Actually most of those views fall under what could be called anarcho-capitalism. Personally I find the theory compromises too much, as the existence of capital precludes the conditions that make traditional anarchy theoretically, aesthetically and emotionally appealing to me.

Inb4 idiots confuse libertarians with liberals

They are patently not the same thing.

>activist rev al sharpton
>activist rev
>rev

There's your problem right there

I don't disagree with most of what libertarians stand for, in principle, but then I'm an educated able bodied male. I'm not going to require social welfare services the way that cripples or single mothers do.

Libertarianism as it's promoted today seems to be the exclusive domain of educated, able bodied males because you sort of need to be one in order to thrive under the system they propose.

What the fuck.

Anyone with any fucking common sense would believe the statements on the left.

improved, fixed some typos, etc.

>>8342784

Because they're selectively presented to the exclusion of those aspects of Libertarianism which are harder to defend. A clever apologist can make damn near any political or economic model sound incredibly sensible regardless of how workable it is.

>>8342810
>>8342784

Everyone agrees that "government today is a net negative for humanity?"

However, yes, economics is fairly common sense logic and libertarianism is based on economic logic.

>>8342738
This critique of Libertarianism dates all the way back to the original Libertarians and Utilitarians, and guess what? They were rich white men too. The critique was as true then as it is now.

Keep in mind that the positions on the left are based on theory, and that the views on the right are based on what has happened in practice.

>>8342738

genetic fallacy

>>8342873
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Arbitrage is inherently risky, you have to be a complete retard to believe that markets are most efficient. Libertarians are total morons that fancy themselves to be totally rational geniuses, it's a good thing that they're never going to amount to anything.

Just listen to what some popular youtube libertarians post in absolute seriousness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63VgEAjznK4

>>8342937

They're based on economic logic and empirical study.

>>8342606

Nice job OP I like it. I also like how you avoided the "sectarianism" we libertarians are plagued by and said things that most, if not all, libertarians of any stripe could agree with.

>>8342937
Keep in mind that once you re-read what is said on the right, you will realize your statement makes no sense.

>>8342982
>Our dirt-poor people are better than your dirt-poor people!

>>8342982

What are the criteria for the World Bank's conception of "economic freedom"?

>>8342658 here

Libertarians aren't radical enough! They aren't utopian enough!

Furthermore your facile reduction of liberal democratic theory is insulting and counter-productive to your stated cause, which makes me question how firmly you believe in it anyway.

>>8342970
Everything is inherently risky. All decision making involves approximation of risk-analysis.

But why are you talking about arbitrage? Do you understand what it means? Activity towards inter-market equilibrium?

>famous youtube libertarian
>random kid with 300 views

Yeah, okay...

>>8342982

Eh fuck empiricism. Statistics are too easily manipulated to be trusted.

Take your chart for example. There could, hypothetically, be any number of factors that would explain the wealth of "more free" countries besides their "freedom". I mean I agree with you but I think you can see what I mean.

The best arguments for libertarianism IMO are careful logical analyses of how an economy works, a la Murray Rothbard's Man Economy & State.

I'm sick of libertarianism though. Lotta jingoism and general faggotry that makes us look bad. "HURR WE JUST WANT FREEDOM!" etc. Catch-phrases and such.

._.

>>8343029
That you let the West do what the fuck it wants to your economy, basically.

>>8343029
People in Myanmar can only buy their food at the general store, whereas Americans have a whole host of fast-food stores to choose from! No, it's not really that.

>>8343067

You have to have both logical analysis and empirical study. Some people are more convinced by logical arguments, some by empirical. You weaken yourself if you discount either one.

>>8343067

SHUT UP UR JUST SUM 15-YEAR-OLD FATASS WHITE KID U DONT NO WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE ON THE STREETS U FUCKING FAGGET

>>8343029
Privatise everything and sell it on the cheap to neo-colonialists.

>>8343100

Unfortunately libertarians have neither. lol@all you mises worshiping nerdlings.

>We want total anarchy! No laws!

Stopped reading there. OP is a fag if he doesn't realize libertarianism is almost identical with certain branches of anarchism.

>>8343131

Powerful argument, anon.

>>8343131

Go away triptroll.

>lol ill call myself a "lenenist" and misspell it on purpose to boot that'll get 'em going!

A question for lolbertarians:

Why can't we count government as a business that provides a valuable service of limiting other businesses?

>>8343147
Philosophical anarchism is different than practical anarchism.

The difference being that anyone who believes in practical anarchism is a fucking idiot who doesn't know that the nature of man cannot be changed.

>>8343147
I'm using "anarchy" in the pejorative sense as it is defined in every dictionary - chaos, lawlessnes, disorder, violence, etc. etc.

>>8343147

Uh, almost all branches of anarchism are socialist in nature, aside from so called anarcho-capitalism which isn't even real anarchism.

Anarchy and capitalism do not and should not ever mix. Capitalism is inherently just as artificial and oppressive as any government ever could or ever would be.

>>8343161

Because it's not a business. It's not voluntary. We can't choose to stop giving them our business. We can't even secede without getting blowed up.

