If you don't know who this man is and his works, you need to get the fuck off this board

Just a neoclassical retard. You should leave for not knowing about the other schools of economic thought.

Bill Cosby? Kek, based

>Want to buy a bunch of puppies, grab them by the ankles, and repeatedly smash their head against a wall?
>If you own the land that you are doing it on, that's A OK! To lolbertarians.
Why is it okay to kill cows on a massive scale but not puppies?

>Why is it okay to kill cows on a massive scale but not puppies?

Food.

They aren't killed for sadistic or psychopathic entertainment.

Don't you shit on my boy GW Carver, peanut butter is some dank shit and that negro was ascended

>what is a Straw Man Fallacy?
That is correct, user. Straw Man Fallacy. The board is yours.
>I'll continue with logical fallacies used on the internet to avoid actual debate for $1,000, Alex.

What a typical arrogant Jow Forums poster. Do you think your special? You think just because you know a bunch of stupid terms that you're better than anyone here? Tell me. Please. Tell me why you think that way. I'd love to hear it. And for the record, I've got a masters in economics. Really chaps my ass that you nitwits come on here and chastise anyone with your vague and dismissive attitude without ever having even argued against the actual philosophy being discussed. Lets hear your 'economic thought' you yellow-bellied shit posting psued. Go right ahead... there is no better place than here and no better time than now. Lemme guess, you like keynes? Or are you some laissez-faire extreme capitalist? Read a few quotes from milton friedman and now you're the expert on money and how to run an economy? Lay it on me pal. I got all day. I'm gonna be here in this thread questioning everything you say... everything you do. Every post you make. Every feeble attempt you try. So you got two choices my man... you either put up or you shut up. Whats it gonna be?

Basic Economics is a good introductory book for lay people who have no idea how things like supply and demand works. It's laid out very simply. Sowell is pretty based

And if that food never comes to market?
Should it be illegal to kill cows on a mass scale, if it's never consumed as food?
Will a slaughterhouse be shut down the first time a truck fails to pick up the ground beef for delivery, the meat spoils, and the dead cows are thrown away?

Fallacy fallacy.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Pointing out a fallacy is not a counterargument.

Also, all the scenarios I wrote, would be allowable in a lolbertarian society. Are you denying that?

Food or clothing, I'm fine with.

If they were slaughtering cows for pleasure, I would be against.

>
Will a slaughterhouse be shut down the first time a truck fails to pick up the ground beef for delivery, the meat spoils, and the dead cows are thrown away?

I literally just wrote, as long as they aren't killed for sadistic or psychopathic pleasure, then it's OK.

So, why would you even ask that question?

LMAO, you do not have a master's in econ. You took an intro to macroeconomics class and think that a few namedropping a few terms will substantiate your claim. All I'm saying is that the neoclassical school is just one school of economic thought. It's not going to be relevant in the near future, when mass automation leaves the overwhelming majority of the workforce technologically unemployed.

>Are you denying that?
Yes. I am. There's a difference between libertarianism and anarchism. You sound fresh out of public school with the socialism/corporate-capitalism is the only way mindset, otherwise, every disgusting and horrific thing imaginable will happen. Sounds like Trotsky. Also a fallacy - False Dichotomy

Because you can't see inside their head?
I don't think the role of government is to be Telepathic. You're going to end up with selective enforcement of laws, because the jury doesn't like one guy, and likes another.

Uncle Milty's soul brother. Uncle Thomas.

>I literally just wrote, as long as they aren't killed for sadistic or psychopathic pleasure, then it's OK.

>Where do we draw the line?
What about roaches or wasps? We kill those fuckers for sport. What about flowers? We ruthlessly murder them and rip them in half, then sadistically put them in water to keep them fresh as long as we can before they whither and rot, all so we can look at them wherever we want, instead of having to walk over to where they are and looking at them. A living organism is terminated, just for our viewing pleasure, and nobody whispers a peep about the atrocities present in the floral industry.

>So, I'd like to know who's personal moral code are we going to legislate? I'll vote for mine.

> muh token black economist

Sure thing senpai...

Attached: average_maga_boi.jpg (591x572, 84K)

> nigger

yah I don’t give a fuck

Attached: saneancap.jpg (500x650, 54K)

What regulation would be in place, in a libertarian society, to prevent those things I just said?

>Because you can't see inside their head?

If cow's meat is being eaten, and cow skin is being worn, then it's being killed for meat and for clothing.

We are judging actions, not trying to read minds.

The end result of the cows being killed is meat and clothing, so we conclude that they are being killed for meat and clothing.

The end result of the puppies having their heads based in on private land, is the puppies having their heads based in on private land. There is no utility for their deaths, so it must be for an internal reason.

>What about roaches or wasps? We kill those fuckers for sport.

No, we kill roaches because they are pest. They spread disease, and harmful bacteria.

We kill wasps because they sting (though wasps, bees, etc are needed for pollination, and there is a massive drive to repopulate them).

