Why aren't you libertarian yet, Holla Forums?

The state just creates a class of people dependent upon it. Without it most the redundant people will eventually die out.

You don't need border control in a free society. Without the state, there will be no one to force to redistribution of resources to low IQ people,
or force people to tolerate violent religions. They will self-deport.

Because DJ TRuMPMAsTER isn't on the Libertarian ticket yet tbh fam.

NO government is the logical conclusion of libertarianism. You can be all for shit like small government, strong borders etc. but guess what, it doesn't matter because the majority
of people are women/non-whites who will vote for the opposite. It is impossible to maintain a government with rightwing libertarian policies, it will always be corrupted, no exceptions.

But it's dogma to say redistribution can never help. Sure redistribution can harm but not always.

I think it would help in a society where people uncharitable. Or at least uncharitable to certain groups.
Whites might not give much to blacks, so the state could make them (since blacks benefit just as much from charity).
Same with people in foreign countries, who benefit the most from charity but who get the least of it

State regulation is appropriate because of the huge externalities.
If one factory invites gangs of Somalian immigrants to come work they could easily terrorise the locals.
Same if a housing project starts just across the border from Mexico.
Open borders would lead to conflicts and riot. The state can balance these externalities and ensure peace

but why should some random blacks (or whites) get my money?

We simply aren't as clever as we think. We have opposable thumbs, invented the wheel, lit fires, and now we've reached the moon, found higgs boson, etc. But we have lost touch with nature itself, and therefore the world we live in. Hardly that fucking clever is it? Capitalism is just basically autism on a global perspective, and no i'm not a commie.

Soon we'll find that out that cancer is ironically the earth's own chemotherapy.

how so?

Fuck off with your money nihilism. I want what's best for humanity, so there

Because we were much happier crawling on all fours and dying from infections at 25

if that makes you happy, you can do it in our current system

No, we elected them, if they fuck up, they get kicked out. They're appointed agents and such because they are human, they're us

I'm not going to take any opinion of anyone seriously if they rock up to me half naked yelling

That infographic is pretty hardcore biased and completely misrepresents all sides

I've said it before, there is a reason that pretty much everyone has a hierarchy and form of government, from African tribes to modern superpowers.

If you don't like the policies or way the government does things, elect someone who better represents your views

Let me guess, you're the pinnacle of enlightenment and here to save everyone from the evil corporations

Pure Capitalism works until you realize that things get "too big to fail", as soon as you bail something out, it ceases to become capitalism.

On the other hand pure communism doesn't work because of peoples drive to elevate themselves and achieve more.

Pure Socialism is retarded too, the policies work on the inside but just look how Britain and Europe are coping.

I personally think that it needs to be a political mixture, a mutt breed. But honestly I don't really know shit, its nearly 1 am and I'm posting my political beliefs on an anonymous image board that really doesn't care

Fedora tier

The only reason big banks were led to collapse the way they did in 2008 was because of government.
The only reason banking establishments became so large and few was because of government.
Elsewhere you will have smaller banks with limited, spread out failures

Not it's not, who does it help? If people are not able to support themselves then other people shouldn't be forced to support them. If blacks can't make it in today's world then their population will decline,
natural selection will take place as it should. Same reason why immigrants won't come if they have nothing to offer to our society. Welfare does nothing but sustain people of no value.

If people are unable to support themselves temporarily due to bad luck or illness, and these people can be supported by their families or charity.

They would get shot to bits by the well-armed locals, and they would be such bad PR that the factory wouldn't want them anyway. And why would they
want Somalian immigrants? There is already enough supply of unskilled labour, and it's only going to decrease as robots take over these jobs.

Just because there's 'open borders' doesn't mean there isn't going to be anyone to prevent encroachment or incursions by foreign nations. Physically stopping individuals from crossing anywhere on
the thousands of km that are your country's border, and then identifying them and that they came from a different country and physically deporting them if they do is a different ballpark altogether.

The state has a REALLY bad track record of ensuring peace, just so you know.

Pick one, it's happened before, and I don't just mean with banks

As far as I can tell it's just a meme used to justify bailouts.
If a badly run company goes broke the capital will bought by someone better
If an unprofitable capital set-up fails that's a good thing. The assets should be liquidated.