>>8343171
ODE:
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

>>8343173
Wait, what?

Capitalism is the fucking way of nature. The people who are on top deserve to be on top because they know how the world works and how to get to the top, whether they're exploiting others or doing it honestly.

>>8343161
It could be - that would be a PDO or security insurance organization or voluntary communal security firm - but it's not. It's an ideologically legitimized monopoly on institutional, proactive, physical coercion.

>>8343179
Wait so what is it called when your government is propped up by corporations, yet cynically maintains is sovereignty to the people?

You can't opt out of government? Bullshit. You just can't opt out of capital.

>>8343184

OED

anarchy
noun

1. a state of disorder
2. a society founded on the principles of anarchism

>>8343202

No it has nothing to do with nature. Capitalism as we know it is a relatively modern invention, hunter-gatherers and the family unit are far more socialist in nature. Socialism is the only way for people to ever be truly free, and not just wage slaves or cogs in a machine.

Anarcho-capitalism is basically bullshit and I don't know a single true anarchist who takes it seriously.

Reminder that it is never worth it to argue with libertarians because they will never accomplish anything beyond annoying people on the internet occasionally.

>>8342606

The funniest thing is that you take the right column, dress it up a bit, and you get the Libertarian left column.

This leads me to believe you are either a troll or a true brainwashed libertarian that thinks adding 50 cent words makes your beliefs more worthy.

>>8343179
>>8343203
As much of a choice as anything else really. If you don't like it there's plenty of other governments in the world to choose from. If you really hate government, Somalia is great.

>>8343162

>the nature of man cannot be changed.

Why don't you first establish what this "nature of man" is?

>>8343221
I disagree. Socialism is state ownership of property, but what I think is crucial is the abolition of property as such. After all, what is the state but a group of people? If the state owns property, it might as well be the case that those people own property, which is the negation of socialism. Unless you maintain that the state is some kind of transcendental entity, but then you'd be ignoring the critique of pure reason and I'd have to punch you in the ovaries.

>>8343221
>Socialism is the only way for people to ever be truly free

I want to rip your fucking throat out. I want to stab you in the god damn fucking eyes right fucking now. There are no fucking words for how much I hate EVERY SINGLE FUCKER WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS SHIT.

>>8343220
I think I am using the american ODE. Apologies if dictionaries are your thing I know some people are very passionate about the ODE and I totally respect that.

>>8343287
Word.

>totalagreementblox

The pure science of Marxism Leninism transformed a country of mud and retards into a world power even after being attacked from literally all sides while simultaneously fighting a civil war and then single handedly defeating Nazi Germany.

Accomplishments of Lolbertarianism:
Posted a youtube video, three hundred viewers finally!!!

>>8343284

Socialism isn't necessarily state ownership of property. You are operating from a very very narrow definition of socialism there. Socialism does not even require the existence of a state (which is how almost all forms of anarchism are socialist in nature in the first place).

>Humans naturally cooperate voluntarily.
>what the fuck am I reading

>>8343311

>hurr maybe if I keep posting someone will fall for it!

You're truly pathetic. Like I said before, go away triptroll.

"HURR IM TOTALLY TROLLING HIM RIGHT NOW LOOK AT HIM RAGE!"

You're the cancer that's killing trolling.

>>8343312
I'm of the understanding I'm using a description of socialism that most socialists would find acceptable, that is, Marx's definition. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-communism.

I think we have the same idea, but different words to articulate them. To me, anarchism is primary to socialism, that is socialism is an attempt at real anarchy but I think to you anarchy is just a mode of socialism, so I'm curious as to how you yourself define socialism.

>>8343275
Ambition, individualism, and intelligence, along with a lot of other shit.

The point is there can never be a true anarchist society because people aren't inherently equal. There are people who are genetically predisposed to being smarter, stronger, faster, wittier, more charismatic, etc. There can never be a society where all people are treated as equals because all people are not equals. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of ethics - yes, people are treated equally. But when it actually comes down to having to do something, there are people who will excel and people who will fall flat on their faces.

That is why socialism and anarchism will never work.

>>8343287

This is how brainwashed Americans literally react to voices which dare to challenge the power of the industrial and financial capitalists. This is how red scare starts.

>>8343331
Seriously?

Sad life you must lead.

>>8343284
>After all, what is the state but a group of people? If the state owns property, it might as well be the case that those people own property, which is the negation of socialism

Ownership is just an intersubjective consensus. If the relevant subjects around you don't agree that something belongs to you, then subjectively, it doesn't belong to you. In a libertarian society, if acquire something through threats of violence or actual violence (like the state does) nobody will agree that you own it and you will most likely not be able to hold on to that piece of ill-gotten property for long.

>>8343364

The hundreds of millions of people slaughtered by Communist governments make us a bit skittish of the whole thing, yes.

>>8343311

lol, funny because it is true.

>>8343351

Either public or direct worker control of the means of production. No more no less.

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

Marxist-Leninist entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2RREUyPe38

Lolbertarian entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

Changed the verb tense.

better?