We don't kill 'for sport', there is a purpose.

>What about flowers? We ruthlessly murder them

Flowers aren't sentient.

So not murder.

> implying gubmint wont do all that given a chance
Theyd do all of the above, but classify the documents and amend the curriculum so that kids never even ask what happens to puppies.

Gubmint is never acting in ppls interest. It consists of ppl who know how to capitalize on their charisma and backstab right.

At least in Ancapistan people always risk their own money and will think double b4 investing in a risky and counterproductive affair. In politics people spend money expropriated from millions of powerless people. With this money they build intricate narrative of lies to keep the flow going. And they use monopoly on force and laws to keep down anybody willing to lift the veil. As once enough ppl see what is going on, they will join Ancapistan with all its imperfection.

You couldve pointed out that ancap may lead to dictatorship through monopolization of key industries, or the problem of externalities. But youve gone with moral outrage argument. Very weak fud. 2/10
Dont pay your taxes. Invest and stay debt free.

Without regulation/laws, there are individuals and business who would happily have children working in sweatshops.

We know this, because in countries where they don't have child labour laws, or they aren't enforced, corporations like Nike, Apple, etc have been caught using kids to work in sweatshops (or in the case of smartphones and tablets, kids in the Congo digging through practically sewage water for Coltan).

Libertarians are against legislation to prevent children from working 12 hour shifts in sweatshops, building codes, fire safety regulations, etc.

Based Arthur

checked. Might make for decent pasta.

I'm not implying anything, false dichotomy.

People don't stop being vulnerable to corruption or sadism because they aren't in a state, corporation, or non-profit.

Libertarians paint all state workers as inherently corrupt, and seem to thing that 'the market' will eventually lead to benevolence.

'The market' being comprised of people however.

Neither the market, nor the state are beyond corruption, and both need checks on their power.

I support checks on state power, and I support checks on corporate/businesses power.

Libertarians are against any checks on corporate/businesses power, and literally want complete deregulation.

He is absolutely based and red pilled as economists come. In his books he straight up calls out groups during his metaphors to explain how an economy works. He explains how grocery stores and delis in the hood are more expensive than white neighborhoods and it's because darkies steal more so they store has to raise prices to cover the losses. It's risky to open a store in the hood.

IMO his books are the foundation one should start with when reading about economics and investing. Here is my humble little library

Attached: 20190309_150831.jpg (2560x1440, 1M)

>He thinks child labor disappeared in the modern Western world because of some laws instead of increasing affluence and changing economic priorities.
You are far too low IQ to post here.
Take the libertarian hate or whatever dumb chip on your should you have to your containment board Jow Forumstard

Attached: ancapgirl.png (1020x1020, 773K)

sorry I don't read negroes or women

Most libertarian thought reserves that type of regulation for municipalities, assuming it's necessary, because, most libertarian thought also avers that laws aren't the only way, or even the most effective way, to manage all societal ills.

If you want a quick and easy catch phrase, I would summarize libertarianism as:
>some laws are absolutely necessary for a peaceful and functional society. We should pass those laws. Other laws are not absolutely necessary. We shouldn't pass those. As a society, we should address those issues in other ways.

Conversely, anarchy would be no laws whatsoever. Your examples are anarchy.

Under either system, Porn wouldn't automatically pop up on billboards for the same reasons it's not on every website.

Municipalities could easily regulate or outlaw senseless puppy murder. If you don't like it, it's easy to move to another city. Some cities May decide its OK to eat dogs. They might have a big New Years festival where hundreds of puppies are killed and eaten every year. There's no objective way to determine who is "right" in either city.

None of it is perfect. Municipal regulation is least bad.

Are you suggesting it's unethical to have my 12 year old son help with farm chores a few hours a day?

>Libertarians are against legislation to prevent children from working 12 hour shifts in sweatshops, building codes, fire safety regulations, etc.
No, straw man and false dichotomy again. Libertarians are against regulation preventing parents from deciding if their 14 yr old can work a few hours in the family diner during the summer.

We could repeal child labor laws and child sweatshops aren't going to pop up all over America with children working 12 hour shifts.

You imply that state has less incentives and opportunity to cheat.
At least corporations pay for their failures and go out of business. States can run things against societal common interest for decades with zero repercussion on their operations.
But when states fail, they fail big and all the dirt gets out beneath the rug.

The main problem with states is that you cant leace one easily as a means of voting. Moving places within one city can be a nightmare, and going to another country is impossible for most people. Gubmints exploit this weak spot and make you participate whether you consent or not.
You cant pay your taxes that will be spent on healthcare and opt out of military force. You pay first, they decide how to spend second. In Ancapistan you vote economically, you dont like or dont need the service -- you dont pay, the service fades out.

Say, a state builds public puppy killing farms. You dont like them, but you cant stop supporting them. Even if you protest, you need to belong to a big vocal group of like minded people to be noticed. If someone builds such a thing in Ancapistan, you stop buying puppy vests and the farm owner loses money and goes out of business. Thats it. So simple. You may even fund their competitor.

