things that disproportionately effect the poor.

The environment

Name one thing Atheism can fix.

Oh that's right; you can't.

God: 1
Faggots: 0

Education
Inb4 education would magically become affordable

>>3091032
and public goods, and information asymmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

>>3091024
>>3091032
You fucking over acchievers, that's two things! OP said name one! You're why I can't get a job in a glorious free market cult based society!

Free Market can't fix Socialists.

Socialists - 1

Libertarians - 0

>>3090992

The hole in the ozone layer?

Protecting the poor

lol at statist morons coming up with things that there are already more than suitable answers for. I guess evidence alone isn't enough to get people to see that they're wrong.

>>3091032
sue people who pollute your land
boom, debunked.

>>3091032
this.

i've asked for someone to explain to me how the free market would somehow manage to not fuck up every ecosystem 'statism' has so far sufficiently protected, and i was called a troll.

>Implying the free market will just magically fix things

Socialists - 1

Libertarians - 0

>>3091110
what about public lands? oceans and other bodies of water? what about air over property you dont own but you end up breathing it in as it floats over

>>3091032

Governments have done FAR more to fuck up the environment than any company ever has.

>>3091052

It's not just about affordability, although education would definitely become much cheaper on a free market, it's about freedom of choice as much as anything else. Removing the concept that 'education' is something that happens in brick and mortar establishment between 9am and 3pm would certainly go a long way to improving the standards of education and learning. This is something that a free market would perform far better at than anything else.

>>3091054

There is no evidence that government handles any of these issues at least as well as the market does. You can't criticise reality then blame the free market for it, that's not how this shit works.

>>3091095

Protecting them from what? "Poor" is relative, you have far more right now than the richest person in the world did only a few centuries ago yet relative to the time and place you are nowhere near the richest person in the world. There is a cost attributed to everything that is created, just because it exists it does not mean everyone has a right to it. For example, certain healthcare practices that are commonplace now did not exist only a few decades ago. They only become commonplace because a free market of competition forces companies to find ways to make it affordable and provide it to as many consumers for as little as possible as quickly as possible. Without this process, with a government-led process where all these incentives are taken away it takes much longer for this technology to become commonplace.

You cannot make things go faster than they are naturally able to, the government cannot get around reality, you can only manipulate it by forcing your choices on others, which is the antithesis of freedom and everything we supposedly stand for.

Ron Paul says Free Markets fix everything

Libertarians: 1

Communists: 0

>>3091133
>Implying socialism doesn't break everything

Libertarians - 765674646435
Socialists - 0

The free market won't fix anything that is unprofitable to fix.

Fundamental science funding.

>>3091233

"Profitable" is just another term for "feasible". You cannot bypass reality, you can only take from one and give to another. You cannot objectively improve the state of affairs through appropriation.

Socialism helps niggers, therefore it's the worst system ever.

>>3091242

>>3091250
>>3091250
>>3091250
>>3091250
>>3091250

>>3091188
there is no public land in a free market system

>>3091024
Free market will eat the rich just fine.

>>3091032
Free market is our best shot at it.

>>3091117
Government is the biggest polluter.

>>3091057
See
>>3090961
Fag.

>>3091233
That just means there's no demand for it to be fixed (or it can't be), so obviously it isn't broken.

>>3091242
Useful science will be funded by the market.

>>3091205
>Governments have done FAR more to fuck up the environment than any company ever has.

nah

besides the fact that a free market never lasts, yeah good one. a free market always ends up with either a large corporation running everything or the government running everything. who ever started this post is a moron

income inequalitysevere enough to destroy consumer spending and create a recession/depression.

Good thing libertarians were never taken seriously

>>3091281

Are you denying that the existence of the state, the very entity that enables corporations in the first place, the very entity that enacts things like limited liability laws and actively encourages dangerous practices like offshore drilling and subsidises industrialisation, isn't the most environmentally-damaging institution in the history of humanity?

>>3091284

A free market has never existed.

>>3091250
No, profitable means that you get more out of something than you put into it. Without profits, capitalism can't exist.

For example, if it costs $0.25 to produce one day's worth of bread, and a portion of the population makes only $0.10 per day, then it's unprofitable to feed them and they go hungry.

>>3091276
>Useful science will be funded by the market.
The "use" of many findings in science is not readily apparent. We wouldn't have computers if it wasn't for funding of fundamental science.

Transexuals
homosexuals
feminism

>>3091332
>We need government funded science so we can discover cool shit by accident!

>>3091319
>A free market has never existed.
gee I wonder why

>>3091311
So how did rockets help the poor?

>>3091294

This is something that will correct itself on a free market. The market cannot afford to stall so people will not let it happen.

>>3091320

But you can't look at a macroeconomic phenomenon on a microeconomic scale and expect to get any understanding out of it. If bread costs that much to make then the society will have to readjust its priorities. If 90% of people were literally starving because they couldn't afford food then the hypothetical 'greedy capitalist' wouldn't have anyone to exploit for too long because they'd die of starvation. This scenario is completely bunkum.

Profitable literally does mean feasible because something isn't feasible if it is not profitable.

>>3091356
people want control

>>3091319

Pollution is the result of private property rights

Government is only upholding private property rights

So private property and capitalism is responsible for pollution

>>3090992

It easily could. Heard of X prize? People will pool money together to fix a problem if they think the problem is large enough and they are passionate enough

>>3091356

Because people are gullible and it's too easy for the government to lie to people. A stateless free market society will eventually rise when people are ready for it and want it enough.