>>8343360
We can give people who weren't born equal to us in all respects the means to lead a dignified existence. To say we shouldn't seems callous. If we assume that all people are of intrinsic and essential worth by virtue of their membership in the human race, then the fact that some will "succeed" (succeed at doing what? accumulating more capital in a world without such?) and some will "fail" and that this is a suitable metric for the valuation of their lives is incoherent.

>>8343360

Who says those people who aren't strong enough for the society can't just be left behind?

>>8343386

None of which were truly Communist at all in the first place, as Communism is the final state in which government is abolished completely. Capitalism, otoh is inherently exploitative and deadly--all sorts of slavery, worker exploitation, and imperialism are caused by capitalism and the relentless pursuit of more power for the capitalists.

>>8343364
Oh, fuck off. I couldn't care less about 'merrica.
I just really fucking hate state-socialists and state-communists.

I'n not >>8343287 btw

"communism slaughtered hundreds of millions" - A literal retard

>>8343413
And all of the examples you listed happened in societies that were never truly capitalist.

>completelyseriousblox

>>8343386
>>8343388
>>8343394
>>8343413

I really don't think libertarians should bother arguing against communism or Marxist-Leninism. Liberals, Keynesians, conservatives, most progressives, etc. are already on our side on that one.

We need to argue against American state corporatism and welfare statism, to point out logically and empirically why and how freedom reduces poverty and improves human well-being.

>>8343376
It sounds like you are using intersubjective consensus as a stand-in for the state. Conceivably, intersubjective consensus could rob you of everything you had, if you were very rich this could possibly benefit a number of your fellow 'subjects'.

Crucial to my theorizing on this subject is that the very existence of property IS theft. To say that one has a right to something moreso than another person is to assume your superiority to them, which I have argued consistently, is incoherent.

>>8343410

Lawyers, they buy votes from scummy people by feeding them incentives for being scummy, poor, unproductive people.

>>8343467
Your brand of freedom is the freedom to choose between 84 different brands of cereal instead of 83.

>>8343413

And now we argue semantics. "WELL THAT WASNT RLY COMMUNISM UNDER MARX'S SCHEMATA THAT WAS SOCIALISM LOLOL XD"

I hate these threads.

>>8343410
Because that's fucking facism, goddamn eugenics for crying out loud, and everyone saw how well that worked out.

I grew up in Poland in the late 80s.

Internet socialists make me physically ill. Like literally nauseous. You have no idea how bad a state-planned economy is. You really don't.

Leaving thread nao.

>>8343427

State-communist is an oxymoron. Looks like you are stupid, doubly so since you admit my post wasn't referring to you in the first place. Better luck next time, worthless lolbertarian faggot.

>>8343530

It could have worked out a whole lot better if Hitler had chosen a race that noone liked....like niggers. Jews actually produce a lot, believe it or not.

>>8343465

LOL. If they involve the use of CAPITAL then they are CAPITALIST. Retard.

>>8343503
No, it's not. Freedom = absence of proactive, interpersonal coercion, especially ideologically institutionalized monopoly threat thereof. We are in favor of more voluntary human interaction and less coercion.

>>8343543

lol what a pussy amirite?

blocksityblocksblox

>>8343569

By this definition Capitalism loses all meaning.

>>8343530
You may be surprised to learn that most visitors here don't have any problem with any of those things whatsoever.

Try not to flinch in the face of such demoniac horror.

>>8343577

Lol, like there's a single voluntary thing about wage slavery.

>>8343569
Everything involves capital and capital as such will always be necessary, as Gandhi pointed out. So will property.

>>8343577
The coercion you deride is merely the visible kind.

The coercion you should be fighting structures your unquestioned reality.

>>8343543

Yeah, because socialism=state planned economy.

Thanks for confirming all the worst stereotypes about Polacks. Next time try reading a book.

Even better, read two books--one about the definition of socialism and one about the effects of capitalist imperialism.

>>8343413

Actually they were communist. Communism was the end goal, what millions gave their lives for.

A baby liberals thought process: Under Mao literally everything improved in every possible way, but millions died due to the Great Leap Forward, collectivization/famines, etc. Therefore, Mao should never have come to power and China should have stayed a feudal shit hole with a incompetent emperor that didn't give a fuck about millions dying from famines or being gang raped by roving gangs of bandits straight from Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

>>8343597
"Wage slavery" is a childishly stupid nonconcept based on the obsolete economic mysticism that is the Labor Theory of Value. It's an insult to actual chattel slaves to call wage employment "slavery."

It's nothing but emotional language that serves to confuse a logical means-ends analysis.

>>8343605
Suspend your disbelief about what revolution proposes for a minute and ask yourself if it were possible, would it also be desirable. Suspend it a minute longer and recognize your disbelief for what it is, despair!

>>8343620
We can talk about metaphysics later. You don't know what someone values better than they know what they value. I don't know what makes you happy better than you know what makes you happy. These values are only revealed through physically non-coerced ie. voluntary human action. This axiom is the foundation of modern economics.

>>8343639

No it isn't. In a Capitalist system you jump through the hoops of the free market and if you don't jump through their hoops you can just go starve to death, or be arrested. Whoever is born the richest has all the power, everyone else just works until they fucking die, making worthless shit to further benefit the bourgeoise. And if you don't, you die.