If the puppy farm is still there, it means that society as a whole needs those puppy goods and you are backwards. The problem with state is that it will sustain the farms whether it is a necessary or a completely unneccessary evil, all the same. Plus, puppy industry competitor may have restraining tax laws or be downriggt outlawed, and you will have no way to figgt puppy tycoons by helping their enemies.

>Libertarians paint all state workers as inherently corrupt, and seem to thing that 'the market' will eventually lead to benevolence.

No. Power corrupts. A true market would distribute power so that it doesn't concentrate in any one place enough to be wielded in a threatening way. Or, when necessary, wielded in the least threatening way.

Concentrations of power can manifest in a variety of institutional forms and they should all be avoided equally: big business, big government, big religion. The individual doesn't stand a chance when opposing any major institution. So they should be avoided, and their power should be distributed as much as possible. Which is why crypto is quintessential libertarianism.

Most of your criticisms of a "free market" are actually concentrations of business powers using the power of government regulation to secure more power. It's not a free market. It's corporatism.

Most political debate is focused on which institution should be vested with greater power in the struggle between enterprise and state. Republicans take enterprise, democrats take state. Concentrated power wins in either scenario.

Libertarianism discards the debate, and selects none of the above. Power should be distributed as widely as possible. Legal framework should work towards a societal goal of distribution.

Attached: honkhonk.gif (1000x1000, 297K)

My thoughts exactly

Attached: 043BA28C-3557-4C31-A5DF-42131383FD4C.jpg (125x94, 2K)

Bix nood

>literally “think of the children”
fuck off NPC

The revolutionary impact of bitcoin with regards to socioeconomic matters, is that for the first time in history, the power over money is taken from both government and enterprise, and vested with the individual. Libertarianism at its core. I can think of no bigger hypocrite than a socialist crypto enthusiast.

>quintessential libertarianism
>decentralized
>95% of coins held by 5% of wallets
Welp. I agree that the tech has potential but the execution thus far is uninspiring.

Attached: 78A75F24-A486-4DDD-B3F7-AC55884067BE.png (867x287, 30K)

>Want to be a necrophiliac? As long as they gave you their consent prior to dying... A OK.
I mean, why not?

Decentralized as in we don't need the Federal Reserve, or PayPal, or Congress to have functioning money.

>muh, he thinks bitcoin functions as money!
Right. I know. Tech needs improvements. We're only ten years in. Give it some more time.

But I want to get rich now.

Attached: EFB6A041-620E-447A-B416-0B3E72118B74.jpg (2448x3264, 554K)

>Want to be a necrophiliac? As long as they gave you their consent prior to dying... A OK.

Imagine not believing this.
Imagine being such a pussy that you think things should be illegal because they're yucky.

decent pasta

Thomas Sowell is one of the most based economists/philosophers.

Attached: png.png (403x403, 273K)

States are invulnerable to consequences. A business that's run inefficiently or does something bad with its products can lose customers eventually shut down but a government can be run inefficiently and do all sorts of shady shit and still remain in operation.

There are zero checks on state power except people rising against it. The judicial system is against the country's own citizens in most parts of the world, including the US, and no one can do anything about it. They allow peaceful protests and "freedom" of speech as long as it doesn't threaten their power.

this is anarchy, not libertarianism.

They're easily confused, but its not to the extent youre describing.

You nailed it when you said sell cocaine laced baby powder...as long as its labled. You see, that would be a law. The puppy thing, however, I think you might be correct on that one too; however, you have to remember, the purpose of things happening in libertarianism is mostly the pursuit of profit. If there's no profit or desire from society about smashing open the heads of puppies, i doubt it will be as rampant as your describing. Shit like that still exists even with laws.

Freedom to do what you want as long as it doesnt affect someones life and liberty.

>States are invulnerable to consequences

Look at this ancap false flagger.

States collapse all the time. There has never existed a world government that didn't eat itself. There are all sorts of criticisms of states but thinking they're immune to consequences has got to be the dumbest.

>States are invulnerable to consequences
States can set up monopoly systems where they don't have to compete domestically. But they're certainly vulnerable to consequences: invasion, civil war, elections, protests, riots, guillotines in the street.

Except when gubmint fails, it is not because it cannot sustain itself anymore, it because the social unrest uranium has reached critical point.
The earlier an unstable thing fails the better, the fewer ppl get affected. When a state fails, await all out war and famine.

That guy is the only black I respect. That guy is awesome.

If you look at history, you will find more failed companies than failed states and most states in history have a longer lifespan than most companies. States are 100% immune to consequences as long as they have power. Nowadays, states are much more powerful because of modern technology. We may have appeared to gain freedoms but we actually lost a lot more than we've gained. There are more laws now than there were ever before and most of these laws aren't about protecting people.