No, you're being dishonest. You advocate a system where people can engage in abuse and exploitative labor practices with no rules or check on them, where people can donate as much money as they want to buy political officiants, where people can open a business under protection of the state and open to the general public but discriminate against minorities if they wish, and where there is no place for injured parties to seek justice after falling victim to an externality from another group's trading.

I seek a democratic base of power, you seek a world where the rich have all the power. The funniest thing is that you've been duped to believe that your worldview would lead somewhere besides plutocracy.

Only by your definition of "exploitative" and "abusive" which are at odds with the actual definitions.

What I advocate is a government that doesn't give away all these special powers and subsidies to special interests.
What I advocate is a government that doesn't restrict parties from making voluntary transactions, even if a faux-liberal like yourself gets upset.
What I advocate are property rights. That means socialist hipsters cannot tell me what to do on my own property, even if you might not like how I act oir who I choose to associate with.
What I advocate is freedom and liberty both economically and socially.
Can you say the same? No.

You can only butcher words and twist situations to pretend things like freedom of association and mutually beneficial transactions are somehow unjust while lying through your teeth pretending you are pro-liberty.

What is this power the rich can have over you in my system?
In your system they get special benefits and get actual power and money from the government.
In my system they are accountable to the consumers. If they aren't providing a good product or service they go out of business.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 15 2014 12:19pm

Your first claim: the libertarian system would lead to government-for-sale, and what would happen is the costs would be subsidized and the profits would be privatized, like in the past.
Your second claim: you don't seem to know much about economics but the biggest problem of that is externalities, which are commonplace if there aren't rules in place to prevent them.
Your third claim: I don't belong to any housing association, and I don't tell people what to do with their house, home, or inside their homes. A factory isn't a home, and is public space.
Your fourth claim: how can minorities have economic freedom if they allowed to be economically discriminated against? How can women have economic and social freedom if males are allowed to force them to have children they don't have to stick around for? How can you have both economic and social freedom? They are contradicting at heart.

Can I say the same as all these? Fuck no. I believe in democratic principles, where the power of a nation is vested in its voters not who has the most money.
I believe that trades between A and B that affect C should be considered in kind, instead of just pretending C doesn't exist like Austrian economist who can't seem to do two-step math equations.
I believe people should be able to do what they wish within the confines of their home. Try to dig to China for all I care.
I believe people should be the highest possible sovereign on their body and should be free to live the same civic life as anybody else, as embodied in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

That last paragraph you wrote is the most naive thing I've ever read on the internet and isn't worth a response tbh. Just open a history book about any time in any place and you'll see otherwise being true in power relations.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 15 2014 12:32pm

If nothing is for sale, what can be bought?

You want to bandaid the problem with campaign finance laws that arbitrarily restrict the amount that can be used for campaigning, while others easily work around those laws and are at a massive advantage, while leaving the government power up for grabs.



You say externalities, but can you name any? and which would be a problem?
Im open to some ideas if there is clear harm done to another individual.



Only because you've decreed that it must be.
Working is a most basic and ancient act. They shouldn't need special privilege and approval by the government to do it.
You want to make them jump through hoops and sacrifice their freedom if they wish to do business. I do not.

You've drawn an illegitimate distinction between owning a house and owning a factory and you do infact want to restrict their property rights if they wish to make a living.
That isn't very liberal of you.


Your rights end where mine begin.
Forcing me to associate with you is not "economic freedom" its coercion.
Every individual has the same freedom and equal rights in my ideal system.
They do not have the right to coerce other people. Not even if they are black.


I advocate forced reproduction? thats a new one.


No, they're only contradicting in your ideology.
The ability to spend your own money how you see fit and own your own body and use it how you see fit is not contradicting.


Do you believe mob rule is just?

And again what is this magical power that rich people have without the government?
They can buy more stuff than you? They provided a better product at a better price and consumers decided to give him their money instead of buying your shitty product?
Too bad.


You'd rather have A and B decide what C should do for D.

If A and B decide to trade apples for shoes, its hardly an injustice for C.
Meanwhile its a boon for A and B whose lives are now enriched.
Voluntary mutually beneficial exchange. What a lovely thing.



Ok so do I. If you actually believe that, We agree here.
You just strictly limit where that freedom and self ownership applies, as evidenced by early portions of your post.
Somehow I should no longer own my body and do whatever I want in my own house as soon as someone decides to call it a factory?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 15 2014 01:00pm

This is so uncomfortable to read. It's like watching Skinned being Mike Tyson and punching a little girl. If I wasn't on my phone I would post that akward seal face meme. You just can't look away.

You aren't at 20% yet? shocking.

Care to actually refute points or are you going to do your evasive insults shtick again?

/pol/'s always right

Unlike you I don't believe repeating the same thing over and over again is any kind of intellectual debate.

Thats what I thought. Stay small.