Is there a more incoherent political philosophy than libertarianism?

>or cares if inheritance is passed on
it's a common right-wing (inc. lolbritarians) trope that people should work for their bread, but this sentiment seems to vanish the moment you bring up inheritance

>yellow memeflag

>blue memeflag

>This is what socialists actually believe

Libertarianism is not a political philosophy.
It is the symptom of low self esteem.
The libertarian is usually a person of no importance, who believes that by sucking the cock of the upper class somehow makes him a member of the upper class.
Which of course demonstrates his stupidity, for there is nothing more nepotistic than the upper class. Even the Jews pale in comparison.

Right. And we would still have a strong family. A healthy culture. People wouldn't be staring into phones obsessed with social media. We wouldn't be sending our children off to government ran schools to get brainwashed and be given drugs with they lose interest. We wouldn't have a nation of whores and weak men. The government we mind their own business. We wouldn't have hundreds of military bases around the world. People would probably be happier and live a life that had meaning.

That sounds MUCH better than what we currently have, even if we still had to work with our hands for not much money.

Because you should be allowed to do with your money whatever you want, including giving it to someone, you know like charity? And that includes or especially includes your children.

>your ridicule is highlighting your weakness
Oh, I wouldn't even risk debating such a professional quote maker such as you.

>it's a common right-wing (inc. lolbritarians) trope that people should work for their bread, but this sentiment seems to vanish the moment you bring up inheritance
I can work for someone's else bread if choose so. Typically it would be my children.

this is the truth, tho
Austrian School true-believers say so themselves: Capitalism is inherently deflationary, the Great Depression is the "natural" state of capitalist economies and everything since then was nothing but "fake" inflation/debt-induced aggregate demand artificially created by central banks

This is true for most politically active people. I have always found that libertarians are usually some of the most respectable people. But sure, there are still many who are incompetent morons who live with their parents.

>the Jews show up to try and stop libertarianism
Clockwork

Attached: 1538611610304.jpg (229x220, 9K)

Pointing out the hypocrisy. Well done. Now do you want to propose a counterargument?

the existence of golden boys born with silver spoons in their mouths puts a lie to capitalism's ability to determine just deserts

libertarianism, communism, and anarchism are the holy trifecta of retardation in political thought. They make democratic republicanism seem reasonable

I think the common argument is that the Great depression was brought about by Federal Reserve stimulation throughout the 20s. Then the argument states that FDR got the government involved and only exacerbated the problem.

still shows how much bullshit is this idea that the poor are somehow undeserving of help while rich people are meritocratically-chosen supermen randian heroes

>Wanting minimal government, low taxes and absolute rights over your own property is being a cuck to the elite.

I know you have something against Hans and his in elitists in Brussels but don't misdirect your anger Papodopulus.

Is it not obvious that the 1% is created through government money/policies?!?!

The initiation of the use of force is immoral you fucking kike

I wasn't talking about actually Austrian School economists (although I bet they are also wrong), but I'm talking about various ancap nutjobs and goldbugs and Ron Paulers and whatnot who quote Mises and Hayek twice every hour as a matter of personal dogmatic fanaticism

You see the mindset I described in all the time, right here on Jow Forums

Only insofar as the "Free Market" itself is a government-created entity, yes.

Deflationary also means sinking prices, like how suddenly everyone can afford a smartphone.

>the Great Depression is the "natural" state of capitalist economies

Are you for real bruh? Back to your kibbutz.
mises.org/library/great-depression

Attached: wages-stagnate-productivity-grows-570x389.png (570x389, 113K)

Denying people the resources they need to survive is immoral too you egoistic shitbag.

So idiots have infested the libertarian circles. Why does that make the philosophy itself stupid? Do you think that there are legitimate arguments? Or do you think because there are often idiots making arguments that in turn the philosophy that they claim allegiance to is in turn as dumb as they are?

marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/

They deserve help, but not by stealing from others. Charity, community, and family are much more effective than giving shaniqua EBT. In fact the welfare state has destroyed poor communities, not empowered them. But you're a Jew, you're not interested in arguments

Attached: IMG_3959.jpg (241x535, 27K)

>right
>wrong
>justified
>libertarian
>ancap
Spooked Jewish shill detected
I'm treating this meme as an NAP violation, you're going in the McGas chamber

Attached: Ancap_d1e640_6380778.png (1200x676, 369K)

meant to answer to

>stealing
Taxation isn't theft.
Your pretax income is meaningless.

