Lolbertarians and capitalists

>unironically liking democracy

Forgot your flag uncle shill.

As long as it triggers faggots then I'll keep using it.

Attached: d190f898b6b44c86c5da7cb09850cf627286d864387c4b3d512d96c7e32efbd9.png (485x443, 25K)

So called democratic government represents the will of the highest bidders

Okay, Israeli, you have fun undermining the goyim.

Because big business has invaded politics.

Attached: 7f5.jpg (600x727, 65K)

And capitalism is not working, everyone can agree on that capitalism is done and people need to stop praising it like its some religion.

Attached: f8b.jpg (954x658, 89K)

Attached: 1549559078367.jpg (640x640, 73K)

Attached: CpToRF9VUAAJ3ex.jpg (540x438, 46K)

Attached: 1549559750687.jpg (500x1120, 123K)

>institutions of capitalism
>pay their fare share
>government protects human rights
>free market corporations

Attached: 45886321_2192552347462478_8639466749017718784_n.png (392x614, 87K)

Kek unironically this

Seriously though, OP doesn't even have a BASIC understanding of history, economics, or what a government even IS if he thinks that the 'west' was a "free market" before whatever undetermined period of time he's arguing it stopped being one.

Not to mention everything in his post is either self contradictory, or is demonstrably false

Debunking the idea that voting affects political change: scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Prosperity in relation to economic freedom: flickr.com/photos/shanedk/sets/72157646459874723/

Proof child labor was INNOVATED out of the market: ourworldindata.org/grapher/incidence-of-child-labour-in-the-united-states-1890-1930?time=1890..1930

Proof of Statism's illegitimacy: youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA

The state of Statist arguments is really pathetic.

Well, these can't even really be considered arguments.

> Seriously though, OP doesn't even have a BASIC understanding of history, economics, or what a government even IS if he thinks that the 'west' was a "free market" before whatever undetermined period of time he's arguing it stopped being one.

I never said it was a free market, what I meant was that capitalism had more free range back then before socialist institutions were established nigger,

> Not to mention everything in his post is either self contradictory, or is demonstrably false

How so?

OP is only wrong in denying the invisible hand, which actually does exist.
Free competition is a positive force for humanity and leads to progress.
The fundamental problem of libertarianism is that if you allow people to do whatever they want, they will defy the invisible hand.
The greedy do not want to compete, they want to rule supreme.
The greedy do not want to trade, they want to take.

Since none of us have yet come up with a way to perfectly prevent or eliminate this tendency, governments must continually fight it.

>believing in some invisible hand that will correct it

yeah, moron, you do not know what the invisible hand is. kill yourself, your opinion is invalid.

the real red pill is that work is shit

Attached: 25e.jpg (640x640, 36K)

That's the Africapill, not the redpill

>The fundamental problem of libertarianism is that if you allow people to do whatever they want, they will defy the invisible hand.
>The greedy do not want to compete, they want to rule supreme.
>The greedy do not want to trade, they want to take.

And that's why the invisible hand is bs since if we gave capitalism free range the above things would happen guaranteed, the market would not self correct.

Seems we have a believer here, what a goym wew

Remember when the Invisible Hand took us to the moon? Oh wait that was the government.

I DONT WANNA GET UP IN THE MORNING REEEEEE

Those guys have each other and look happy.

I feel you Swissbro, I urgently need some sleep or else I'll be tired af tomorrow

>The role of the government is to protect and preserve human rights and values
government never has and never will do this because human rights get in the way of government
>government represents the will of the people and this is done through the democratic process
Government cannot represent the will of the people because there is no such collective will. The first right is self-determination and being compelled to bend to any collective's will is contrary to that.
>LOL that's ridiculous since before we didn't have these institutions capitalism had literally free range, and it resulted in people living in slave like conditions, living in boxes, child labor was common
Conditions were bad all around the world and people willingly submitted themselves to this condition because the alternative was worse. And when "the will of the people" you love so much tried to fight against the excesses it was your beloved democratic government that squashed their resistance.

You are essentially wrong on every single point and should kill yourself.

Attached: 00.jpg (608x336, 51K)

...

(The Market) is the new G-d for our century. Mammon himself now reigns supreme. It is the one holy invisible entity all human activity is geared towards. All the tallest and most impressive structures man has built in the past 50 years are built in honor of (The Market).