Thats slavery. Socialism is the only true freedom.

libertians are dumb

>>8343639
Perhaps you are being ironic, but your post was an incendiary conglomeration of emotional arguments and language. Wage slavery is a meticulously defined philosophical concept developed throughout the whole lifetime of one of the most brilliant philosophers that ever lived.

>>8343629

Uh I support Mao in most ways, as do most Chinese.

I'm just saying--if they don't follow COMMUNISM they aren't COMMUNIST. You might say they were working toward Communism but that's a load of fucking shit. Where are they now? Russia is fucking Capitalist (and way worse off than it ever was under Communism), China is fucking Capitalist, they are all fucking Capitalist.

>>8343692
You're just citing platitudes and slogans, not making arguments, but whatever. I'm not really interested in convincing people like you. I'm interested in convincing the supermajority of people ie. non-Marxist non-communists.

>>8343473
"To say that one has a right to something moreso than another person is to assume your superiority to them, which I have argued consistently, is incoherent."

Do you own your body? If not, who does? If the answer is "no one", or even worse, "everyone", is rape a crime?

>>8343684
I am accusing you not on the basis that what you desire is, in matter of objective fact, undesirable, but rather on the basis that (and I hesitate here to use the second person because I don't and can't know you or what you are about so I apologize in advance) you cannot even say why you want what you want. If you cannot articulate your reason for acting, it seems obvious that the laws which govern your behaviour go unquestioned by you. I firmly believe that if you question your notions of what is desirable, you will come out radically shaken, and thoroughly disgusted with the society in which you find yourself (assuming you are a member of a wealthy, western liberal democracy).

>>8343766
The notion of crime is equally as incoherent to me as the notion of property. Same goes for morality.

>>8343759

lol don't bother, the US government and the media have done all the convincing for you.

You'll be hurting when the revolution comes, lolbertarian faggot.

>>8343735
They are more purely capitalistic than most formally capitalist societies.

Hey guys, look at me! I can troll too!

Fixed for accuracy, you faggot.

>>8343820

lol I am saving this shit. Good stuff.

>>8343787

You make a moral judgment every time you take a breath of oxygen. Every action implies a reference to a standard of morality - even if only to a person, subjective one.

Seriously what the fuck am I reading? Do people really believe this nowadays?

Can anyone please tell me that the people who are saying socialism is the only way you can have real freedom are big fucking trolls and I'm falling for it?

I have never felt such rage in my entire life. Freedom and individualism are one and the fucking same.

>>8343801

Russia maybe, it's been a lost cause ever since it didn't opt to start WW III in 1991. China is nowhere near as "capitalist" as most industrialized nations. The most purely capitalist nations on Earth are in the third world.

>>8343770
Thinking about value formation, about why you want what you want, is interesting... but whatever one gets from that introspection, it cannot be applied to other people as justification for coercing them for their own good based on your subjective psychoanalysis. It is logically untenable. This is why people take economics many times more seriously than critical theory..

>>8343790
adopt a christian attitude to revolution. refuse to hate him, it's the only way he can comfortably define himself in relation to you. take it away from him and he loses his power.

>>8343870

The majority of truly socialist societies are in the third world also.

China is capitalist. You might say it is less capitalist, you might say it is more capitalist, but it aint fucking communist, nor is it working or getting any closer to communism.

>>8343869

Socialists are individualists. Check mate lolbertarians.

>>8343820
>Ron Paul
>doesn't know anything about economics

Stopped reading there.

>>8343868
I don't understand this post. Sorry, maybe it is a moral failure of mine.

In a world without a monopoly on force(I.E. government) it would quickly turn into an all out turf war. Al Capone's all over the world would start intimidating people, breaking kneecaps, all that jazz. There's no police force, HELL he could just make his OWN police force!

Government is needed, you can fight for a government thats more representative of the people, but to fight against government is to turn the world over to thugs who now have free reign.

Whenever there's a power vacuum, some persons WILL step forward to fill it. This is why I don't believe in any form of anarchism, be it a libertarian or socialist world. Fascism is truly the only thing you can bet on their being in the future.

>>8343913

Wait where are all da socialist societies at? Cuba is the only one I can think of atm.

>>8343787
So correct if I'm wrong: you think, in the truest sense, that crime and morality don't (can't?) exist? That, in effect, there is nothing inherently wrong with rape and murder?

>>8343873
I agree with you; I cannot apply the result of my personal introspection to explain and/or commodify your otherness to me. However, I can urge you to carry out the introspection yourself, and I am confident that I will know when you have listened.

>>8343697
>>8343820
>>8343830

we got ourselves a raging butthurt madfag

>>8343934
Wait, this is basically what goes on in global politics anyway.

>>8343869

Uh, I said it and I meant it. No freedom is not the same thing as "individualism". And freedom is the exact fucking opposite of capitalism.