>>3091276
>Useful science will be funded by the market.

Like dumping billions of dollars into ten thousand different types of viagra and then spending another few billions on marketing and advertising to get people to buy viagra?

Or researching ways to produce cheaper fake rubber dog shit for the dollar aisle?

>>3090992

wat

>>3091371

Wrong, private property and capitalism are not to blame for anything. Government is the antithesis of private property and capitalism. Pollution occurs because there is a disconnect in the mass consciousness between the state and liability. People view the state as legitimate even though they might not view its actions as good or desirable, this legitimacy is transferred onto anything that the state itself grants legitimacy too, and so these entities, commonly known as 'corporations', are allowed to get away with things they otherwise would not be able to on a free market.

Obama openly admitted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon crisis that he was the only thing between BP and the people with their pitchforks. Without government legitimacy no company, no matter how big, stands a chance against the will of the people.

>>3091407
Sure, why not? There's demand for it.

>>3090992

Are you the czar of spending? People will spend their money how they please libfag

>>3091360
GPS

Created jobs in the aero-spacial industry, these people spend money on things that poor people can produce

improved communications network

improved aero-space tech makes travel safer and more affordable

tech required to guide and pilot the rockets made it's way into the shiny tech we use every day including things like water treatment plants

and more

>MFW Libertarians find out Cuba has made the most advances in AIDS research in the world and has a higher life expectancy than the U.S.

>>3090992

Move to Cuba and enjoy the AIDS research fag

>>3091457
The US is more corporatist than Cuba is socialist.

That said, most Cubans live absolutely shitty lives.

quality of life.

>>3091454

Governments do not have any greater foresight than private individuals, they don't know what is going to be good any more than you or I, in fact private individuals with vested interests are more likely to know what's going to be desired. The greatest advancements that have ever occurred are entirely a result of private individuals.

>>3091457

Because they neglect pretty much every fucking thing else. And yet still the US has had far more advances in healthcare, largely due to market forces.

You cannot bypass reality. I cannot reiterate this enough.

>>3091369
>If 90% of people were literally starving

90% of people don't have to starve. As long as capitalism keeps a sizable majority of people well fed enough so that they won't revolt, then they can just tell the rest "sucks to be you."

>something isn't feasible if it is not profitable
Don't be ridiculous. The pyramids were not profitable when they were built, and yet they were still made. Or are you saying that under capitalism unprofitable things are not feasible?

>>3091434

No, capitalism (private property) is what makes destroying the environment and ecosystem profitable

The State allows private property to exist, so both are to blame really

>>3091483
>Most cubans live absolute shitty lives
Still better than the majority of capitalist caribbean countries.

>>3091483
Compared to the rest of South America and the Carribean, they actually have a remarkable high standard of living, life span, and access to education, clean water, and health care.

Their rights to political expression suck, but it's no worse than in the rest of the "non-socialist" countries in south america where you can get thrown out of a helicopter by a CIA-backed military junta for trying to form a union.

>>3091495

Individuals know how to allocate ressources according to their self-interest, but not that of the society as a whole

That's why the government funds vital research and science work

>>3091546
>Caribbean countries
>Thinks they have free markets

No. The governments are glorified crime syndicates and business is completely entwined with that. It's "corporatism" without the corporations.

>>3091499

>90% of people don't have to starve. As long as capitalism keeps a sizable majority of people well fed enough so that they won't revolt, then they can just tell the rest "sucks to be you."

Have you ever heard of a thing called private charity, you know, that thing that private individuals do out of their own free will?

Capitalism doesn't keep anyone well fed, people keep themselves well fed, if there is a lack of opportunity to make ends meet for yourself it is the fault of something else, not capitalism.

>Don't be ridiculous. The pyramids were not profitable when they were built, and yet they were still made. Or are you saying that under capitalism unprofitable things are not feasible?

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if something is not profitable it is literally not feasible, although it can be done by appropriating resources through force from peaceful individuals and redirecting it to other causes. But this doesn't bypass the reality of the fact, and you can't objectively improve the state of affairs through this process. The reality is that there is a market force (what you might have heard referred to as the 'invisible hand'), affected by the demands of people, that is saying 'this cannot be done feasibly right now, so it probably shouldn't be done'. If at some point is willing to risk their own resources that is THEIR CHOICE, they are saying 'I am ready to take a risk because I believe this might be profitable for me', and therein lies the incentive to attempt to do new things. A government-led enterprise cannot offer the same incentives, and bureaucratic tie-ups only serve to hamper the process immensely, wasting countless resources more than necessary.

>>3091495
>The greatest advancements that have ever occurred are entirely a result of private individuals
Name three that weren't funded(in part or in full) or solicited by a governing body

>>3091224

>Implying it does
>Implying you're not a Paulbot

the media

>>3091454
Do you think it would have been impossible without government, considering people have been working on flight and rocket programs before government involvement? I mean a lot of programs have been created because there was an existing operation of research and as a paranoid response to foreign powers.

>>3091579
Sounds like the inevitable result of a completely unregulated market.

>>3091528

What don't you get about this. It doesn't fucking matter what you call it, call it what you like, the state runs the show and they're the ones that fuck it all up. Forget capitalism or private property, they're irrelevant to the process that occurs. They're actually the only things that serve to stand against fucking up the environment.

>>3091569

It's only their self-interest if they're able to provide something that people will want or need. If they can't do that they can't make a profit and are thus heavily disincentivised from doing it.

The government can't know what is 'good research' any more than a private individual can.

>>3091620
But it's the same way in Cuba, don't you know?