All faith is placed in (The Market). Questioning (The Market) is the ultimate sin, and will lead to immediate and serious cultural and material repercussions. Libertarians are just proselytizing the dominate faith of our age. It is a mystical force, an invisible hand, by which all decisions are made. The ruling priest class are economists who try (and so often fail) to divine the will of (The Market). The news is littered with religious bullshit about what pleases and displeases (The Market). Fluctuations in the mood of (The Market) are chalked up to everything from geopolitics to the weather. Like all religion, it is a way to keep people in line and make them give up control to (a higher power), and maintain social control for (the elite). After all, if it's the holy will of (The Market), then there's no one to blame.

Attached: the-market-as-god.jpg (780x439, 71K)

Was about to debunk this but turns out Ludwig von Mises is a Jew and Hayek is thought to have Jewish relatives. At least Böhm von Bawerk isn't though...

This is something you will never hear discussed on here.
This is a genuine response.

Habsburgs, if not crypto-Jews, are worse than Jews. Austrian nobility are trash. There's a reason they fled to America when Hitler came to Austria.

Attached: Habsburg.png (1138x528, 118K)

Using technology developed through private speculation

Nope. Actually using NatSoc scientists. But try again, bubbala.

> Using technology developed through private speculation

Wrong the people doing the speculation worked for the government and not private organizations.

Who invented the internet? hint: it wasn't a corporation

>"T-The greedy just wanna take everything!"

Okay, firstly. You retards need to stop speaking in meaningless platitudes. Either make your case or don't. Don't rhetorically structure your argument to where it can't be challenged because you're not even making any specific challenges to your opposing position.

Secondly without systemic coercion (the state), how exactly do you think someone establishes a 'monopoly'? A lack of supply ENCOURAGES people to enter the market and become producers. If there is one firm in a market supplying one good, and they price their commodities at a rate which is more expensive than most people are willing to pay, then more producers are directly encouraged to enter the market due to this recognized demand.

The state, and the state alone is the reason why the market is in the shape it is.

Demonstrably incorrect
youtube.com/redirect?q=http://blog.erratasec.com/2012/07/who-invented-internet-evolution-or.html&redir_token=nMhxsTyFAipVrKejofpkUu3upUl8MTU1NTQ2MjQyM0AxNTU1Mzc2MDIz&v=3ol_r8ROxR4&event=video_description

Holy fucking shit, you're a retard.

Rockets were invented by Robert Goddard in the 1920s.

> assumes its wrong
> provides link to some unknown blog

Yeah...no

And what makes you think monopolies wouldn't for without government support?

>Provides no rebuttal
>Appealing to logical fallacies (genetic fallacy) to try and deny the evidence proposed.

Attached: 1509379182250.jpg (645x729, 48K)

>Secondly without systemic coercion (the state), how exactly do you think someone establishes a 'monopoly'?
By buying it. With money.
>more producers are directly encouraged to enter the market due to this recognized demand.
And you can directly encourage them not to enter it.

I just fucking explained
What, can you not read now?

Goddard's "rocket" was a cock-sized toy.

Feast your eyes on the father of the US Space Program: Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun

Attached: Werner.jpg (290x387, 88K)

>By buying it. With money.
Yeah, that's not how that works.
youtube.com/watch?v=sFslSdbIUZo

>And you can directly encourage them not to enter it
Again, not how that works. (also debunked in the video above)

Note the fact that there has never been a "natural monopoly" which has EVER formed.
(because it can't)

Bubbala, natural monopolies are in every econ intro textbook. Fuck your jewtube videos.

Attached: 1509728274721.jpg (563x623, 35K)

>Initially claimed the state invented rockets
>Shifting the goalpost when provided evidence that it didn't

GG

Once company forms a monopoly it wants to expand into selling other goods as to keep its monopoly on the whole market, it either buys up the competition or will do all in its power to restrict the competitions access to the market, to prevent competition.

>The role of the government is to protect and preserve human rights and values

So long as you pay your protection money to them. Or not violate any of their hundreds of thousands of arbitrary laws. Otherwise you get ass raped by niggers in Fed Pen or get shot resisting arrest.

>government represents the will of the people

The worse possible argument for Statism. The average person is a unprincipled moron that would think nothing of trading a worthless vote for a "free" stolen lunch. Rent-seeking behavior and associated violence is only incentivized like this under the State.

>since before we didn't have these institutions capitalism had literally free range, and it resulted in people living in slave like conditions, living in boxes, child labor was common, and people were basically paid a barely livable wage

Slavery, child labor, and non-existent wages have been the primary aspects of human society since humans abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the Neolithic era. Poverty is the natural state of mankind, it is only through the material abundance brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the breaking of the guild system monopoly by the concept of the corporation that we have risen above this natural state. Child labor, slavery, and poor working conditions have been almost entirely eliminated not by any government, but because the vast majority of these jobs have been automated away. Every agrarian society in the history of the world was a slave society, until the introduction of the tractor.

