians. They're rightists to the core.

>>4480614
Check the rankings on the index. They're based on actual fiscal and economic and trade practices, not on superficial ideas of what is more liberal and what is not.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

>>4480611
Except slaves don't agree to being slaves. Hence, not economic freedom.

Economic freedom is the freedom to have a contract between two consenting adults. Sorry that's so scary to you.

>>4480608
>>4480609

Same shit, and oh, would you REALLY prefer to live in the Roman Empire as to living in our capitalist West these days? Fucking come on

>>4480611

Libertarianism: the political philosophy that holds individual liberty to be the basic moral principle of society

equals support of slavery in your mind?

your stupidity is contemptible and you will now be ignored

>>4480631
That's fine, I would agree with you actually

But that does mean that many people we've seen as traditionally 'rightists,' like George Bush, would rather be moderates or even leftists by this standard.

>>4480631
>There's NOTHING liberal or leftist about the Libertarians.
Libertarians are socially liberal (gay marriage, marijuana, etc.)

>>4480631

Liberal =/= leftist.

Whilst I'll agree that they are in no way leftist, they are most defiantly liberal.

>kill all the liberal artists in the world
>suddenly you're illiterate
>suddenly you have no history

>>4480548

There are left libertarians. The libertarian party in America is more right. They are not like typical conservatives/republicans. They usually support gay rights, drug decreminalization, more free markets, cuts to military spending, ending overseas military affairs, ending corporate wellfare and bailouts.

>>4480632
Again you ignore the point that while the West was bettered by the adoption of capitalism it never adopted Libertarianism. Nor has any society. For good reason I would say.

>>4480646

>There are left libertarians.

Technically, but not really. The original libertarians were French anarcho-communists, but the contemporary usage of the word is almost exclusively right-wing.

>>4480652
>implying Switzerland isn't libertarian

Unless you have some very narrow view of what libertarianism means, it simply means more social and economic freedom. Plenty of countries aspire to that.

>>4480632
And what if he wants to be my slave. Sounds weird but is perfectly possible. Would it be ok?

The same could be said about minimum wage, you could choose to be paid less, but not everyone will be a reasonable adult to decide about it, because maybe they're so desperated for money or uninformed about minimum wage (immigrants) that they'll accept, and will eventually become poor and a charge for society.

In my country (Chile), the minners usually didn't have enough education how to be something else, nor their childrens, and they were payed with coins, tradeable only in the market store. If they wanted more, they were either fired or killed when on strike. And this was because of the economic freedom of my country.

>>4480660
It really depends because the use of the word Libertarian for some reason extends to numerous other issues which have no relevance to the core Libertarian ideology. Probably because people not being able to tell the difference between an economic policy and an all-encompassing political ideology.

Generally Libertarian has context as saying you are a Conservative or a Republican, rather than what the word should mean it's overruled by what it has come to mean in that society. For the most part Libertarian has a right leaning social philosophy, just because that's what most people who call themselves Libertarian share.

>>4480642
>>4480639
But they're "liberal" in the most conservative way possible.

>>4480670
If someone wants to be my slave, and I'm not physically abusing them, then why is it your place to stop it?

I love Chile, wonderful country. Lived there for a short time. Easily the best Latin nation there is, and the first to be developed! That's because of economic freedom.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk

You guys are still in the process, capitalism isn't some perfect utopia. But it's by far the damn best system we have. Anyone who disagrees should watch the damn video.

>>4480663
>Switzerland
>A country with a proud history of Eugenics and compulsory sterilization
>Libertarian

>>4480675
Unfortunately those abuses will happen when the country is still undeveloped.

Those things used to happen a hundred years ago in the U.S. too.

Thankfully, high economic freedom leads to such extreme economic growth that within generations the standards of living, development, and education are all so high and widespread that these types of exploitation are no longer possible.

>>4480689
Well sure, no country is purely ANY ideology, you retard

But modern Switzerland is, comparatively, one of the most libertarian nations in the world. High economic freedom, high social freedom.

Deal with it

>>4480701
So I can run as a Libertarian canidate and then when I get into office I can sterilize all slavic people? Thanks anon I've got work to do.

>>4480711
If you can sterilize them without government force, and get them to AGREE to do it, then sure

50+ post spent arguing whether this meaningless label can be applied to two other meaningless labels.
a is 6

yeah but is it b or c?

well, it's six

YES BUT WHAT IS IT!!??

HURPA FUCKING DURPA FUCKING HURPA FUCKING GOD DAMN DURP]A FUCKING DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRR

I FUCKING HATE YOU STUPID FUCKERS!!

>>4480695
You really are a retard if you think that the US' economic growth over the last 100 years is due to economic freedom. Also that video which I'm assuming it was you who posted, is complete bullshit economics which I'm sure you could see if it didn't reinforce your preconceived notions.

Abuses still happen and they will happen, look at Singapore and Hong Kong, they may be rich but they're shitholes. Even that Occupy Wall Street thing is because income disparity has gotten so large in the US that poor people have shit while the top have everything, but you can average it all out so the figures look nice, right?

>>4480717
I don't think you understand compulsory sterilization.

>>4480720
If you hate this thread so much why post in it?