>>3091620
Puerto Rico suffers from crazy over spending and people dependent on welfare.

>>3091654
I hope you aren't under the assumption that I think Cuba is some kind of model to follow. The point that I was making is that their are some things a command economy is better for.

>>3091614
not impossible but I'm noting that the gov't was putting things in space a lot earlier than private entrepreneurs

>>3091626

The government is also made of individuals

Something can be unprofitable but still good for society as a whole (public goods)

Government has the power to commands vast amounts of resources and make a profit for society

>the free market will fix it

What about a free market without corporations?

The free market is the ONLY thing that prevents monopolies from forming. Any monopoly/oligarchy that has emerged throughout history has been a result of government. Government itself is the biggest monopoly of all but we won't discuss that now. Corporations themselves are entities totally reliant upon the existence of the government to wield the market power they possess. Who do you think lobbies the government to enforce laws that prevent small businesses and competition from arising? Regulations, minimum wage, price fixing - any involvement by the government in the market is the facilitator of power into the hands of the elite who want to retain their control over the market. You think raw milk is illegal because it's 'bad' for you? You think drugs are illegal because the government wants to 'protect' it's citizens?

The problem is that people are only seeing the head of the hydra, they think if they only cut off it's head then everything will be better. But the head(corporations) will always come back if the heart(government) is left intact.

>>3091726
then it wouldn't be free would it

>>3091690
I think government had the incentive to do it, so they managed to do it quite fast. Once we could go to space reliably enough, ideas to take advantage of putting up satellite or doing other research from both gov and private groups were sought. I think the follow up to being able to go to space would have been the inevitable course for those with the right incentives, whether for research and development or for profit.

>>3091699

>The government is also made of individuals

But they don't act as individuals, and they haven't earned the resources that they direct.

>Something can be unprofitable but still good for society as a whole (public goods)

You cannot bypass reality. in order to provide goods or services the government must appropriate resources from productive members of society. All they're doing is saying 'yes, we know you earned it but we're taking it because we know better than you', which is patently false.

>Government has the power to commands vast amounts of resources and make a profit for society

But it never actually does this.

>>3091729
Is this nigga for serious?

Under capitalism, it's profitable to hide the truth from consumers if it means you can get them to pay more for your product.

Corporations technically can't exist in a true free market anyway.

>>3091766

Literally every single perceived problem that communists perceive with capitalism is also existent in communism. Pretty lies will not bypass reality.

The free market cannot fix how willing morons are to give up money and control for security.

>>3090992
Your mental retardation

>>3091757

If taxation is theft is what you're getting at, not it is not

I believe the government has the right to tax the Koch brothers or Bill Gates to help fund that which benefits society, like schools, roads and science research

The internet is a result of government funds put to good use, as is NASA

>>3091757
>But it never actually does this.
unless you are posting from an alternate reality the very fact that you were able to post that statement proves that you are incorrect

>>3091778
Nope that analogy is sound

>>3091835

>If taxation is theft is what you're getting at, not it is not

It is appropriation of resources. It doesn't fucking matter whether we say it's theft or not, ultimately I don't want it to be taken from me but I have no say. It might as well be theft but whatever, call it what you want.

>I believe the government has the right to tax the Koch brothers or Bill Gates to help fund that which benefits society, like schools, roads and science research

I believe that all of those things would be able to benefit society much more if people did not have their resources appropriated and were able to direct them as they see fit. I am merely asking to be left alone, you are insisting upon aggression in order for your will to be met.

>The internet is a result of government funds put to good use, as is NASA

>>3091836

>unless you are posting from an alternate reality the very fact that you were able to post that statement proves that you are incorrect

The TCP/IP protocol was developed by DARPA, the specific protocol that is used is completely fucking irrelevant, in fact if we were choosing to create a protocol now there'd be far more efficient ways to do it, but that one became the one of choice and so we pretty much have to stick with it.

Wide area networks existed well before DARPA even had anything to do with the process, there's no reason to believe that the internet wouldn't have come into existence regardless of whether the government got involved or not.

>>3091750
>I think government had the incentive to do it, so they managed to do it quite fast.
Correct, a state can allocate huge amounts of money into specific types of research and projects, unfortunately science funding atm is way too low. When they poured money and got the right heads together for research on nuclear chain reactions during the second world war, they had an A-bomb in almost no time. When they had massive funding for NASA, people walked on the moon. Imagine what could be done with a competent government that puts these kind of resources into things like: AI, cancer research, DNA/quantum computing,etc...
The problem is not "a" government, it's "the" government we currently have (I'm talking specifically about science funding, not about other things).

>>3091848

In a communist society you either work for the collective or you starve. The exact same problem exists here as people claim exists in capitalism. The reality is that it isn't a problem in either situation, the reality is that when confronted with 'work or starve' you have to work and it's as simple as that.

Say, 50 000 people need to get to work. They can take their own cars or take the bus/subway/whatever. Individually, the easiest way for them is to take their cars to work.
They do so, then the roads are congested with commuters and everybody loses.

The small, individual decisions make the whole suffer. This is something most liberals refuse to aknowledge.

>>3091835
>If taxation is theft is what you're getting at, [no] it is not
Well. That's that.

>Bill Gates
You mean the guy that has given billions in charity and has announced he will donate most of his fortune?

Good thing the government exists to steal this man's money.

"As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.They plan to eventually give 95% of their wealth to charity."

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

The Jewish Problem.

Free market can't fix human greed. In fact, human greed is the Achilles Heel of the Free Market.