Typical lolbertarian thought process.
AMERICA= CAPITALISM
AMERICA=FREEDOM
CAPITALISM=FREEDOM
MORE CAPITALISM = MORE FREEDOM

Bullshit. There is not ONE SINGLE free thing about Capitalism, in which people are reduced to either literal slaves or wage slaves. Socialism allows for total freedom and it is not incompatible with individualism.

>>8343946
All I can say about rape and murder is that they inspire feelings of strong aversion in me.

>>8343938

Hunter-gatherer societies are traditionally socialist in nature.

China is capitalist.

>>8343926

Sorry you're right dude I didn't explain what I meant.

Morality = "rightness", that is to say the selection of some actions as being more worthy than others. That's all it is in essence.

Now you of course have a sense of morality because you choose to do certain things. For example, right now you're choosing to debate politics and whatnot on 4chan as opposed to, say, fapping, or going on a walk, or any number of other things you can do. You do have a sense of right and wrong - it's built into the fabric of human action.

Now this isn't to say that there's objective morality, or that you can judge the actions of other people, or that your personal moral compass has "meaning" (whatever that means), etc.

But you can't say that morality per se doesn't exist, that's just silly.

See what I mean?

>>8343984

>AMERICA=CAPITALISM

Hahahahahaha, no

>>8343922

lol Ron Paul is a moron and lolbertarians literally thought he was going to win.

>>8343922
Ron Paul doesn't know anything about economics. His knowledge of economics is comparable to that of a Introductory Econ class, if that. He has no idea how money works and how the Federal Reserve works.

>>8343984
Freedom: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

Individualism: a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence

Don't fucking tell me that the two don't go hand in hand.

And the whole America=Freedom crap is bullshit. I can't fucking stand people who use 'freedom' as a buzzword for AMURRICA without even thinking for a second about what the word actually means.

>>8343996

How can a society be socialist when there aren't any means of production to control? Are you an anarchist because I've only ever heard anarchists try to make this claim.

>>8344019

lol, I like how you say "haahaha no" at AMERICA=CAPITALISM but not at AMERICA=FREEDOM, or CAPITALISM=FREEDOM.

Typical lolbertarian. I seriously cannot wait to see you all wiped off the planet.

>>8343597
You consume resources, and thus in return you must produce resources. Where's the slavery in that?

>>8344037

Uh yes, as a matter of fact I am anarchist. Hunter-gatherers and the family unit are pure socialism/communism, along with isolated cities and communes elsewhere.

>>8344016
Saying that I choose one action over another then assuming that I choose that action on the basis of its rightness is an inference that doesn't find its support in what you're saying.

What I choose to do isn't conditioned by what I perceive as right or good, it's the result of my desire. How can you apply labels like right or good to blind, thoughtless desire? It seems impossible to me. I may perform actions which conceive of as good or right, such as helping my friend move his apartment, but I don't think in those terms. I helped my friend move because I wanted to, and that's the only reason.

>>8343977
>>8343977
fucking EXACTLY, we've arrived were we are even though, at the rise of man we lived in primitive-communist tribes.

Why? because someone is always going to want MORE. Our want of more control over the world we live in(paranoids will mistakenly tell you its control over everyone) leads to bigger and more complex forms of government.

To fight against authoritarianism is to fight against real progress and human nature. What we can do, is as a species, come to terms with this and become a complete fascist society. Leaders now have to pander to libertarians and socialists who love "FREEDOM!".

>>8344033

Individualism does not imply capitalism though. That's where you are retarded. And no, more communal societies are just as free as individualist societies.

Government is like religion, a symptom, not a cause. But leave it to cretins to bark at the wrong tree, as usual.

>>8344057

If it is forced, it is slavery. Socialism is the only path to freedom.

ITT: libertarians try to reason with trolls and 12-year-old communists

>>8344082
A return to our roots might be preferable to a brave new world.

>>8344084
You stupid fucking bitch, I never said a word about capitalism.

Economic freedom is key, but so is a watchful government eye to make sure that a person's intrinsic human rights aren't compromised.

Just because some people are smarter than others doesn't mean that anyone deserves to live on the streets or be a total slave to someone's company.

>>8344059
Look, socialism is not communism. The communist plan included instituting an authoritarian form of socialism in order to PREPARE Russia for true communism, but they have absolutely nothing in common besides vague similarities in their intention of elminating or easing class barriers. Socialism means that the state controls the means of production, and doles it out as it sees fit. If there is no centralization, there can be no socialism.

>>8344146
>implying what the the lolbertarians in this thread are doing could be called reasoning

>>8344087
Symptoms of what? Humanity?

And let me guess - your cure is genocide or fascism? Nice try, little mister twelve year old supervillain.

>>8344146 ITT: People who are at least slightly informed try to correct twelve-year-old libertarians and get ad hominem attacks in return.

>as a matter of fact I am anarchist

lol remember that time in Spain when you guys basically played for a few months drinking wine from your parents winery and shit until the rest of the world decided they had enough of your tomfoolery and ever since you've been in a bad mood because a tiny sound wave knocked over your fragile utopia house of cards.

>>8344165
I think it would behoove you to be more open to lines of criticism you find especially threatening.

>>8344157

I see empirical economic data and logical arguments. I call that 'reasoning.'

