|
Hell yes, I've been waiting for this thread! Have some Libertarian YouTube poop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQBTbsnbuc4 - "My retarded friend wasn't allowed to work for sub minimum wage!"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk - "The reason there aren't more female libertarians is because women are shallow idiots!" nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. As demographics skew more towards non-whites, Libertarian principles will become more palatable to traditional minorities as FYGM thinking intensifies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zoee4k7yE - "I don't care if Cliven Bundy is racist. He has a point!"
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Come on, SedanChair. Embrace the free market of ideas. 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I've read some other plans to set up "economic freedom cities" or something in receptive third-world countries. Basically asking for a section of land to build a new libertarian city-state. Slightly more feasible, slightly less Bioshocky. This is probably less feasible than trying to build a commune on a sandbar in the south pacific. A land-based libertarian city-state would have to deal with problems like maintaining its borders against the political and military machinations of its competitors (including the supposedly benevolent host country), in addition to silly statist problems like immigration, free riders, water rights, the business cycle, etc. etc. Why go to all that trouble when you can just buy the political process right here at home? Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I always have a soft spot for Spooner because he started up a competitor to the US Postal Serice. The service was successful and cheaper, but the government shut him down because it claimed a monopoly. Riiiiiiight, and this wouldn't have had anything to do with Spooner's postal service not having a last-mile mandate. If you limit a delivery service exclusively to densely populated areas with modern infrastructure like Baltimore and New York then yes, you can probably offer your service at a lower average cost than the guy who is obligated by law to sell his services at an affordable price in unprofitable markets as well as profitable ones. Which, by the way, is essentially the reason why the US Postal Service is allowed to have a monopoly. It needs the profitable markets to subsidize the unprofitable ones because it is providing a quasi-public service. Every cherry-picking libertarian cost comparison between the public and private sector always fails to mention that a private business isn't obligated to sell a drat thing if it isn't profitable for them to do so. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:This sounds like you're trying to make a counter point, but I think the libertarian response would be "Yes, that's exactly the point" Which is fine as long as we're being honest about who wins and who loses in a libertarian society. But libertarians aren't being honest when they say that a private postal service would be cheaper without explaining how that would be possible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The US Post Office didn't have one back then though, most people had to travel to the local post office to receive mail, even in cities. Was Sooner's postal service available outside a handful of major metropolitan areas? We're talking about a time before the internal combustion engine. Delivering mail to remote townships would be the equivalent of last-mile delivery today.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would a DRO that is in the business of keeping subscribers ever rule against its own customers? God loving drat that is stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I'd like to thank the Free Market, Rothbard's name be praised, for giving us the best thread ever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I really hope that authors or game or movie writers have been following this thread for inspiration because holy poo poo is there potential for some awesome DRO-land dystopian sci fi Allowing corporations to compete for a monopoly on violence is a pretty common sci-fi trope (which makes AnCap support for the idea all the more hilarious). But it would be fun to see a talented author try to go full Rothbard with his dystopian setting just to see where it takes him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Attempts have been/are being made to extend that same logic to welfare in the form of drug tests. You can't say the state doesn't own that relief aid and distributes approval to use them. Just because the government owns something you've passed a neutral test to use doesn't mean your rights go away. The reason drug testing for welfare recipients is deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment is because there is not one iota of reasonable cause to justify it. The act of applying for welfare does not make you a potential threat to others. Driving two tons of metal and plastic on a public road does. Hope this information helps you in any future duel of wits with the Highway Patrol. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:People who want welfare drug tests do believe WELFARE QUEEN THUGS ON REEFER are public hazards. What they believe, and what they are able to prove in court are two completely different things. And actually, no, those people don't want mandatory drug testing because they believe that welfare recipients represent an immediate danger to public safety. You just made that up. They want mandatory drug testing because they believe that welfare recipients are using government assistance to buy drugs. Which brings us back to my first sentence. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:DUI policy is kind of reactive by nature, though. You get stopped or you get in a wreck, you were drunk, okay you lose some privileges or do some time. That's fine. You don't have to go all minority report on poo poo, that is security theater. You're not safe. Get used to it. I'm glad you've dropped the pretense of the existence of racial profiling as a reason to not have DUI checkpoints that stop everyone (  ). Good. Honesty is good. "I want to be able to drive drunk without getting caught until after I kill someone" is being honest. That's good.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It just shows what a sham ancapism is. You would think, out of any policy in the world, the one a libertarian would definitely oppose is the government defining racial categories and then sending MEN WITH GUNS to tell you where you can live and impose themselves on the job creators' precious freedom of contract by dictating whom they can hire, but hahaha nope that all gets selectively defined as "self-defense" and "retaliatory force" Ancaps love this because they like to imagine a post-government world where the men with guns are their employees.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 20:03
|
|