>>3091898

They necessarily must allocate those resources to one enterprise at the expense of everything else. They are in no better position than anyone else to decide where these resources should go, in reality the mere fact that they only acquire these resources through appropriation, as a virtue of the fact that governments are non-productive entities, should set off alarm bells in anyone's ears.

>>3091917
exactly this. What is best for the group is more important than what is best for the individual. Libertarians think the opposite is true.

>>3091938

Right, so human greed is apparently a problem, so let's create a central entity, and we'll call this entity the government, which will surely only attract the most greedy of those greedy humans, and give them all the power in the world.

Makes perfect sense!

>>3091898
>There is starvation around the world, people without homes in the US, and diseases that show good signs of being curable with proper research, but I want the government to take billions from Americans so we can walk on the moon and make bombs.

Free market shills remind me of people like Adler and Freud. Their theory is unfalsifiable, and thus can be rejected out of hand.

It's like a cult.

>>3091938
But that could be said so all systems, especially socialism or communism...

>>3091944

Wrong, libertarianism is not about individualism, it's about the choice to be an individual. Libertarians merely posit, correctly, that on a free market the only way a person can profit is by providing something which people want. If you can't do that you can't profit.

I wouldn't be so bothered if I thought that those opposed to libertarianism even had the first fucking clue what they were really arguing against.

I can easily see half the posts written by libertarians here refuted by game theory examples. While individual agents might choose suboptimal decisions, a third party with better information can choose the more optimal one for them.

>>3091894
doesn't matter if the internet "could have" be spawned in different circumstances. The fact it exists at all renders the statement "But it never actually does this." untrue

>>3091926
The people who are helped are the people who he wants to help. Perhaps his money could be better allocated if a central government which oversaw the needs of the nation. The government is not "stealing" his money anymore than he is "stealing" from his employees, seeing as how they do not get to keep everything they produce.

>>3091962
What you describe also defines most corporations. Yet they seem to be OK in your book.

Greed is greed and harmful no matter where you find it. "I love everything about Capitalism with the single exception of Capitalists".

>>3091898
Rich people aren't going to agree to collectively pull our resources together so science can cure horrible diseases like cancer and HIV if it means they will have to buy a smaller yacht.

>>3091926

Bill Gates is also pro- tax hikes for his income group

>>3091986
>it's about the choice to be an individual
Is personal choice that different from individualism? Why bother with semantics, my point remains the same.

>>3091969

You people absolutely disgust me, how you have the nerve to sit there and consciously spew such bullshit. When all I want is to be left alone, when all I want is to be free from aggression, all I want is to be able to live my life without fear of men in blue costumes coming along to kidnap me and possibly kill me for simply wanting the freedom to not be aggressed upon, you have the nerve to say what you said.

It is fucking disgusting.

>>3091969
This. Every time I listen to libertarians discussing the free market all I can hear is conjecture, supposition and vague theories that when proven wrong are modified ad hoc. Why should anyone believe this nonsense?

>>3091926
That's because Bill Gates knows capitalism is mostly a scam and he wants to clear his conscience.

>>3092045
That's fine, as long as I can have the freedom not to be exploited by someone who was fortunate enough to have more money than me.

>>3092045
there are plenty of countries out there where that wont happen, perhaps you should go to one of them?

>>3091995

But what it does say is that if it could have occurred on the market then the government is doing, at best, just as good as the market, and at worst, much worse than the market. The government never does something that is a net positive for society.

>>3092016

Corporations are a statist entity and have absolutely nothing to do with my position. This clearly shows to me that you are an intellectual lightweight when it comes to discussing libertarianism, you don't really have any clue what you're talking about.

>>3092042

No, personal choices are not necessarily individualistic in nature. My personal choices could be for the welfare of my family, which is not individualistic.

>>3092092

You could have all that and more on a free market.

>>3092094

Name one.

Research and the space industry.

>>3092045

It's funny how poorfags think their freedom is threatened because they owe 1k in taxes to the government

>>3092045
It's like a religion. You have faith in a system that has never been proven to work and when opposing evidence comes to light you modify your theory to explain it.

This entire thread is a, "look how falsifiable my theory is" circle-jerk. I reiterate, why do people buy into this crap?

>>3090992
When the USSR turned into free-market Russia, things got worse!
Whenever Russians do something new, things ends up always worse than before!
FUCK THIS SHIT! FUCK YOU! WE BELIEVED YOUR LIES! WE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THINGS COULD BE DIFFERENT. WE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT FREE MARKET WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING! BUT WHAT DID WE GOT?
MOTHERFUCKING YELZIN! IT WILL TAKES AN ETERNITY TO RESTORE EVERYTHING AND GET RID OF THE MAFIYA!
We hadn't much, but what we had, is gone.

>>3092009
>Perhaps his money could be better allocated if a central government which oversaw the needs of the nation.

Do you think GM was more deserving of billions of dollars than the poor? Because that's what your wonderful government decided to do with all the money they stole.
Or maybe the nation "needed" to invade Iraq and spend billions of dollars killing thousands of civilizations to try to hunt down a dictator on the other side of the world.

I'm so glad we have a centralized government who sorts out our priorities for us.

>The government is not "stealing" his money anymore than he is "stealing" from his employees, seeing as how they do not get to keep everything they produce.

Oh so if I agree to work for $5 an hour making yachts that I won't keep, the yachts are being "stolen" from me?
Go to bed, commie. I don't have the energy to debunk your wage slave bullshit.

