/liberty/ - Liberty

public education

>>97495

>Salon

/r/ing that image showing how Salon ran some 400 hit pieces on libertarians in the course of three months during the elections.

>>97495

Nothing because Tucker is sort of right. He at least sees the faults of Capitalism in its current state and is critical of it, compared to most conservatives who hold it up as some unquestionable god. What he fails to realize, as do most people including libertarians, is that these faults are do to state intervention, which just creates monopolies, which destroys the free market.

>>97523

>the faults of Capitalism in its current state

>state intervention, which just creates monopolies, which destroys the free market

Ok, but what does that have to do with capitalism?

>>97524

many libertarians and conservatives want to remove the few rules set in place to limit the destructions caused by crony-capitalisms, in the name of capitalism. That's retarded, but they don't get it because they are blinded by ideology.

Two examples: healthcare and net neutrality.

Healthcare is shit and will always be shit when completely privatized if you have any kind of patent, subsidy, medical or nursing license, government insurance, etc etc

Of course in a free market healthcare would be just and fair, but since there is not a free market it becomes complete shit.

Since as of now you can't make everything truly free-market for now (the people will never let you), the US needs to follow the european countries in regulating this market. The current situation is ridicolous and immoral. Following Europe's way of doing things would keep quality up and prices down (without of course having to impose prices).

The sad thing is that most libertarians and conservatives keep defending this system because they think that the more rules you remove, the more you solve. They don't understand the nuances in a system that is not fully free. When a system is not fully free, if you remove the rules that keep the part with more advantage in check (healthcare industry) you get the current US situation, which is shit.

It looks like it's too difficult to understand this, and so we have libertarians and conservatives basically making capitalism sounding retarded when they defend the current system to the only viable alternative for now.

Same thing with net neutrality. Internet is something that exist only because of the governments. In a free world, internet wouldn't exist, not like we understand it, and that's ok. But since we are in a non-free world, we need all tools at our disposal to both have a good life and spread liberty.

Without net neutrality there is nothing stopping any ISP from censoring 8ch, mises.org or any site considered bad. And no, you won't find a new ISP, because creating an ISP is really expensive. Not only that, but this regulation has zero cost. It does limit the ability of profiting but it doesn't make the start up costs increase and it doesn't cost anything on the provider. They just need to do nothing. And the sector is already heavily subsidiated anyway, so ISP should really stop whining about not making enough money.

Back to Carlson, I only heard one anti-freemarket argument, and it was shit.

Despite this, he ended up winning the debate/interview.

It was on the show of the sneaky jew Ben Shapiro. He was complaining about truckers and AI, brining up some valid concerns. Yet, Shapiro wasn't able to debate Carlson point. He just sprouted the usual "muh free market" and "muh everything will fix itself". Instead he could have provided many good reasoning and good examples of why there isn't much to worry about, but he didn't.

Sadly, if this is the current level of free market debaters and arguments, of course the free market will lose popularity in the long run.

We need to provide solutions based on the world we live in, not the utopia we imagine. We need the ability to empathize with other people concerns, showing we have valid solutions and arguments. Instead I only see slogans and badly-applied ideology. All shit that makes as much damages to capitalism's reputation than 12 years of leftist indoctrination.

So yeah, have shitty arguments, get Carlson.

>>97531

> few rules set in place to limit the destructions caused by crony-capitalisms, in the name of capitalism

> few rules

You mean tens of thousands of regulation documents which end up benefiting the biggest player on the market

> internet is something that exist only because of the governments. In a free world, internet wouldn't exist, not like we understand it,

That's just retarded, this is the same argument people use to praise the USSR - the state has built you a house, so you should be thankful, because no one but the state could've done it. Then there is a case law, where you just need one court decision instead of hundred pages of net neutrality regulation to force isp not to censor.

> Sadly, if this is the current level of free market debaters and arguments, of course the free market will lose popularity in the long run.

That's kind of true, I just ignore Shapiro, but Tucker is better spoken than Kirk, despite having shit arguments, and maybe it is just the case that it is easier to "sell" anti-capitalist ideas. Anyway, in an ideal world we should have a libertarian "ethnostate", and people like Tucker must be deported somewhere to France.

>>97532

>You mean tens of thousands of regulation documents which end up benefiting the biggest player on the market

That's my point. There are a shitload of rules to benefit the biggest player and sometimes a few more rules to limit the destructive power of those rules.

Do you think that removing those few rules that limit the destructive power is an improvement? Because that's what libertarians/conservatives often end up fighiting when debating against democrats. Making capitalism lose consensus and for a good reason I think.

>That's just retarded, this is the same argument people use to praise the USSR - the state has built you a house, so you should be thankful, because no one but the state could've done it

You can have homes in the free market, I doubt you can get the internet as it has been conceived in our world. Of course in a free society there would be networks of computers, probably, but who knows how they would work.

Since we have this creation, and as of now it has helped freedom a lot since 99% of us wouldn't even be here sperging about libertarianism without it, it's importat to keep the rules that govern it in our favor.

When libertarians/conservatives fight against net neutrality, they fight against a rule that benefit them in a world full of rules against them. This doesn't make sense.

>Then there is a case law, where you just need one court decision instead of hundred pages of net neutrality regulation to force isp not to censor.