>The free market is an abstract thing, its not real

The market is the intrinsic result of conscious beings existing in a scarce, material world. Markets and trade exist wherever humans exist, from maximum security prisons to Amazonian tribals. The only question is if the exchange should be free and fair, or if a one party should be able to extort the other by force.

Attached: frederic-bastiat-571738.jpg (640x820, 125K)

Primary school econ textbooks are nothing but a bunch of historically revisionist nonsense.

And again, there's the genetic fallacy.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume you have nothing.

>Total value produced by your labor
How is that decided, exactly?

So you're just gonna keep repeating points I've already refuted

GG
This is why Statism is dying, but then again there's never been any valid arguments for the state.

>furry patreon
lmao
educate yourself:
ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/mergers-competition/pay-delay
faculty.som.yale.edu/songma/files/cem_killeracquisitions.pdf

Yes, the government helps form tons of monopolies, and this is highly undesirable.
But private citizens are perfectly capable of building monopolies on their own.

show flag faggot

Moar lolbertarian hate threads pls

> So long as you pay your protection money to them. Or not violate any of their hundreds of thousands of arbitrary laws. Otherwise you get ass raped by niggers in Fed Pen or get shot resisting arrest.

I assume you mean taxes that pay for school, healthcare, roads, police, firefighters and so on, why should you not pay for what makes your life safer and better more convenient?

> The worse possible argument for Statism. The average person is a unprincipled moron that would think nothing of trading a worthless vote for a "free" stolen lunch. Rent-seeking behavior and associated violence is only incentivized like this under the State.

Most people aren't rent seeking parasites even with a welfare state, would you rather not have any safety net and fend for yourself, when you end up in an accident or become unemployed?

> Slavery, child labor, and non-existent wages have been the primary aspects of human society since humans abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the Neolithic era. Poverty is the natural state of mankind, it is only through the material abundance brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the breaking of the guild system monopoly by the concept of the corporation that we have risen above this natural state. Child labor, slavery, and poor working conditions have been almost entirely eliminated not by any government, but because the vast majority of these jobs have been automated away. Every agrarian society in the history of the world was a slave society, until the introduction of the tractor.

Feudalism basically was replaced with another oppressive system I.e capitalism, and no poor working conditions remained shitty and the same until socialist institutions like unions formed to keep capitalism in check. You're just a market fundamentalist worshiping the market. Corporations are more tyrannical than governments since you can't vote on how a corporation should be run and by who, this makes it fascist in a sense.

My only gripe with libertarians is usually social issues, everything else I think they're pretty based.
>Low taxes
>Little Government Spending
>No welfare
>Audited Fed
>No Bureaucracy

fucking based

and what do you mean by social issues

Attached: 1502641643984.jpg (850x400, 35K)

Just like slavery would have ended on its own within two decades. The cataclysmic number of deaths and consolidation of federal power wrought by the union was unnecessary.

>Freedom is irrational because people can't be trusted being left to their own devices
>Statism is rational because a coercive and unaccountable monopoly on arbitration is trustworthy and needed for us to 'have rights'.

Abortion is an example. I'm not a Christian but I still think some of their philosophies like a nuclear family and the ying yang mentality of masculinity with femininity. I know libertarianism is not the same for everyone, but whatever.

libertarianism and ancapism has a lot of christian influence, a lot of people argue that abortion is antiethical due to violating the right to life which is derived from the self ownership principle.

>Imagining yourself as property
Good goy!
Rabbi Murray really loves you goys!

your body is property of your mind and can only belong to yourself.

Are you retarded or did you just never pass any English class?

>taxes that pay for school, healthcare, roads, police, firefighters and so on

These are just concessions given by the state to keep the people in line and justify the State's existence. Everyone of these things are able to exist entirely independently of the State, and do not effect the State's bottom line; their salaries will get paid before the pot holes on your street are repaired. The State that can give you anything you need can take everything you want away.

>Most people aren't rent seeking parasites even with a welfare state

You have an incredibly sheltered view of human nature. Humans are rational actors, or at least believe themselves to be so, and will enviably chose the path of least resistance.

>when you end up in an accident or become unemployed

Insurance. Most of what we would consider the welfare state would be replaced in a libertarian social order by insurance agencies. Without state restrictions and with increased competition you could purchase insurance for almost anything. Hell I already pay about $8 a month for accident insurance through my work that will pay out literally tens of thousands of dollars for each type of injury and for medical leave.

>socialist institutions like unions

Unions are not socialist. Unions can and will exist in a free market society.