>>3092082

Because even if none of what we're saying is true, this: >>3092045

>>3092101
>But what it does say is that if it could have occurred on the market then the government is doing, at best, just as good as the market
Not really. If the market was doing as good as the government they would have created the internet first.

>>3092116
Did you miss the 50 threads the other week about the private company planning to start asteroid mining in the next few years?

>>3092126

Libertarianism isn't about theories, it's a philosophy, a set of principles. We adapt to new things when new facts and information come to light, but the core philosophy will always remain.

>>3092138

But the market is not free, it is stifled by government, not least all the red tape and regulations, but also the fact that private industry is directly taxed by government, thus removing resources from private hands that would otherwise be able to do everything government did and more, much better, much more effectively, and at a lesser cost.

But no, keep believing your myths about a perfect government.

don't feed the troll

>>3092155
I'm not talking about libertarianism, I'm talking about free market economics. This entire thread is evidence that those theories are essentially falsifiable, and thus they are crappy theories.

I myself am a left-leaning libertarian, but I'm not stupid enough to have faith that a completely free market would be a good idea.

>>3092085
>>3092009
"The rich are all greedy wealth-hoarders! Their money must be taken from them and given to others who NEED it!"

>Here's one of the richest men in the world giving away almost his entire fortune.

"He's only doing it because he feels guilty!"
"That money could be used for something better!"

You statists crack me up.

>>3092110
Somalia, most if it has no effective government ergo no one will come and collect you taxes or arrest you for not paying them.

>>3092189

I really don't get this shit people say, 'yeah the market works, but we can't have a COMPLETELY FREE MARKET'. It doesn't make sense. If the market works, which it does, then a free market makes perfect sense.

The theories are falsifiable, this is the great thing about the free market, on a free market everything can be tested, nobody can stop you from testing something, you can immediately determine if something is indeed falsifiable.

>>3092189
>This entire thread is evidence that those theories are essentially falsifiable

Point me to where the free market has been falsified. I'm not seeing it anywhere.

>>3091926
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/9/report_gates_foundation_causing_harm_with

I hate to break it to you, but Bill Gates also uses his money to sponsor eugenics.

>>3092101
so have we benefited from having the internet or not?

>>3092200
When will statists give up on the Somalia strawman and actually do some research on the country?

The place is FAR from libertarian; you're a moron.

>>3092200

Somalia has been completely ravaged by statist entities including but not limited to: Somalia's former communist government, Ethiopia, The U.N., various local state-like entities and warlords.

Somalia is actually the perfect example of why the state is completely deplorable and any person who chooses to look at the facts honestly can only come to one conclusion: the state must be ended.

>>3092131
GM collapsing would be painful for the working class. A job is better than a handout. As for the rest of that section, that problem could be solved by giving people more freedom in deciding how the government allocates their tax money.

>Oh so if I agree to work for $5 an hour making yachts that I won't keep, the yachts are being "stolen" from me?
It can hardly be called in agreement if their was no other options. I suppose you think choosing between working in a diamond mine for 14 hours a day and starving is a real choice.

Why don't you go to bed lolbertarian? If it's too hot for you get out of the kitchen.

>>3092227

>lose the argument
>change your argument post hoc

Nice try, but I'm not buying it.

>>3092219
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4BelDrWWt0

Name one successful libertarian society

>>3092217
>I really don't get this shit people say, 'yeah the market works, but we can't have a COMPLETELY FREE MARKET'. It doesn't make sense. If the market works, which it does, then a free market makes perfect sense.
Silly reasoning, something can be good in moderation but can be dangerous in great quantities.

>The theories are falsifiable, this is the great thing about the free market, on a free market everything can be tested, nobody can stop you from testing something, you can immediately determine if something is indeed falsifiable.
Yes, let's make the world economy and the lives of people into one big experiment, great plan.
Sadly I think it's the only way to prove you idiots wrong.

>>3092045
mad
paranoid

>>3092261
I'm not going to give one ounce of credit to the retarded American libertarians, but the best example would be anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

>>3092227
Is your internet provided by private entities or the state? Is it the government that builds your computer and its components like your nvidya or amd GPU? Was it the state that laid the wired foundations and made it available to the common man?

>>3092245

>I suppose you think choosing between working in a diamond mine for 14 hours a day and starving is a real choice.

It's a common misconception that this is the standard libertarian position, but anyone that would look into the philosophy and try to understand it would come to realise that it is not.

The choice isn't the point here, the lack of initiation of aggression is what matters. The market is only responding to what is FEASIBLE (aka profitable), you can't magically uplift people, it has to happen through market forces. If that means people have to work for 14 hours a day then so be it. But in reality, on a free market, this wouldn't happen, this happens because of statist forces.

>>3092277

Are you going to acknowledge any of this (>>3092174) before I respond to that or are you just going to forget that I destroyed your argument?

>>3092245
>a two minute video explaining why we don't live in a free market yet

Thanks for your input.

>>3092280
>The choice isn't the point here, the lack of initiation of aggression is what matters. The market is only responding to what is FEASIBLE (aka profitable), you can't magically uplift people, it has to happen through market forces. If that means people have to work for 14 hours a day then so be it. But in reality, on a free market, this wouldn't happen, this happens because of statist forces.
Why are you giving a non living entity life like properties? Why fetishize this non real entity as a deity that punishes us when we fail to worship it?

>>3092229
The question was about where one could live without fear of men in blue costumes(or policemen as we usually call them) harassing you for wanting a life free of aggression(or free of tax as is usually the problem libs have with the government) at no time did I state that it was a libertarian country, merely that the government in so far as it exists has not the ability to enforce its will upon the people

>>3092245
Why don't you give me a societal model where I don't have to choose between working and starving?

