Libertarianism/Conservatism are blatanty full of shit positions that are nothing more than an elaborate set of mental gymnastics for the wealthy and powerful to use whenever they don't want to contribute back to the society that made them rich. So why do so many poor and average people fall for their "arguments" which under all the verbiage can be summarised as "Fuck you, I don't want to put any of my money back into society because I want a new yacht"? Libertarians and conservatives often convince people that they will get more "freedom" and "choice" if they vote for their policies, but what that essentially means is that the conservatives/libertarians don't want to invest back into society, but simply want to leave people to fend for themselves.
Libertarianism/Conservatism are blatanty full of shit positions that are nothing more than an elaborate set of mental...
Other urls found in this thread:
alternet.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
econlib.org
bleedingheartlibertarians.com
econlib.org
youtube.com
libertarianinstitute.org
onezero.medium.com
twitter.com
>Fuck you, I don't want to put any of my money back into society because I want a new yacht
Yes.
Dear Poorfag,
Please compare the amount of monies that rich people donate to charities compared to what poor people do for their own communities.
Regards,
Rich Person.
>people who have more money donate more than people who have no money
Absolutely genius revelation.
If they invested back into society, they wouldn't need to guilt trip themselves into donating to charities.
>If they invested back into society, they wouldn't need to guilt trip themselves into donating to charities.
Engaging in charity is an integral part of the rich people lifestyle.
If poor people stopped spending all of their money on beer and lottery tickets they too would have money.
>invest back into society
When you buy things you are investing back into society. When you buy a bit boat all the people who build boats buy money. You are fucking retarded.
libertarianism is a massive fraud perpetrated on the public with the help of politicians
Rich people also spend their money on beer and drugs
No, the company that made the boat gets the money, the majority of which goes to the bosses and owners.
>You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen.
>It’s not rocket science. It’s public choice economics. You recognized, rightly, that public choice economics was a threat to your ideology. So, you didn’t listen, because you didn’t want to be wrong. Public choice predicted that the government programs you created with the goal of fixing problems would often instead exacerbate those problems. Well, the evidence is in. You were wrong and public choice theory was right. If you have any decency, it is time to admit you were wrong and change. Stop making things worse.
bleedingheartlibertarians.com
This man literally created globalism.
>Rich people also spend their money on beer and drugs
If that was the case they wouldn't be rich in the first place.
> No, the company that made the boat gets the money, the majority of which goes to the bosses and owners.
Then why don't the employees start their own company? They will then be able to learn about fun things such as taxes, business regulations, social security payments, tax benefits and deductions. Lots and lots of administrative work.
How to reinvest your profits into the business. And how hard it is to find people who actually want to do their job.
And if you have enough employees they will constantly ask for your help because they don't know or want to do their jobs themselves.
You wouldn't last a day as a business exec.
This is how people who advocate for government sound
>I am a weak and pathetic man who needs the group to protect me, a big daddy state to look after me because I am too much of a pussy to face the world and the state of nature on my own.
The system only offers debt slavery, mass importation of immigrants and the denigration of our culture and traditions for the profit and lifestyles of a political and aristocracy class. We have an enslavement of fathers and the monetisation of their anguish. The trafficking of our children in family courts.
Libertarianism is the simple belief that I can do whatever I want as long as I am not hurting anyone else. The system is here by consent of the people and i think it is about time we had a violent and bloody revolution to remove this evil from the world.
To get to the root of Libertarianism/Conservatism you must first look into Classical Liberalism. John Locke, most of the American founding fathers and many of the French revolutionaries were Freemasons. Their concept of liberty is satanic and they saught to replicate Lucifer's rebellion against God.
With or without the government, you are never facing the state of nature on your own, unless you go out into Alaska or Siberia with no technology or inventions made by yourself. Otherwise you are always relying on others, whether you admit it or not. This is just you LARPING as a tough guy. Cringe. Go do some push ups, fatty.
libertarianism is based on the theories of adam smith, ricardo, coase and pareto.
Fake and gay Psyops.
We do not have a free market, the market is controlled entirely by central banks, price fixing credit, meaning we have a tyrannical state that is mass importing immigrants destroying local culture. A better way would be to have a free market on the credit.