The contradiction of that statements confuses me to the point to where i don't know how to respond.

In other philosophies it is. In the libertarian philosophy if a person can't offer the world anything then they don't deserve life. Its that simple. I agree with it. Otherwise the movie "Idiocracy" turns into reality.

*blocks your path*

youtube.com/watch?v=y8l47ilD0II

Attached: FvonHayek.jpg (396x520, 35K)

Because you've been indoctrinated into a "government-vs-markets" neoclassical framework which sees markets as its own thing, somehow naturally preexisting, and then has "the government" someone impose its will on it. That's just plain wrong.

>The idea that there exists some entity, a ‘market’, which is then passively ‘intervened in’ by government simply makes no sense in the real world. To start, well-defined property rights are necessary for a capitalist economy to function effectively. But defining property rights is highly complicated – intellectual property, public property, zoning, environmental property rights are all open to debate. Contracts, too, are highly complex; ask anyone trained in law. Fraud is also open to interpretation – predatory lending and ‘looting’ can both be considered types of fraud; some consider FRB and fiat to be fraud. The line between fraud and information asymmetry is blurry to the point of non-existence.

>Furthermore, there are many ‘regulations’ that are not commonly considered to be interventionist. Limited liability laws are one, as are immigration restrictions, and laws that protect shareholders and define shares themselves. Where the government levies taxes will also affect the workings of an economy, as will what they choose to accept as payment. I could go on – but my point is clear: from the start, decisions made by the government about the legal system will affect how the economy works. Any line they supposedly cross at some point, that means they are ‘intervening’ and as a consequences the result is now a ‘government failure’, is arbitrary.

>I will accept that direct government provision of goods and services makes sense as a government failure, but short of that it’s simply not credible to label some regulation as more interventionist than the last.

The rich especially in the US benefit from favorable tax rules, insane deductible regulation. The rich pay a much lesser share of thier income. These are not libertarian in any way, and i know of no libertarian philosopher that preach this in any way, do you?

No it's not. Allowing others to fail while you succeed isn't immoral. It's not a moral obligation to help others in need. We aren't obliged to have open borders, a massive welfare state which obliterates the states finance, or any other of this kikery which is sending western civilization down the toilet.

Attached: IMG_4392.jpg (3264x2448, 1.51M)

keynes can only be used sparingly. Then problem is that you cant attempt to influence and steer the entire economy. It is too massive. Too many variables. EVERY TIME the Keynesian dipshits run us into the ground. Now the car looks like something out of a destruction derby and we cant take another hard crash or we die in the flames.

Yes it is. Forcing someone to give you something is Theft. We can all agree on it and it can in-turn not be theft. But if no one wants to give that money then yes, it is being taken, and yes, that is theft.

How is it not theft. And don't say the "social contract", that's just racketeering said in a nice way.

>incoherent
The only thing incoherent is your own understanding. Please try again.

LOL!!!! the economy is an extension of government. HAHA! you are a fucking idiot.

You can say that governments are necessary to make/declare certain rules of the market. You can say that Governments can manage the money that the market uses. You can say that the Government can have courts to force agreements to be upheld.

But don't say that the economy is an extension of government. this is silly. An equivalent statement would be that "Culture" is somehow not its own separate entity. Government, The Market and Culture are separate entities. They influence one another. That can change one another. But don't try to say that they are not separate entities.

Basically - if you don't have a government to create and enforce the idea of "property" in the first place, you have no "goods" that can be exchanged on the "market". If tomorrow the government ceases keeping record of who owns what piece of land, the real estate market vanishes from existence. This is even more apparent in cases where the property being exchanged is blatantly government-created, things like government bonds, fishery rights, intellectual property, etc.
On a less abstract level, there is very little in the "Free Market" which actually resembles something like the "free exchange between consenting adults" thing libertarians love to imagine. When you buy a loaf of bread from a supermarket, you are not bartering with another human being, you are buying a product from a corporation. A corporation is a state-created entity, invented in the 17th century Netherlands. Corporate law is an entire esoteric and complex thing. There is little naturalistic or spontaneously-arising about it.
In fact, there actually has never been a single documented instance of a "free market" system, barter or monetary, spontaneously arising in a stateless environment.