On the other side, I see trolling and logical fallacy.

>>8344147
Nope, its too late. People's minds are too smart for that. You don't think one person would unite a tribe and then ride out to conqueror other tribes? We cannot go back, we cannot suppress the urges to control.

So, doesn't it make sense to go the opposite extreme? Instead of wasting valuable time(the universe is finite unless we can do something!) fighting against whats going to inevitably happen anyway?

*Man gets job, jumps through bullshit hoops for 50 years for the capitalists who hold a paycheck over his head so he can put food on his table (the paycheck needs to be lower than the amount which he produces by the very nature of capitalism), if he is lucky he is then able to retire to enjoy his new life of senility until he fucking dies*

LOLBERTARIANS: OH WOW FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUALISM ;_; RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!

*Group of people each produce and share resources fairly among themselves*

LOLBERTARIANS: AUGHGHGHGH SOCIALISM AHHH NOO WHERES THE IMBALANCE OF POWER!?!?!? THIS IS OPPRESSION AND ANTI-AMERICANISM!!!! WHERES MCCARTHY WHEN YOU NEED HIM?!

>>8344179
True communism would be identical to true anarchy. We differ insofar as we claim different means to a similar end.

What you say libertarians are saying, doesn't matter. They may SAY what is on the left, but would any of them be put into action, then what is on listed on the right will result.

Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad. The whole philosophy is based on a combination of fallacies mixedwith a heady brew of "I should be able to fuck other people over, because I'm capable of it" financial darwinism.

>>8344184
Behoove my ass.

It would 'behoove' you to realize that you're not some superhuman who towers above the rest of humanity in your understanding of the world.

>>8344149

And what is "economic freedom"?

Because 9/10 a lolbertarian will claim that economic freedom = MORE CAPITALISM.

When in fact, the opposite is true.

>>8344196
You can only hold that view if you believe it is inevitable.

I have irrational faith that it is not inevitable.

ITT: Libertarians cannot provide philosophical grounding for their stances, get run over as a result

>>8344217
>no arguments

Okay then.

The thing with Libertarianism is that it assumes humans are naturally good gentle savages.

We are not. we are greedy assholes and without government to protect us from others we will exploit the shit out of each other any way we can. More freedom to people with money means people with money can now fuck you over like they always did but without the government telling them to stop.

>>8344222
Nobody is, but when we find things in the world that make us uncomfortable, it is often better to ask ourselves why rather than try to kill those things.

>>8344154

This is incorrect. Socialism is worker or public control of the means of production/allocation of resources. A state has nothing to do with it.

Why do people hate the middle ground? Centerally planned government controlled economies are just as bad of an idea as free market capitalism, which would be quickly and easily exploited by a few people. Why can't we have a well regulated capitalistic economy with a strong democracy that has enough of a republic in it to keep minority rights from being stamped flat by a majority vote?

lolbertarian here.

The libertarians in this thread suck balls. The commie reds in this thread suck balls. All of you need to read moar - ESPECIALLY YOUR OPPONENTS. And no I don't mean "lol go read the communist manifesto", I mean read good, cogent defenses of all sorts of statism.

You can never have a good conversation in this thread because neither side knows enough about the other to really engage. And honestly it seems like most of you don't even know much about your own side.

Turn the computer off and go read a damn book.

>>8344251
This is wrong. Human nature is not one thing or another, it is changeable, and conditioned by its circumstances and environment.

>>8344251
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

>>8344227
I don't like throwing the names of ideologies around because all of them have so much fucking baggage connected to them and they're so overarching they can't describe anyone's real views accurately.

Economic freedom is the ability of anyone who can provide a valuable service to have the opportunity to provide that service to people in exchange for capital. I haven't taken any economics or political science yet so I'd rather have this simple opinion than try and elaborate on it and make myself look like a fool.

>>8344251
>herp derp, humans aren't tribal at all.

>>8344264

I am the best and most attractive + well read poster. Fuck off lolbertarians

>>8344280
You been readin up on your Hegel?

Benjamin?

you write well.

>>8344239

The grounding for libertarianism is basically just microeconomics.

1. Value is subjective. I don't know what you value better than you know what you value.

2. The government is an ideologically legitimized monopoly on proactive physical coercion. This is not necessarily an argument in itself, just a statement of functional reality.

3. The state is run, controlled, and enforced by human beings as human as the rest of us.

etc.

nice try tho, butthurt statist

>>8344230
WHY? you can admit the belief is irrational, and rightfully so, with the entire human history showing the truth, so why believe it?

>>8344281

You already look like a fool since nothing in your definition of economic freedom implies any sort of freedom.

>>8344306

I wish. Plagiarized from Jefferson.

>>8344295

Humans are pretty tribal, but do you realize most tribes are communist in nature?

Capitalism as we know it is a fairly modern invention.

>>8344319
Please explain yourself.

How is having the opportunity to receive money for providing people with service 'not free'?

>>8344319
Third party here. You seem like a stupid person.