Options to make user happy
- Austrian economics or
- support a free market and the abolition of centralised control of credit
Like come on the central banks are hardly a representative democracy, it more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship far worse than the Chinese oligarchies. Our democracy is theatre when gov is a puppet to the credit stream.
>libertarians printed pamphlets against rent control
>get pissy that libertarians had the gall to "influence legislation"
Yeah, libertarians are so successful we don't have price controls anywhere. Fuck you. You probably don't even know libertarian arguments against price controls.
Charities are a scheme designed to dodge taxes at best and to manipulate society at worst.
>Soros gave more than $32 billions to the Open Society Foundation, he's a good boi!
the american right has perverted the original ideas of libertarianism beyond recognition.
the lefts version was freedom from government landlords monopolists and banks
>rich people don't use drugs
This is your brain on libertarianism.
>I want a new yacht
and by buying the new yacht they are giving the money to somebody that made that yacht, that will consequentially will pay the workers that built that yacht their wage. so they contributed to society.
>they vote for their policies
if they are libertarians they should have no policies, right?
>don't want to invest back into society
if they invest more, aren't they investing into society?
Yo dumb nigger. Buying a new yatch puts money back into society. Giving money to niggers in africa just creates a bubble of freeloaders that depend on more handouts.
First off Im not fat.
Libertarianism isn't the absent of support from your fellow man. You can exchange goods and services without relying on the group for them. For example If you make a pair of shoes and exchange that for a gun you are not relying on others you are engaged in trade. Enter classical liberalism, were the contract of the two parties engaged in exchange of goods can be ensured by a 3rd party "the government" using contract theory. This was fine but over time government has grown large and corrupt and now it does not resemble anything it once was.
young england
>see related
econlib.org
>Most modern theories of how society ought to work rest on some idea of agreement. Almost invariably, however, the agreement is fictitious, hypothetical, one that would be concluded if all men had equal “bargaining power,” or saw things through the same “veil” of ignorance or uncertainty about their future. Or felt the same need for a central authority. The social contract, in its many versions, is perhaps the best known of these alleged agreements. All are designed to suit the normative views of their inventors and to justify the kind of social arrangements they should like to see adopted. Yet the only agreement that is not hypothetical, alleged, invented is the system of voluntary exchanges where all parties give visible, objective proof by their actions that they have found the unique common ground that everybody accepts, albeit grumblingly, but without anyone being forced to give up something he had within his reach and would have preferred. The set of voluntary exchanges, in one word, is the only one that does not impose an immorality in pursuit of a moral objective.
it took the right almost 40 years to figure out what reagan did
But fascistbros... what happened?
>This is your brain on libertarianism.
How will you manage a business or a high paid job if you're high on drugs? Use common sense friend.
libertarianism is freedom from government.
landlords are not bad.
monopolists will be fixed by the market itself.
banks are not bad.
simple as that.
fascists are not libertarians.
> Categorical imperative
> Contract theory
> lawful governance
> self determination
These things are what the original system was built on.
They have been replaced with
> consumer culture
> Loopholes for the wealthy
> unlawful government sidestepping constitutional rights using national security laws
> debt slavery and prison
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>I don't want to put any of my money back into society
And by "back into society" you mean "gibs muh dat", right? What do you do for work? How much of your income to you give away?
I'm not whitelisting faggot Alternet
>invested back into society
What does that even mean?
So the problem is the government right? because without the government these policies wouldn't exist, so check mate?
>What does that even mean?
When you create a business you offer a service to the public which could be offering medication to people that are sick and would die without it. You get fucking rich because you save lives how do you not fucking get it!!!
We fucking went over this in the late 18th century in Europe.
How is your breeding and culture so freaking bad this is what mass uncontrolled immigration does to our society we have to learn all these fucking lessons again and go backwards. Fuck me.
the rich need government more than anyone
Aye, comrade!
>the rich need government more than anyone
Without rich people the economy would collapse in a day.
So you want a finite and difficult resource to be acquired for free? Why even bother with even making anything?
this economy.
people aren't going to stop wanting shoes just because nike goes outta business
>this economy.