This is also why taxation is not theft. Again quoting someone smarter than me:
>In neoclassical economics, the economy is presupposed as arising out of nowhere, and the government then ‘intervenes’. Taxes are a distortionary, external effect on the ‘free market’. This is analogous to the idea of the government coming along and ‘taking’ your income that pervades libertarianism (and often popular culture). This ignores the fact that pretax income is just a money flow that has arisen due to the institutions set up by government, and as a result of the way these institutions were set up. If government policy were changed, the pretax income of many would change; there is nothing inherently just about it.

>You can say that governments are necessary to make/declare certain rules of the market. You can say that Governments can manage the money that the market uses. You can say that the Government can have courts to force agreements to be upheld.
I can and I do say all these things. From here and leap to "the market is an extension of government" (note: "market", not "the economy") is actually not that great leap at all. I mean, what is there left if not the things you've listed?

Attached: tldrbook.gif (500x256, 187K)

Attached: aancapsheep.jpg (526x524, 40K)

That is like watching a sports game and saying that the 2 teams playing the game are not their own separate entity and they are essentially the referee...

You are getting into the IDIOT territory of the "free market" people who make bad arguments...

Yes all the other ones.

Ancap is the only internally consistent political philosophy that recognizes the existence of human rights.

It's all a matter of framing. You've been indoctrinated into seeing "the economy" as a naturalistic and objective system somehow magically separate from other aspects of human activity, including society and politics. Now that you've been exposed to a contradicting idea you're struggling to comprehend it and are dismissing me as a lunatic.
In the way I am presenting the world to you, those "two teams" mutually reinforce each other by tacitly agreeing to play by the same rules. Even though they appear to be competing, they are actually collaborating.

>Ancap is the only internally consistent political philosophy that recognizes the existence of human rights
Except things like freedom of speech or freedom of movement.

Millions of people working in "the market"

Millions of people buying things in "the market"

Millions of people investing in things in "the market"

Basically all activity of "the Market" is what "The Market" is. Government can declare a set of rules which everyone has to live by, but the market itself is its own entity.

Again... You have two teams playing a sports game. There is a referee. He is not their to play the game. He is not their to dictate what each team does. He is their to make sure that both teams play by the rules.... But the referee is not the fucking game...

Well you have been indoctrinated into your bullshit. How do you like that counter argument. I'm not brainwashed you are! NANA BOO BOO!

Now you wanna stop using ridicule and try to paint me as a brainwashed lunatic or you wanna address my arguments!?!

>Government can declare a set of rules which everyone has to live by, but the market itself is its own entity
Don't you see how this is a contradiction?
In what way, exactly, is The Market (love it how you're capitalizing it like a honest-to-god Marxist) "its own entity" if it's reliant on the rules set by the government?

Maybe anarcho stalinism?

Attached: doomed digits.jpg (750x1024, 140K)

There's so much circular logic in this I'm fucking dizzy
>you can't keep track of who has property without a state
You could do that with a damn blockchain
>inb4 reductio ad absurdum
Ab ins Gas, Jude!

Attached: 1537863042812.jpg (800x763, 82K)

>You could do that with a damn blockchain
Actually that's a good point, and you CAN!
...who's going to enforce that blockchain?

>how is it enforced
>t. Doesn't know how a blockchain works

I give up. If you can't see the logic in the referee analogy then I'm wasting my time.

Again... The market is the the game that is being played. It is the players running around scoring points. It is the coaches making strategy.

The referee is the Government. It has a set of rules which the players are supposed to abide by. It makes sure the players play by the rules.

How do you not see these as separate entities? Because they influence each other? If you apply the logic that: if a entity either directly or indirectly influences another, then they are the same entity... Then... Well... There are no separate entities in anything in life...

I don't understand how you don't get this...

Are you fucking with me right now?

How is the blockchain going to stop these gentlemen from taking your stuff?

Attached: WarBoys.jpg (680x388, 84K)

>Jew
Thanks for taking off your meme flag.

Oh, I do.
It's like a big decentralized registry of who-owns-what.
Who's going to enforce it, though?

"get off this place, I own it, it says so in the blockchain!"
"nope"
What now, genius?

...and this is also completely irrelevant anyway, because we're descending down into the retarded hypotheticals of ancap fantasy. It really doesn't MATTER if you can or can't keep track of property via blockchain and then have some private mercenaries enforce it by some byzantine feudal contract under the sponsorship of McGovernment™, because that's not the real world.
In the real world, "the free market" is an institution created and enforced by the state.