I'm not really an expert but if it doesn't get bought up and run immediately as is, just seems like what would happen

Because I don't want the private fire department to sit by and watch my house burn down because I couldn't afford to pay them because I had to pass through at least fifteen toll booths on the private road I was forced to go through to get home?

Deregulation=monopoly=no competition=the surviving companies do whatever they want because you're forced to pay for their services due to there being no alternative.

Because the free market doesn't fix everything.

So, A capitalist state all over again I guess, with less freedom??

There's a reason we broke up standard and bell.

Get on my level Holla Forums.

Not in a free and competitive market.

Most of these points have already been answered and I don't think get at the heart of libertarianism. Which is externalities and naturally scarce things like land

nope

I mean get at the heart of potential problems with libertarianism.
Also because new companies always- always- in history, entered the market when monopoly power became a force.
Except when the government was stopping them

It's understandable that you might think these things, but they are all handily disproven by a thorough understanding of economics. I can elaborate if you are interested, or I can direct you to informative texts. I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

What about that belief? By your own standard, isn't it stupid to value moderation? You make a nod to this in your greentext, but you don't really seem to address the contradiction.
You speak of a particular set of values, but you aren't terribly specific about which ones and why you feel the way you do about them.

Righteous.

Explanation? The scope of philosophy that describes itself as "anarchist" is vast, so you might have to be more specific. If I were to take your words at face value, that "All" would include the branches of anarchism that have been around for over a century, which would put a hole in your proposal.

Again, an understandable error, but strictly untrue. It is an economic fact that redistribution must necessarily destroy more wealth (satisfaction) than it creates, because of its involuntary nature. In order for it to create wealth, redistribution must first destroy it through involuntary confiscation. Trade, on the other hand, creates wealth for all parties involved in the transaction. Trade is a positive-sum game, while redistribution is zero-sum at best.

A society which is generally uncharitable would not support such government policies. If they did, it would be a sign of their charity and thus the program would not be necessary. Such a government is not representative of its population, and isn't representative government the very justification for its existence?

Typically this only happens in the presence of a welfare state. Immigrants are a self-selecting group, and the ones who choose to move to a society where they can expect handouts are unlikely to value the hard work of others. Those who move to a place where you have to work hard to survive are much more likely to respect others.

Balancing externalities would require economic calculation, which monopolists (like government) cannot do (see the Economic Calculation Problem). Ensuring peace isn't exactly something governments have a strong track record of doing.

That hasn't exactly been working out very well for us, now has it?

Might that reason be–oh wait, that actually isn't true. Most of the time, people just listen to other people who have good ideas, but those people aren't actually in charge, so it isn't really a hierarchy. Tribes are pretty loose-weave, and the elders are respected but have no enforcement powers (I've got co-workers from Africa whom I've asked about these things).

Temorarily, yes. But also remember that an entire community is rarely employed principally by a single employer, and those people are now free to find other, more productive jobs. Also realize that in a genuinely free market, starting a new business would be trivially easy for these unemployed workers, since they'd just have to decide for themselves to go into business; no licensing, permits, or what-have-you. I've been involved in a startup, and $16k of our $20k startup money went into government paperwork. Our business model? Sending harmless practical jokes through the mail. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to start up in a real free market.

That's the name of the game. Stock investing wouldn't exist, much less be profitable, if there weren't a risk involved. Real life means accepting risks and taking responsibility when things don't work out like you planned. It makes investors wiser and improves the quality of available information.

Only happened once, and these days they'd be paid by your fire insurer, not a pay-per-use scheme.
Plus, governments do that too:
google.com/#q=firefighters watch house burn down tennessee

Do you really believe that road owners would settle on such an archaic business model? Can't you think of any other monetization strategies for a road? Have you never seen all the freely-accessible private roads that already exist today? You think the local shopping mall wouldn't pay for roads so people could more easily get there and buy stuff?
The fact that you haven't thought of a solution for something doesn't mean somebody else won't, and you shouldn't force your solution on people just because you can't imagine any others.

False. I would challenge you to name one time in human history that an abusive monopoly has formed without government interference in the economy. It has never happened.
Regulation is precisely the mechanism that is used to stifle competition and create monopolies. There has never been a "de facto" monopoly; they all must necessarily be "de jure". Without the force of law, anybody could jump into the market; be it complete newcomers, or other businesses branching into new industries.
And before you attempt the "predatory pricing" gambit; remember that it has rarely ever been tried, and it has never worked, for embarrassingly obvious reasons.