Oh wait, you can't. Scarce resources aren't free so someone has to do the dirty work for food.

>>3092305

Another common misconception. There are no words to convey the concept through any other means. The market is just people, enacting their wills and desires. The market is just 'the people' in its purest form.

If you can give me better words to explain this concept then by all means do so.

>>3092280
bullshit. Without regulation you only have to pay someone enough for them to stay alive. An employer only has to pay a few cents more than another employer to attract employees, and that's if the supply for jobs is higher than demand. If vice versa he doesn't need to even compete with his wages.

>>3092197
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/26/bill-gates-davos-aid

>Gates said: "no one ever said capitalism solves everything".

Even you hero Bill Gates acknowledges that the free market can't solve everything, and that government programs to fight poverty and disease and promote democracy and transparency are necessary.

>>3092328

But there are statist forces in Somalia, many greater statist forces than a lot of countries in Africa, which is really saying something.

>>3091457

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/discovery-by-canadian-led-team-could-lead-to-aids-cure/
article1191121/

http://superchief.tv/aids-vaccine-gets-fda-approval-for-human-testing-and-ups-canadas-street-cred-a-
few-points/

Nope, Canada.

>>3092328
>at no time did I state that it was a libertarian country, merely that the government in so far as it exists has not the ability to enforce its will upon the people

>the government.. has not the ability to enforce its will upon the people

Why don't you actually read some literature on the tribal warfare in Somalia before you continue to shit up this thread?

>>3092351

And how long do you think this honestly goes on for, where the vast majority of the population are essentially subjugated by a landed gentry class with no state-like legitimacy? How long do you think that can seriously go on? How do you even suppose this happens in the first place without making giant leaps in logic?

>>3092277
>Is your internet provided by private entities or the state?
Complicated but a blend of the two

Is it the government that builds your computer and its components like your nvidya or amd GPU?
Private entities who derive a considerable amount of income from the state

>Was it the state that laid the wired foundations and made it available to the common man?
Yes

>>3092354
I don't care about his opinion on economics or politics.

I was merely using him as an example against the "all rich people are greedy" fallacy.

>>3092377
It goes on until the revolution begins and the bastards are overthrown. You just disproved your own ideology.

>>3092409

But you didn't give even a remotely satisfactory explanation of how this occurs in the first place, and it also does absolutely nothing to explain why a stateless free market is undesirable, since this cannot occur as a result of a free market.

Implying letting the market slowly eradicate poor people isn't a good thing.

>>3092351
Walmart usually pays its employees more than minimum wage in most places.

It's one of the biggest corporations in the world and is deeply in bed with the government.

Why would it ever pay more than minimum wage if what you're saying is true?

Without the government the highway system would have never been built.

>>3092409
It's like you guys are implying corporation exist out of thin air. Yeah, Wall mart just happen to pop up, come by and provide jobs.

>>3092434

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in a roundabout way this is actually pretty accurate. Poor people will be uplifted by market forces on a free market.

As I explained in a post earlier in the thread, "poor" is relative, just because something exists it doesn't mean people have an automatic right to it.

>>3092441
Because it can find child labor in China and South East Asia. This is their wonderful idea of a stable capitalist system.

>>3092455

>>3092467
>Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in a roundabout way this is actually pretty accurate. Poor people will be uplifted by market forces on a free market.
What about slaves and child labor? In a truly free market, those are perfectly valid goods to trade.

>>3092426
Before the abolition of the state, the lowest you can pay someone=the minimum wage

After the abolition of the state monopoly and regulation, the lowest you can pay someone=the price of food and water required to sustain a person.

I don't see what's so complicated here

>>3092455
Not this shit again... We already crushed you a trillion times about this. Why do you faggots never learn or listen?

>>3092471

Could you spare a little time to read up on what some libertarian authors actually have to say about this subject, because since you don't understand market forces at all you don't realise why you are very fucking wrong.

It can't solve Serbian-Albanian hatred.

>>3092500
I never come to this board. Explain please?

>>3091583

But companies hold back things that aren't profitable in the short term all the time.

We wouldn't have had the internet, GPS, CellPhones, etc, etc nearly so fast if not without the DND doing R and D for wartime tech from the 40's onward.

LED Lightbulb patents were bought out by Phillips and then sat on while other smaller comptetitors had to steal business away from Phillips over the course of a decade before Phillips finally acquiesced to the fact that there was a demand for these products.

Hell even Apple is sitting on Kodak patents right now for their film, cameras, and printer to collect royalties with no plans other than to use them to sue or counter-sue competitors even when they don't produce any of those goods.

Business can and will actively seek out to destroy other businesses and make the most profits with the least possible cost.

They will actively crush R and D as long as it keeps them profitable in the short term. This is true whether the market is free or not.

>>3092496

This assumes that the only forces upon wages is regulation, which is completely and utterly patently false. There is so much information on the internet that explains this, I can link you to something to get you started if you express genuine interest in learning, but I need to know that you do want to learn.

>>3092529

>But companies hold back things that aren't profitable in the short term all the time.

OK, let's explain this one more time.

If it's not profitable that is the market telling the company that it is NOT FEASIBLE. If it's not feasible then it shouldn't be produced.

Just because something exists it doesn't mean you have any right to it.

Once something becomes profitable then it can be provided.

You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.

>>3092471
>>3092493
Child labor isn't a problem in rich nations. Do you know why?