>>4480724

And I don't think you understand sarcasm.

>>4480724
the post was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, since anything compulsory is likely against libertarian ideology

>>4480722
Really? Show me ONE well-off country with great economic growth that does NOT have high economic freedom

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World

Enjoy

>>4480741

China.

It has the 6th fastest growing economy in the world, yet ranks 135th in terms of economic freedom.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

>>4480741
Ever think it's correlation rather than causation retard? How about we take a look at the top countries by HDI and test them against it. There's some there, plenty not there, high likelihood of not even correlation.

Also every other country is a shithole, you know it. When you're picking and choosing from the top ones, it's not hard to choose good examples from the top and bad examples from the bottom.

>>4480722

Income disparity is an issue due to barriers to entry, corporatism, corporate person hood and the government aiding and being complacent in corporate schemes to privatize profits socialize losses, and allowing monetary system to be controlled by a private profit driven entities.

These aren't results of to little government regulation or to much regulation but of government failing to serve its roll both in terms of what it should be doing and in terms of what it shouldn't have done.

And income disparity isn't an issue in and of itself.

The fact that Bill Gates has Billions and I only make 60000 a year isn't an issue.

It's when the government has allowed these wealthy individuals, through corporate favoritism ,protectionism(of individual companies and sectors as oppose to the nation as a whole) and unchecked monopolies, to intertwine and entrench themselves so deeply in the economy that the government serves their interest under threat of economic armageddon, to the determent of my interests and everyone elses that we have a problem.

Of course faggots like you don't help this

it's either "HURRRR DOWN WITH CAPITALISM I AM THE 99%"

OR

"DURRRRRR FUCK DA PEOPLE GIVE THE WELLS FARGO MORE SUPPORT"

because everyone knows you're either anti-capitalist or pro-corporatist because that's what Freedumb is all about.

I digress but seriously fuck you all.

>>4480790
Yet China is still a shithole. The average Chinese person lives like shit, and if you disagree, then we're not going to get anywhere - I've been there.

Now, yes, China IS growing fast. Why is that?

From the same page I gave you: Another criticism is that for example China, and more generally several other developing nations, have high growth rates but relatively low economic freedom. However, developing nations should generally have higher growth rates than developed nations, since, for example, they are catching up and do not need to research new technologies initially, as they can import investments, technology, organizatorial skills etc. from the rich countries. China started with very high poverty and very low economic freedom. "To be sure, China's economic freedom measures just 54 percent in 2007. But 30 years ago in 1977, the measure would have been near zero. By quietly setting aside Maoist dogma in 1978, the introduction of property rights for small farmers by Deng Xiaopeng initiated a revolution in economic freedom. As Milton Friedman anticipated, this small infusion had dramatic and positive effects. Within a few years, the Communist Party was promoting the slogan 'It is glorious to be rich.' Looking back, China's economic freedom has grown by 1 or 2 percentage points every year for 30 years, and the economy grew along with it: a growth-growth relationship." Chinese growth may slow if the reforms do not continue. [10]

Giving more economic freedom creates growth. China went from zero economic freedom to moderate economic freedom in the past few decades, and the results have been spectacular. However, until they continue to give their citizens freedom like seen in Japan or the West, they'll never have the development we do.

>>4480741
China has low economic freedom but has a very high growth rate and for a country of it's size and the ammount of problems it faces a pretty good standard of living.

In fact if we look at Asia and compare it with Latin America we see that the Asian countries have more corporatist economies while the latin American countries have a higher degree of economic freedom for their domestic market. Allthough some of the Asian countires may have an overall higher economic freedom score this comes from their actions on the international market.

In fact out of the more economically free countires the ones with protected domestic industries seem to be doing better than those who leave their national economy to the whims of an invisible hand.

>>4480790
>That feel when you are 62nd in that ranking

>>4480802
ooh you took a stats class, or know someone who did! Good for you.

Correlation does not necessitate causation, but when it's a tight correlation and it holds true across the world, it damn sure implies it. Show me a better way of figuring out what works.

No, this is not a cherry-picked list. The countries with the highest economic freedoms have the highest growth. The countries with the longest history of economic freedom have the most development and highest standard of living, etc etc. These are facts. There are slight exceptions to the rule, but the trend holds well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World#Research

>>4480809
Two things.

1. Latin America has a higher standard of living than does Asia.

2. China is a shithole that is growing. Now look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Tell me that is not better.

>>4480808

tl;dr

I never said China was a nice place; you wanted a country with low economic freedom and high growth and I gave you one.

I also do not dispute that economic freedom helps promote growth. It is however naive to think that this is the only factor involved. Natural resources, manpower and the will to use them are all just as important, if not more so.

>>4480832
I said well-off and with high economic growth. China is not well-off at all, it just has high growth and potentially bright future.

Natural resources, manpower, etc etc. It all seems like it would matter, but it really doesn't.

Look at the richest countries on Earth. Like Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, the U.S. Arguably only the U.S. has any significant amount of natural resources or had any significant amount of manpower, and most of that was in the South (which still sucks).

It all is shit when compared to economic freedom. That's why Africa is crap, and swampy islands like Singapore are glowing metropolises.

>>4480427