I don't know how the net neutrality regulation was in the US, but in the EU it is quite simple and not very long (of course the EU now changed its mind about the internet and it's pulling out all sorts of rules and regulations against its freedom). I also don't think case law can help much, since if the ISPs are free to choose how to regulate traffic, they're free to do so and that's it.

In any case, it was simpler to have the rule in place. Of course if the FCC's pajeet went "fuck net neutrality and all the rules" that would have been another story.

> it is easier to "sell" anti-capitalist ideas

It is easier because everyone has the leftist basics in him, and also some ideas are quite counter-intuitive (the price system) and seems cruel. But when it comes to debate the specific issues I think we need to get better at it. For example Ben Shapiro could have said that truckers own the truck and that AI would make truckers job more comfortable. He could've said that a lower price for goods due to the AI would've meant that everything would get to be more affordable even for the temporarely unemployed truckers. He could've said that truckers aren't retarded and that they are smart and they would be able to get another job. He could've said that the process would be slow enough to let truckers rejoin the workforce.

But he didn't say anything like this. He was stuck in theory, like I see many libertarians are. Repating general points that can be obvious only for us, and sound like pure evil to the general audience.

> in an ideal world we should have a libertarian "ethnostate", and people like Tucker must be deported somewhere to France.

I don't think we will get there in our lives. We can however achieve a great amount of freedom and build the road so that our descendants will be able to reach that world where France is the only socialist nation left.

>>97531

>>97535

>hurr durr muh healthcare

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

>hurr durr muh internet

https://mises.org/library/government-did-invent-internet-market-made-it-glorious

>hurr durr muh net neutrality

https://mises.org/wire/net-neutrality-strengthens-monopolies-invites-corruption

>>97535

I don't think we will get anywhere unless we will create a state which preserves the biological and genetic foundation if libertarian mindset.

As for some good regulation, they are good as long as they prevent fraud, and they all can be discovered in courts.

>>97536

>healthcare article

I know that article by heart and I always post it or cite it when I need to explain people in Europe why the healthcare in the US is expensive and why it's not free market.

That said, you know very well that the current healthcare debate in the US is not about removing all the regulations listed in that article, but it's about if the US were to continue with the current shitty system of crony-capitalism and outrageous bills or instead following a more European way, with both a real single-payer and private providers.

If it's true that libertarians care about the individual freedom and are not bootlickers money-hungry bitches who think that one day they'll be billionaires, they would be in favor of the European way since it better suits the individual and it's even freer (yes, the European healthcare market is much more free than the american one in almost all European countries, deal with it).

Maybe the problem is that the american only know their system and the theory, and they don't know how the european healthcare system works? I don't know, but as the current debate stands, taking the side of keeping things this way and favor the cronies doesn't do anything but reinforce the idea that capitalist enthusiasts are just bootlickers and billionaire wannabe.

>internet article

This article is not even about net neutrality per se, but in any case has zero valid arguments against net neutrality. If anything is against internet altogether, and I agree. If the internet doesn't get to exist in a free society, it doesn't. That's good.

But we don't live in a fucking free society you bitch.

At one point Klein says that net neutrality is internet socialism, which is a ridicolous scaremongering definition. Net neutrality is one rule: that if you sell a service called internet it must be internet, that is all the data is equal and must be transmitted (and let's not forget that all the data has already been paid by everyone, by prices set by the ISP, unlike what sometimes they whine about). Which is fair and very good for freedom in the world we live in. And just to reiterate my point let's go to the next article

>net neutrality article

All theory and zero practice. It doesn't address nor disprove my points at all. If anything, it's another proof of what I'm talking about, the inability of making sane arguments considering the variables in place in the State society we live in.

Articles like this are written like if net neutrality was the only rule in place. They don't think about the rules in place to physically build the infrastructures, like rules about lands, permits to dug shit up, place cables, etc

They don't think about the websites that current exist, they don't think about the regulations on other media and the importance of the internet as built by the State and with net neutrality in place to contrast their narrative. They don't think about any of these variables and many others I could list.

They argue like if we live in a free society and only the internet is in place and the only rule is net neutrality. That's not the world we live in. This rule gives us more freedom at the expense of nobody but more profit for the cronies (so, one can't even argue that the cronies lose money, not that would be bad).

So yeah, good job responding with articles that mostly didn't address my point or are an example of what I'm arguing against.

You are so blinded by ideology that didn't even understand my arguments. You saw "healthcare", went and posted the first article you saw. You saw "net neutrality", you went and posted the first article you saw. Not a good job and another example of why everybody ends up shitting on capitalism.

>>97543

there is nothing in my post that contradicts austrian economics. You are retarded, unable to properly argue, unable of understanding what you read and of limited IQ.

Utilitarians are mentally ill.

>the hedonistic pleasure of a 70 IQ nigger is just as valuable as the eudaemonia of a 130 IQ entrepreneur

>>97558

peter singer takes into account level of advancedness of an animal when assessing suffering so maybe other utilitarians take into account level of advancedness when assessing happiness… idk

>>97531

>Since as of now you can't make everything truly free-market for now (the people will never let you), the US needs to follow the european countries in regulating this market.

The problem with UHC is the lack of a price mechanism which either results in shortages, denials of service, extended waiting times, or excessive costs. The best European models are those with minimal UHC and extensive healthcare market,

>Without net neutrality there is nothing stopping any ISP from censoring 8ch, mises.org or any site considered bad.

Even with net neutrality we had ISPs blocking Pirate Bay. All it is is a state power grab.