It's because the country is rich enough to educate all of the children so their labor is worth more.

In shitty third world countries, they don't have this luxury. There are no companies competing for their labor because they are unskilled and can only work factory jobs. This is usually due to being slaves to some "government" in the area.

If a company likes Walmart shows up in a place like this, it is a blessing for these people. Sure, they are making like a dollar an hour or some other terrible salary, but this is a lot compared to what they were getting before.

Unfortunately, companies can only move into areas like this if the local "government" lets them which probably means costing giving a lot of the profit to the rich assholes who have all the power there.

>>3092529

BTW also many of the things you talk about in this post are anti-capitalistic statist forces. Patents are directly opposed to the capitalist process.

>>3092552
>If it's not profitable that is the market telling the company that it is NOT FEASIBLE. If it's not feasible then it shouldn't be produced.
So analog transistors weren't feasible? Any engineer with half a brain could tell you that return on investment of technologies we take for granted today weren't profitable for decades, and would have not been developed without serious government guarantees.

>>3092580

>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.
>You can't bypass reality by forcing something to be provided, you are merely appropriating resources, redirecting the productivity of others as you see fit, using force, which is fucking abhorrent.

>>3092508
>you're wrong but i'm unable to explain why

Great response.

>>3092530
>This assumes that the only forces upon wages is regulation
No, as I said, competition, prices, and demand also play a roll. The only thing regulation does is raise the standard, so to speak, of how high wages should be. If your information addresses a different concern you have with something I said, please post it, I will bookmark it and read it tomorrow.

>>3092569
>It's because the country is rich enough to educate all of the children so their labor is worth more.
It's because there are laws that make it presently illegal for child labor to exist, which existed well into the 1920s. How delusional can you get?

>If a company likes Walmart shows up in a place like this, it is a blessing for these people. Sure, they are making like a dollar an hour or some other terrible salary, but this is a lot compared to what they were getting before.
It's a blessing that they work 17 hour days and still have to deal with a ridiculous cost of living?

>>3092580
>Any engineer with half a brain could tell you that return on investment of technologies we take for granted today weren't profitable for decades, and would have not been developed without serious government guarantees.

Name one

>>3092552

Force doesn't limit itself to the government

Capitalism is force too

>>3092603

OK, so you're not interested in learning, good to know, now I can ignore what you're saying.

>>3092552
>Just because something exists it doesn't mean you have any right to it.

You're talking about property, right? Because Marxists have been saying this since the 1800s.

>>3092621
engineer or product?

>>3092622
>Capitalism is force too

There is nothing forceful about voluntary interaction

>>3092621
Thousands of analog transistors were purchased by the government by guarantee before analog transistors were purchased by private entities.

Also, the internet and computer, which were associated strictly to defense research and government related projects.

>>3091932
>>3091932
>>3091932
Fuck I'm libertarian and this faggot is completely right.

>>3092652

To use the example of someone who posted earlier ITT, choosing to work for 14 hours in a diamond mine and starving is coercion, or force

Force can be explicit and implicit

>>3092569
>Child labor isn't a problem in rich nations. Do you know why?

Yes, because now it's banned. In Asia, it's not banned. Which is why you still have kids working in sweatshops.

>>3092613
>It's because there are laws that make it presently illegal for child labor to exist, which existed well into the 1920s. How delusional can you get?

If child labor disappeared tomorrow in the US, you think suddenly all kids would be forced into work?
How delusional can you get?


>>3092613
>It's a blessing that they work 17 hour days and still have to deal with a ridiculous cost of living?

Yes, it's better working than 17 hours a day for half as much money. Did you even read my post? You just ignored my entire point.

How about nursing homes?

Without more Government regulation we would see an increase in poor nursing homes that neglect their patients (let them sleep in their own shit and pee, among other horrible things) .

Free market and competition can't fix this. The better nursing homes become more expensive than the shitty ones... but since people can't afford the better nursing homes they would have to settle with the crappy ones.

No, people can't just take care of their parents... they might work long hours or their parents might be so ill they cannot take care of them.

We need more government regulation when it comes to this.

>>3092529
>LED Lightbulb patents were bought out by Phillips and then sat on while other smaller comptetitors had to steal business away from Phillips over the course of a decade before Phillips finally acquiesced to the fact that there was a demand for these products.

This is another good example of how THE GOVERNMENT fucks up everything. These companies are using THE GOVERNMENT to squash competitors and fuck up everyone else in the process. Patents are awarded by the government, not by the free market. If we didn't patents then none of these problems would occur. This is also the reason why the electric car was killed and NiMH batteries can't be used in EV's.
http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm

>>3092662
Transistors were developed by scientists working for telecommunications and electrical companies and universities

government had nothing to do with it

Internet, computers were all underway long before government got involved

>>3092706
I can't tell if this guy is joking or not.

>>3092709
Patents could be awarded by the free market though.

It would just be very different.

>>3092703
>If child labor disappeared tomorrow in the US, you think suddenly all kids would be forced into work?
The poor kids would. Middle class kids might be forced to work too, seeing that your typical middle class family needs basically everyone in their family entering the work force to just sustain their "middle class" status now.

>Yes, it's better working than 17 hours a day for half as much money. Did you even read my post? You just ignored my entire point.
Your entire post ignored that these people need to work these hours simply to survive, and return to shacks made out of metal in some mass slum where they spend all of their money on food and other basic needs.

>>3091938
And Left-wing ideologies can't fix human nature.