>Corporations are more tyrannical than governments since you can't vote on how a corporation should be run

I absolutely can if I own stock in that corporation, aka I have skin in the game.
With government I haven no skin in the game. I have no incentive not to fuck over my fellow man, by stealing his money through taxation and having it redistributed to me. Not to mention that the CEO that lies gets booted out at the first bad quarter; but the cunning corrupt politician that puts the nation a trillion more dollars in debt gets reelected so long as he keeps the gravy train rolling.

>this makes it fascist in a sense.

You're using words you don't understand again bud.

Attached: WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS.png (719x800, 419K)

So if your body is property, you can sell the full allodial title to it on The Market, right?

Like a prostitute?

bootlickers will be removed

Attached: breaking-news-1.jpg (1280x720, 118K)

You cant sell yourself because in the future you can change your mind about it. Self ownership is inalienable in libertarian theory. Voluntary slave contracts are not valid (not enforcable) in libertarian theory. Ownership imply control, self ownership means you control yourself. copypasted from leddit cuz I'm eating and dont wanna type.

> These are just concessions given by the state to keep the people in line and justify the State's existence. Everyone of these things are able to exist entirely independently of the State, and do not effect the State's bottom line; their salaries will get paid before the pot holes on your street are repaired. The State that can give you anything you need can take everything you want away.

Wishful and ideological thinking, you make it sound like these things wouldn't occur even more if corporations were left in charge, this is your market fundamentalism talking, that everything would run better by corporations who's only motive is to profit and grow, they are not concerned with human values or basic rights, or the environment this has been proven again and again and government has always had to step in and regulate corporations cause they are only out to make a buck no matter the harm it causes by externalizing all responsibilities that governments are left to deal with and mop up corporations fuck ups and mistreatment's, fuck off.

> You have an incredibly sheltered view of human nature. Humans are rational actors, or at least believe themselves to be so, and will enviably chose the path of least resistance.

That may be so but where I live where theres a big and strong welfare state most people chose to work and do productive things than sit at home and do fuck all, this argument that people will chose to be passive unproductive blobs is so exhausted at this point...

> I absolutely can if I own stock in that corporation, aka I have skin in the game.

Lol yeah if you have a lot of stock and sit on the board of directors, do you think every citizen will be able to be in such a position of power with just a few stocks compared to all the rich investors? Lol their influence will be so minimal that it wont matter. Yes people have skin in the game cause they can chose who to vote for without having buy stocks and become a big time investor.

That's more like renting a hole, but it is nice and degenerate, which is the point. I mean just sell yourself outright. Not renting or leasing. Not for a limited time. Full and clear ownership. At market rates. I mean, that's a feature of property, right? It can be bought and sold, not just leased.

> You're using words you don't understand again bud.

Its you who don't really know how a corporation is really run you kike apologist.

>You cant sell your self because in the future you can change your mind about it.
>You cant sell your house because in the future you can change your mind about it.
>You cant sell your car because in the future you can change your mind about it.
>You cant sell your shoes because in the future you can change your mind about it.
That's retarded. Either you are property and you own yourself, and therefore you can sell yourself full title outright, or you are not and you can only lease yourself, which makes you something different than property. So what is it?

>the market is failing because of government intervention
Literally true. You don't even have to be a libertarian to know this. Yeah sure, it was great in the industrial age to have the men come to the city and learn how to run machinery, but now we have the internet, and everyone gets access to pretty much the same information.

fucking fag

Attached: 31369554_789416067911057_5902288369064345600_n.jpg (832x960, 106K)

Theoretically it can be. No one would do it of course. I don't know how saying your body is your property is even remotely controversial.

Because it's retarded. It's literally the most kiked fucking thing I've ever heard in my life.

mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

I don't really remember the full argument in my head but this should help

I'm not reading Jew Habsburg trash trying to convince me to believe I'm a chattel.

Attached: HabsburgScumBowToTheirKing.png (1536x1404, 920K)

I could recommend you the ethics of liberty but you're not gonna read that jew either

How is it kiked to say you own your body, I mean I cant steal a corpse from a funeral home.

Karl marx didn't invent ancaps.

Attached: karl marx.jpg (480x342, 20K)

>Yes people have skin in the game cause they can chose who to vote for without having buy stocks and become a big time investor

Lol yeah if you have a lot of political influence and sit in on the committee of super pac, do you think every citizen will be in such a position of power with just a few fiat notes compared to all the rich lobbyists? Lol their influence will be so minimal that it won't matter.

>Its you who don't really know how a corporation is really run you kike apologist.

I know right, its not like I manage the daily financial operations of one or anything.

>Because big business has invaded politics
Yes, because the government has too much power, so we should be more Libertarian.

Stop equating government with the state

Based user bringing some well needed common sense in one of the worst active threads.