>>8344281
Either:
He provides that service to someone who derives more value from it than the price at which it was purchased, in which case the provider of service is exploited.
Or:
He provides that service to someone who derives less value from it than the price at which it was purchased, in which case the buyer is getting exploited.
Or:
The two values are exactly the same. The two come to realize the absurdity of trying to profit off each other's very subjectivities. They commit to abstaining from exchange in so far as they are able, and urge others to do the same.

>>8344341
And the concept of capitalism is what drives the "humans are naturally greedy jerks" misconception. That was my point.

>>8344273
There are definitely some consistencies.

>>8344257
Either way, the allocation is centralized. Centralization of power is incompatible with an anarchistic society.

>>8344373

Hah, Ariely is a cool guy.. not that great predicting anything economics-wise, but a cool guy.

>>8344315
Because if I reason too strictly and thoroughly, I come to your conclusion, inevitably, and I find I want to kill myself.

I need my faith in the possibility of a better world to keep from suicide.

>>8344404
In effect, my faith is the product of pure reason.

>>8344352

It's not free and it's not unfree either. It is an action which implies neither freedom nor lack thereof. In that sense your definition of freedom is very limited.

lol i'm glad i'm not a sociologist. protip: endoeneity

>>8344390

No, the allocation is not "centralized", and furthermore, almost all forms of anarchism are socialist in nature, so you are retarded.

>>8344372
Capitalism defines notions of human nature as perverted and self-interested.
Curiously, people under the heel of capitalism are perverted and self-interested.

>>8344433

You need to see this:

The FREEDOM Equivocators

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBQPwF5OmRI

>>8344404
>>8344431
But complete authoritarianism is the better world...

>>8344312

Value is not the same thing as price. Value is socially necessary labor time (at a societal level). Price oscillates around value, but it is not the same thing. Value is not subjective.

>>8344477
It's hell.

ITT: people who don't understand how human society works assume it works the way they think it works.

Here's why libertarianism is stupid. The ENTIRE theory behind libertarianism is based on an assumption that they can't even prove will happen. It's totally irrational. It's the same fucking thing as Communism, everything depends on the assumption that people won't try to fuck eachother over. But they're so blinded by their retarded ideology that whenever the government does do something that works pretty damn well for like 90% of the population, they bitch about it anyway. Does that mean the government should control everything in the economy? Fuck no. But if the free market doesn't adequately meet the needs of the people in a particular sector, the government should damn well step in. That's sort of the point.

One day the libertarian happened upon a babe. It was scarely a year old, and had been discarded, laying on the ground. It was obvious that the baby desired milk, or some other form of food. The libertarian knelt and looked the child in its watery eyes.

"Child," said the libertarian, "I cannot give you food. To do so would only encourage your dependency on me and create a downward spiral leading to an inevitable welfare state. You must learn to fend for yourself, without handouts."

The child soon died. Sadly, the libertarian shook his head. It was a tragedy that the child had to die, but it was his own fault. If only babies could be more like him--fully grown and in full control of their own faculties. The libertarian was not worried, though, for he knew that once the weak babies had died out only the strong babies would be left, and that those strong babies would from birth comprehend the importance of a free market. And the libertarian smiled, for he knew that it was good.

>>8344497
Human society isn't monolithic.
Furthermore, any attempt to provide a universal account of it would be disingenuous.
All we can do is argue about what we know, if you think you know better, you should try to convince us. Or are you so jaded and cynical that this thought doesn't even cross your mind?

>>8344470

Got a minute in, its a bullshit video made by a guy who doesn't know shit about freedom, positive or otherwise.

>>8344502
The assumptions contained in your post are an indication of your despair. You truly believe our condition is inevitable.

>>8344481

Defining value "in societal terms" as "socially necessary" labor hours is circular reasoning. It's meaningless and emblematic of the economic stupidity and/or deliberate ignorance necessary to accept the LTV.

Price tends toward intersubjective equilibrium of what Marxists call "use-value."

The problem with Marxism is that it is species-being structuralism, with the collective as the basic unit. You have to start with individuals, they are the basic unit of humanity and not aggregatable beyond their voluntary revelation of preferences, as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel for demonstrating.

It's not just chance that there are ~4 Marxist economists working today.

>>8344488
Uh no, hell is a world where everyone is somehow(brain chip?) emotionally suppressed so they no longer want to make progress and are "happy" living in small tribal communities.

Go to a local zoo and look at those chimps in captivity who live in tribes. That's not hell to you? I think that regressing to an inferior style of existence would be the day we surrender our humanity. We would just be like any other animal.

On the other hand, we as a collective species could become gods. What would stop us? Thats where our love of control over our world leads us. Why would you try to fight against that?

>>8344505

You forgot the part where libertarian calls such a system "freedom" and then calls the family unit (traditionally communist in nature) and a mother feeding her child as "coercion".

>>8344532
You aren't even arguing about what you know. all the sweeping statements about humans "fucking each other over at every turn" are from an incredibly limited worldview.

I love how the left column says the same as the right except that it's proselytized.

>>8344564
How is a zoo any different from a completely authoritarian society?

>>8342606

>fixed variable

Stopped reading there.

>>8344542
No, I just don't think that "Hey man, the free market will work and everything gets better" can possibly be correct answer to every single fucking problem in existence, without question.