>If child labor disappeared tomorrow in the US, you think suddenly all kids would be forced into work?
They already have child labor in the agriculture industry, where the laws aren't applicable.

>>3092675
>choosing to work for 14 hours
>choosing

derp more please
and don't give me the emotional appeal become some people in poor countries(most which are dictatorship or have heavy govt. control) have to work long hours to survive, it was the exact same thing the west went through before we had capitalism and the industrial revolution.

The Free Market can't fix the Free Market because:
1:Its never existed
2:Its not free.

Its like using the phrase "Free Enterpirse" to describe our moneytary system. Its not a free enterprise system because its not free. So it needs to be named what it is.
A concentration of wealth system because thats what capitalism is and requires.

Lolbertarians are kind of like religious zealots. They believe in what's essentially an unfalsifiable hypothesis that will never come to fruition. There is no proof that a free market will lead to such and such, i.e huge corporations controlling all wealth, or a happy competition, because the free market is not allowed to exist for good reasons. You can't argue with them because their theories are not relevant to the real world. What we do know is that wealth tends to centralise into fewer and fewer hands, and that virtually all existing societies now and in history have been essentially controlled by the wealthy. They're kind of like communists but with no evidence or emotional appeal.

>>3092552
1/2
And let me explain this to you very very slowly so you understand it.

Companies care about profits and only profits. The bottom line is their bottom line.

If a product saves consumers money, doesn't not make the company as much profit, and costs them in initial R and D they will not do it.

No matter if the product is a net gain for society and for the consumers.

I will go through this example one more time about Phillips.

About a decade ago (10 years ago) Phillips bought up patents to several LED Lamps. At the time the R and D was expensive, the light bulbs were better for the environment than both Incandescent and CFLs.

They also cost more to make them and saved people a ton on their energy bills.

What do you think Phillips did? Did they rush out and start the R and D to make the Light Bulbs cheaper and cheaper and better and better thus securing short term profits, long term profits and benefits and paving the way for securing more buyers who were concerned about cost efficiency and the environment?

>>3092723
>Transistors were developed by scientists working for telecommunications and electrical companies and universities
That's why it's called a subsidy. They took government money to fund their project. Also, you don't know what a public university is.

>Internet, computers were all underway long before government got involved
You don't know what DARPA is

>>3092725

I'm not joking. I've worked at some of the shitty nursing homes I spoke about in my post, the things you see at these places are fucking nightmare fuel.

>>3092552

>>3092786
2/2

No, of course not. They stuck with the CFL's and Incandescent bulbs because they did the math and saw that it made them a lot more money to keep selling those.

Only when much smaller rival companies started showing that they were profitable and actually started taking some business from Phillips did they finally get off their asses and start to produce the bulbs to make profits.

It was profitable ALWAYS. it just wasn't AS profitable.

So listen up and listen well asshole. The free market will never fix personal or corporate greed. They will always stick with short sighted plans that produce higher profits in the short term.

Corporations are, by definition, sociopathic in their behaviour.

This isn't to say other businesses won't force them to evolve and adapt but, they will always be dragged kicking and screaming towards a better future if it doesn't produce the greatest profits possible.

>>3092738
Just because your parents didn't love you doesn't mean that would happen to anyone else.

I can't imagine any parent I have ever met not making sure their kid at least got a high school diploma, if not more. Maybe I should talk to more parents in the ghetto, where it might actually be a problem.

>Your entire post ignored that these people need to work these hours simply to survive, and return to shacks made out of metal in some mass slum where they spend all of their money on food and other basic needs.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. Either it's better for Walmart to come along and pay them a high wage than they were currently making or it's not. Your dream hypothetical where Walmart comes in and pays everyone $20 an hour (which would be charity since they would be losing an insane amount of money) isn't very applicable here.

>>3092768

>implying it's not a choice

The same way you have the choice to pay your taxes or fuck off back to Somalia

>>3092773
define wealth

If you think it's just money then you have no clue on what you're talking about

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0hd6QQ08Ecj

>>3092814
Having to work to survive because of nature is not the same thing has having to pay fealty to other human beings who will throw you in cages if you don't bow to their whims

>>3092810
>I can't imagine any parent I have ever met not making sure their kid at least got a high school diploma, if not more
Fuck me, what a sheltered life you must lead. Have you ever met a real person?

Listen up friends

Your argument must be based off first principles or you will end up running into endless contradictions.

It is universally considered unethical to initiate coercive force against another human being who is themselves a non-aggressor.

This would make any and all forms of government unethical based upon this universal principle of non-aggression.

>>3092827
>muh freemarket
What?

>>3092904
You're mom and/or dad seriously wouldn't pay to support you as you finished high school if they weren't forced by law?

I'm not saying this problem would never occur, really, I would think it's mostly just not an American problem.

Even still, I would rather see a 14 year old start to work and bring home some money for her family than continue to go to school for 3-4 years as she lives in poverty and her parents lose the house or something.

I think it's rather harmful to drag kids in the ghetto through a useless education where they learn nothing when they could be at least making a living and getting work experience. It's probably one of the main reasons kids in these shit public schools get caught up in buying and selling drugs. It's one of the only ways to make money because any corporation can't hire them due to government intervention.

>>3093085
my dad would want to but be unable to afford it my mum refused to pay child support so go figure. I grew up in a part or England where schooling beyond basic numeracy and literacy were considered a waste of time and having a wide vocabulary and wanting to actually learn things was actively frowned upon.
Being educated was akin to being posh and the posh were the enemy

It'd be more accurate to say,

"Identify one good or service the government supplies more efficiently than the free market?"