Attached: 1353320314840.png (800x500, 21K)

im only using ancap until the next level of ancap comes along. im aware ancapism is retarded but its all i got for now

Attached: 1537320756986.png (585x1500, 354K)

Nope, lolbergism is the most coherent and logical political philosophy I can think of. The problem is it's a minecraftian illusion, a castle in the clouds, that shatters into a billion
>muh individuals
when faced with organized opposition.

Then how about saying what you have to say without resorting to a half-baked analogy?
I mean even in your analogy, the vital role of the referee is the government. Without a referee to create and enforce rules, there is no game.

>How do you not see these as separate entities?
I am not saying that "the market" and "the government" are literally the same entities. Maybe this is where you confusion arises from. I am saying that the market is an EXTENSION of the government. It does not simply "influences" the market, but creates it. Its an extension of government power. To presuppose that the market is a naturalistic entity which can exist outside the government's control would be a bit like saying a judiciary can spontaneously appear in a stateless society.

To use your analogy (if that's literally the only way you can understand it...) the referee does not simply "influences" the same, he CREATES it.

>I mean even in your analogy, the vital role of the referee is the government. Without a referee to create and enforce rules, there is no game.
Of course. I agree with this

> I am saying that the market is an EXTENSION of the government.
This is silly. The oppisite could be said. It just just as easily be said that Government is an extension of the people and this "Market"

> It does not simply "influences" the market, but creates it. Its an extension of government power. To presuppose that the market is a naturalistic entity which can exist outside the government's control would be a bit like saying a judiciary can spontaneously appear in a stateless society.
To say that a government can arise with a body of people acting in a market is also stupid.

>To use your analogy (if that's literally the only way you can understand it...) the referee does not simply "influences" the same, he CREATES it.
The government didn't "create" the economy. When did this happen. When was there a body of people doing NOTHING. Not trading. not building. not consuming. Not doing shit. When did this situation exist and then a government was magically created and then it magically created an economy.

Both the market and the economy have EVOLVED for over 12,000 years into what we have today. They started out as separate entities. They influenced each other throughout all of their existence. But to say that the "Market" is an extension of government is fucking retarded.

To go back to my analogy. If there were no players to play the sports game the the referee wouldn't have a job. If the referee didn't show up then there would still be a game, but it would be a complete shitshow and, in time, dissolve into chaos...

Until the players declared someone else referee..

I would say something like full-blown communism is less realistic than libertarianism, but not by much. Both philosophies rely on the world already being a utopia in order to function.

communism
judaism

Remind me who Rothbard, Mises and Rand are again?

Two answers for this
1. Here's the thing: nothing is going to stop them from taking your stuff.
Those gentlemen could break into your property, shoot you, and steal everything you own tomorrow and you'd have better luck praying than shouting "save me, government!"
Fortunately, in a more libertarian society, you'd probably be better off having all the home defence measures you'd need.

2. If those guys start calling themselves the government, your argument implies that those actions would be legitimate anyway

>"get off this place, I own it, it says so in the blockchain!"
>"nope"
>What now, genius?
Then they're violating the NAP, plain and simple!
As for your strawman image, the difference is the voluntary contract between the people in the image. Under a state, you don't get the choice.

>It really doesn't MATTER if you can or can't keep track of property via blockchain and then have some private mercenaries enforce it by some byzantine feudal contract under the sponsorship of McGovernment™, because that's not the real world.
Again, that's literally just your precious state, but with voluntary association instead of non-consensual enforced participation. Thats literally the real world, reality has an ancap bias. The state is the contrivance, not the market.

Do you sincerely believe three people cannot agree to exchange between them, without two of them working to coerce the other?

Government (in its most basic form some organism giving commands to other organisms) existed long before markets. Loads of animals have pack hierarchies but very few engage in barter.

And to all you fucking RETARDS who are wanting block-chain. Do you idiots not realize that you are being tricked into advocating for a cashless economy. You fucking people. Being tricked like a bunch of god damn children. This is the idealistic bullshit that gives libertarians a bad name that the OP was trying to highlight.

>libertarians think unions are bad
Stopped reading right there. Your post started smelling like a shitpost.

OK if you want to say that the alpha male in a hunter-gather tribe is government then i suppose you are correct.

If you want to say that government started when a religious body looked up to the stars to understand time for the sake of dictating the beginning and end of growing seasons 12,000 years ago then my point still stands...

>The oppisite could be said. It just just as easily be said that Government is an extension of the people and this "Market"
Hmmm.....!
I wonder if I ever said something about "the market and government mutually reinforcing each other"....