Go to a community of poor people and see what their economy looks like. That's what you get when there are no rich people around.
well thanks for quoting one faggot. but adam smith lived in a period where landlords were operating in a regulated market, because the demand wasn't free to leave the market when the prices gets too high.
>That the right to cooperate is as unquestionable as the right to compete; the right to compete involves the right to refrain from competition; cooperation is often a method of competition, and competition is always, in the larger view, a method of cooperation ... each is a legitimate, orderly, non-invasive exercise of the individual will under the social law of equal liberty ...
>Viewed in the light of these irrefutable propositions, the trust, then, like every other industrial combination endeavoring to do collectively nothing but what each member of the combination might fully endeavor to do individually, is, per se, an unimpeachable institution. To assail or control or deny this form of cooperation on the ground that it is itself a denial of competition is an absurdity. It is an absurdity, because it proves too much. The trust is a denial of competition in no other sense than that in which competition itself is a denial of competition. The trust denies competition only by producing and selling more cheaply than those outside of the trust can produce and sell; but in that sense every successful individual competitor also denies competition. ... The fact is that there is one denial of competition which is the right of all, and that there is another denial of competition which is the right of none. All of us, whether out of a trust or in it, have a right to deny competition by competing, but none of us, whether in a trust or out of it, have a right to deny competition by arbitrary decree, by interference with voluntary effort, by forcible suppression of initiative.
Benjamin Tucker
Survival of the Richest
The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind
Then why don't you start up a shoe making business yourself? No one is stopping you.
But everyone wants the prestige.
as far as the libertarians are concerned the only government we need if the police courts and military. the government they need
Historically I would agree with you. I believe blockchain can offer another way.
oh its jewish is it?
the opposite is initiating force by violence to get your way, directly or indirectly
THAT is the kike way, unable to succeed fairly
this isn't an argument, its not even a coherent thought. stop watching msnbc and listening to fake commies on twatter, its clearly giving you brain damage. and stop sucking all that cock OP, i hope the coronachan lock down sees your aids meds go short. kys
and nike is overpriced too, because it makes branded shoes.
What on earth would rich people need the government for? We keep entire countries going with our work and money.
This deserves its on daily bread
Being forced to give money to bureaucrats that turn around and give it to their friends is not giving back to society.
>I am a weak and pathetic man who needs the group to protect me, a big daddy state to look after me because I am too much of a pussy to face the world and the state of nature on my own.
You can use the same argument for free market, because the real elite are male gangs with guns, who take what they want. The only way abstract concepts like private property, contracts and free trade can work is because there is a giant police state protecting it.
The purpose of a market is to reward people who make things that others want. These people are given better standards of living in a free market. The government control this market with violence to tell the people what they want.
If we lived in a world with an infinitely regenerative climate, libertarianism would be a LOT more functional.
the only government we need if the police courts and military.
libertarians actually say that
I could see A libertarianism where everyone magically had altruism towards fellow man would politically evolve into a fascism
>they don't want to contribute back to the society that made them rich
A trade only happens when both parties value what they receive more than what they give up. If made through honest means, merely the act of becoming wealthy indicates that you've already provided significant value to society.
The problem as I see it is that "honest means" rarely apply to the modern system which I'd describe more as corporatism than capitalism. All of the rules and regulations that exist ostensibly to protect consumers usually actually serve to protect corporations from competition. Big corporations, when not blatantly writing legislation, can afford to hire a team of lawyers and accountants to find workarounds to legislation designed to "protect people". Small companies cannot.
> conservatives/libertarians don't want to invest back into society
What does "invest back into society" mean in CURRENT_YEAR in western countries?
It literally means being taxed out of your ass to fund gibs for shitskins who vote for people to mass import other shitskins and accelerate the decline.
The real problem isn't capitalism. The country was at its best when we were economically freest.
The real problem is making the West non-white.
Why would people want to fight for a community of apes who hate them?
lol We keep entire countries going with our work and money.
the us need a1000 military bases around the world to maintain the status quo
And what is this reward supposed to be?
Why evan care about what others want?
Unironically die scum