>>8344569
Okay I guess I should have turned my tripcode on, but I am posting from the perspective of an ardent left-communist.

>>8344586
wasn't my point, has nothing to do with my point.

>>8344587
fixed in total size
variable in distribution

ran out of space
will probably change now

>>8344609
The free market's complicity with government concealed behind the democratic facade. This is I think what you are referring to.

Notice how whenever we celebrate "progress" in our society, we are celebrating the advancement of policies which work toward radically egalitarian notions of personhood, justice and rights. Essentially all progress is progress towards communism.

It seems to me much more rational to simply take communism for granted, and institute it RIGHT NOW in our everyday lives rather than try and achieve it by tiny increments.

>>8344613
great. Oligarchic communism is essentially the form of government that humans have built into them.

blxaibvoadivbdvblajvbdlajvbaldjvb capichadpi

>>8344656
wat?
watbloxxxxxz

i don't really understand what you guys are posting about (it seems worse than micro theory). however, you might want to consider things like testable conjectures, use of data (good data is hard to come by), cite experiments (not popular but they exist within econ), and some simple econometric models.

>>8344556

Well those sure are some words, it's too bad they make absolutely no sense at all.

First off, of course there are few "Marxist economists", even a child could tell you that when a job doesn't exist a person won't be employed in it.

Second, it's important to speak about value on a societal level because you won't ever understand value if you try to imagine it's a subjective thing that occurs on an individual basis because of wages/prices. Value is the socially necessary total productive power of a society, it works from a social level downwards, down to the level of individual production.

>>8344707
Scientistic worldviews like this assume there is a matter of fact as to the best way of organizing a society. There might not be, and if there is, there is no way we could know it. L2GermanEnlightenment

>>8344707
theoretical macro put into econometric models doesn't help anything, econbro. you have to look at your methodology and can't just import mathematics and call it testable. whatever you do, you're going to have a priori logical premises, and econometric models make things worse if you don't get those right.

even Krugman and Stiglitz have criticized the reliance on mathematical abstraction in econometrics.

there's a good reason econometric models didn't predict the the financial crisis whereas economic logic did..

I'm going to sleep, but before I do,
To the unconverted libertarians in the crowd:
Examine what you think is possible and impossible, and question whether it might not just be a function of despair.
To the anarchists, madmen, assorted lovers and crusty punks of all stripes in the crowd:
Be kind to the unenlightened. Think of how you were before you knew what was up and be nice to people who don't know what's up.

>>8344726

You aren't aware of Marxian economists or their decline and you call yourself a Marxist?

Value *is* a subjective thing that occurs on an individual basis, and it is logically impossible to aggregate it beyond voluntary revelation of that value as Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel prize for proving.

You seem to know nothing at all about economics and little about Marxism. Typical.

>>8344251
Ok, but who stops the government from fucking you over?

>>8344818
I doubt most contemporary Marxists, or many Marxists from history, have any idea what you're jabbering about.

I have listened to every single one of Slavoj Zizek's lectures, have read most of his articles (ones available online at least) and have read 5 books of his including his most important, The Parallax view, and I have never heard or read any reference in the prominent marxist's work to 'marxian economics'.

>>8344694
where small tribes are lead by a small group of leaders (the elders, usually) and the economics of the tribe are simply "hunt/gather and share what you get, cause if you don't get something, you might need to depend on someone else to share with you." Altruism has been a staple of human culture right up until maybe 10,000 years ago when we discovered agriculture. Slowly over time people began to specialize and a system of barter developed, but there still was (and always has been) a great deal of charity and community. Only recently with the explosive growth in human population and the loss of familiarity with the people who live near you (how many of your neighbors do you know?) has created (and been spurred on by) a sense of individualism and "personal responsibility" wherein each human is a unit of one, solely himself and not a part of a larger community. This has had far-reaching effects on society, but the one most relevant here is the general cultural amnesia that leads to the assumption that things have always been this way and this is the way things should always be.

>>8344889

He's talking bullshit, which is typical of econ 101 babies. You've probably never heard anyone say "marxian" because it sounds too much like "martian" which is just plain awkward to think about.

"My economist has a nobel prize! la de da de da de da!"

>>8344889

Zizek is little more than a subculture celebrity famous for writing about shit and joking about cutting off balls and whatnot.

You're not learning about Marxism ... or anything else really.. by reading Zizek.

>>8344934

You are either a troll or quite ignorant of Marxism.

Marxian is the standard term for Marxist economics...

Oskar Lange?
Karl Polanyi?
Maurice Dobb?

You seriously don't understand any of this? I hate Marxists, but if I was one, I'm pretty sure I'd be embarrassed by you right now.

>>8344769
re-read what i wrote. i never said anything about macro models. i didn't even say anything about math directly. i did mention metrics and data. econometrics helps people reason about the real world much better than whatever "econ logic" you're talking about. statistical methods allow scientists to test a hypothesis using data. having a testable conjectures and using experiments is the foundation of all science. the problem is experiments are not usually possible in economics. so you have to use somewhat mathematically difficult econometric models which can distort the economic intuition.