>The government didn't "create" the economy
"The economy" is not the same as "the market". Is think this is another point where confusion between us arises.
'The economy' is a general term for all human activities you've described. Creating, consuming, farming, mining, eating, shitting, buying, selling, emptying chamber pots. But this activity doesn't necessarily have to take place in a "free market" context. In fact, during the vast majority of human existence "the economy" existed without a market - or a state, for that matter! Even when a state DID appear, it still took many hundreds of years for flashes of market economy to come (and then disappear again). "The economy" was based around temples, palaces, feudal contracts, looting and warring. Perhaps some market trading of luxury items existed on the side, but it was rarely dominant, and even when it was, it was dominated by guilds and such, very rarely "free market". The "free market" is simply the name for the form of economy which our governments are now in the business of enforcing. If 1,000 years ago "the government" would be enforcing church tithes and feudal obligations, now "the government" is enforcing private property and contract law.

>I see that you're not Ashkenazi.
underrated fpbp

Attached: 1538576624720.png (605x757, 565K)

I've read through your conversations. Are you honestly saying that markets cannot exist without the government?

25% of these are good points, but you're still a disgusting kike. Also,

>Monopolies on force such as the state are bad. We need polycentric law. You don't like the amount of power this natural monopoly has? Why are you against the free market?

Attached: 1538530807601m.jpg (591x1024, 61K)

>Then they're violating the NAP, plain and simple!
And who cares?
Without a policeman there to enforce that NAP, it's a meaningless spook.

>the difference is the voluntary contract between the people in the image. Under a state, you don't get the choice
Two generations from then and it won't be a "choice" any more than your current situation of living under the British government is a "choice".
The point of the "strawman" is to show how any ancap society would inevitably result in a world full of governments-by-another-name.

Attached: 1532634584905.jpg (640x302, 42K)

The "free market" as understood in capitalist economies cannot.

Ash ke Nazi in Hindi means “Nazis from the ash”

What did they mean by this?

This. Croney capitalism is not free market economics. I would say capitalism is welfare for rich people and communism is welfare for poor people. Free markets are the abolition of all wefare.

All capitalism is inherently crony.

I mean for fuck's sake, isn't something like trustbusting an infringement on "the free market"?

>Communism is to people's personal benefit
Kike.

Attached: 1538369757399.png (720x946, 281K)

Libertarianism is an ideal. It's no more politics than communism is economics.

Judaism.

Attached: 1537767587319.webm (912x656, 891K)

>((()))
Yeah sure label anacap anything you like when you don’t understand it at all. Stupid fucks will have to live thru it tho. Not for long I’ll be waiting with my child soldiers to put you into a mass grave

And that’s a good thing

Attached: CEFC1813-8433-40BA-8A84-174C8BE5B58C.jpg (4032x3024, 2.2M)

>I wonder if I ever said something about "the market and government mutually reinforcing each other"....
But you want to use wording that doesn't acknowledge they are separate entities. You want to have a government higher on this ridiculous hierarchy. In turn getting weaker minds to agree with the notion that the government needs to be in control of the economy because it is basically the economy. It's silly

But in your arguments you just run around in circles in what appears to be a game of semantics. word games is what you are playing.

>The "free market" is simply the name for the form of economy which our governments are now in the business of enforcing. If 1,000 years ago "the government" would be enforcing church tithes and feudal obligations, now "the government" is enforcing private property and contract law.

Libertarians aren't made about the government enforcing property rights and contract law. They are made at a complicated tax system that can be abused by those with good accountants. They are made about tax credits being used to bride voters. They are made about the currency being devalued to pay for shit they don't want and believe is destructive. They are made and a complete and utter mismanagement of resources. They are made at a completely corrupt shitshow that is our modern system. They aren't made about government upholding contracts and enforcing private property.

They are mad about the government trying to micromanage an incomprehensible system and fucking it up, only to say that it wouldn't have happened if they have more control. They then get more control and fuck it up worse. Then they need more control. Its a never ending cycle. The current debate about government's role in the economy simply leads to communism.

Libertarians believe that the primary economic function of government is to have courts where contracts and property can be disputed.

This argument is so frustrating I'm done. Got better shit to do.

They are retarded. Good luck debating people who can’t read

Libertarians are mad the government dares trying to help poor people.

Nigger, this comment makes no fucking sense. Elaborate.

Attached: 1538096760445m.jpg (1024x539, 82K)