Unfortunately, this is way too adult for /b/.

I don't think libertarians are smart enough to answer your question.

I hardly see this question as libertarian-specific.

If you were a socialist on the brink of starvation and had to steal from the state, would you?

This is a much more a general matter of idealism vs. pragmatism/society vs. self.

1. Steal food
2. Farmer calls cops
3. Go to jail, get free food
4. ????
5. PROFIT!

>>167724645

Yeah, you a right.

But libertarians have a really hard time coming up with a reply. Socialist solution is obvious, since the question was designed by one.

How would you reply?

This a loaded question I would have to think about this.

Is this scenario in some fictional future?
Or is this supposed to be in our day and age?

I'm a libertarian and I would just steal it so I didn't die.

Of course the starving man would steal it. What an idiotic question. What the fuck has this got to do with either socialism or libertarianism ???

>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
/Thread

Disregard farmer-> Acquire food

Implying the farmer is female

Steal food. Leave promissory note.

The question posed if flawed. Survival trumps "morals" and political/economic philosophies.

That being said, an easy way to turn it around is to ask Mr Marx, "What if instead of your argument, you were the farmer and there were 10's of thousands of people in need of food?"

At what point does "society's right" to your property end? Who is going to protect you and your family from losing everything in the feeding frenzy ensuing on your farm?

Kill the nigga and steal everything + rape his wife

>>167726258
>>167726354

Thank you
thank you
thank you

I was trolling mises.org and no one could give a straight answer. A lot of those faggots said they would rather die than violate some elses property rights.
morons

In reality it is the famer's lost in not trading.

Another problem with this scenario is that socialism is an economic philosophy and libertarianism is a political philosophy.

They're related but not fully.

This isn't strictly a libertarian or socialism thing. In fact, this is a question that's mainly associated with Lawrence Kohlberg and his work on moral development.

Questions like this are used to determine whether people's sense of morality is "autonomous" or not. If you ask young children that sort of question (or in the third person, i.e. Mr Jones stole a loaf of bread etc) then up to a certain point they can't quite get their head round the nuances that sometimes it's OK to break the rules.

Unfortunately you meet adults like this from time to time who enforce minor rules even when it's completely inappropriate. There was a case during 9/11 when some branch of Starbucks refused to let someone take water to give to rescue workers because it was against store policy...etc.

>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400
>>167725400

>>167727129

Good one.
But this unrealistic scenario is suppose to take place in a "free-market."

>>167722862
I would uphold my moral obligation to feed myself no ifs ands or butts, these motherfuckers from mises.org can blow my nuts. If we were in a socialist society, these same problems could arise and end up the same or we could wait in the bread line waiting for our daily rations like the jews did before they walked the line.

Socialism is a utopian idea, and its an idea that is actually great and just fine. Move to a country and enjoy your bread line. Your rationing coupons and your mandatory job should be satisfactory worries everything's fine. Were all equal and all share each others spine, whats yours is mine and whats mine is yours go enjoy your Utopian wet dream, but don't come back to America when you find out it isnt what it seems.

>>167727620

Love this one

Libertarian solution is obvious: steal the food. If the farmer doesn't have adequate security in place to prevent it (can't afford private cops, barbed wire, whatnot), he doesn't have the right to enforce his ownership.

>>167728288

The fags at mises.org are supposed libertarians, but they are really a bunch of conservative sheeples with PhDs

shit fuck
I was going to type some stuff about this being a moral development issue, a Kohlberg dilemma.
But I thought this place was just filled with mindless assholes, so it would be useless.
Now I'm scared, intelligent people with a sick twist :o

>>167727507
Exactly. In a perfectly Libertarian free market, a farmer WOULD trade with you. He would be losing out if he didn't. He would look like a douchebag, and thus people would be less likely to trade with him, as he let an innocent man die. Not only that, he let an innocent man with the ability to trade die, which is a bad business decision.

I would rape the mans wife and children before his eyes, then eat them to satiate my hunger. And gavage him upon the nether regions of his own family before butchering him and feeding him to his cows. Afterwards i would take over said farm and lead a life of leisure.

Morality only applies on actions between rational people that are aware of morality. So starving ppl on the brink of death, children, retarded and insane ppl dont count etc cows and other animals etc

The important question is that a socialist would initiate force aggainst me and all of you because socialists are immoral douchefags that dont even recognize ownership, so they dont own themselves, so everyone should rape their socialist assholes because its all collectivised AMIRAIT?

>>167728528
>>167722862

OP here.

Here was my answer:
1st of all this in not a free-market scenario!
In a free-market you are able to FREELY trade with the next farmer.
2nd since there is no other farmer, he has a monopoly and has made himself king. Under a free market society the farmer has no case against you if you take what you need to survive (as long as you are not making a profit yourself).
3rd The farmer broke the libertarian motto "Tu ne cedes malis" and should simply collect his loses.

>>167729392

You will be astonished!
A fellow student introduced me to 4chan while I was attending med school.

It's not whether *would* you, but whether *should* you. Anyone with morals so absolute that they wouldn't - would be dead, and thus unable to participate in the hypothetical. (Being unwilling to steal other folk's air and all.) ;)

Granted, Socrates died embodying his moral view, and it was one I never agreed with, so who knows...

There is the old saying, however, that "It's not enough to survive: You have to be worthy of survival."

I am having trouble wrapping my head around how this gets turned into a "Libertarian" vs. "Socialist" scenario though. (Feeling the need to put both in quotes, as both terms seem to have become their exact opposites in practice.) It seems the scenario could be extended to defend either position.

learn how to farm
farm
grow stuff
eat
gain strength
kill all who refused to help

>>167730754

> 2nd since there is no other farmer, he has a monopoly and has made himself king. Under a free market society the farmer has no case against you if you take what you need to survive (as long as you are not making a profit yourself)

What kind of weird not-actually-libertarianism kind of libertarianism are you talking about here?

No.167731766
agreed.

Libertarianism is rubbish, but I'm sure you fellows will figure that out for yourselves sometime between now and your nineteenth birthday.

PROTIP: I doubt a single person on /b/ right now is rich enough to benefit from the sort of savagely laissez-faire capitalism you and Ron Paul fap thinking of.

It's a stupid, hypothetical question posed by stupid socialists living in a hypothetical fantasy.

It really is pathetic that it's the only way collectivists can score points - resorting to impossible hypothetical scenarios.

Fucking idiots.

>>167729540
This would seem to me to derive the most utils of satisfaction

1) Uphold your libertarian "morals" and leave farmer's food be.
2) Die of starvation.
3) ????
4) DARWIN AWARD!

>>167729515

And we have a winner!

Contrary to what is apparently popular belief, libertarians are not sadists. There is no reason that the farmer would not trade with you considering that a starving man would be willing to pay much more than any normal price to save his own life.

That being said, a major part of the libertarian perspective is rational self-interest so as long as you did not take enough to financially harm the farmer, I see no reason that any person would have a problem with keeping them self alive to trade another day.

>>167731805

I alot of us libertarians are actually minimalist, and understand the problems with an all out laissez-faire society, and monopolies.
While others are anarchist as long as the police and government shows up to protect our wealth.

What kind of "libertarian" are you?

>>167733190
>>167733190
>>167733190
>>167733190
This. Socialists live in a goddamn make believe world.

Eh, Austrian Market theorists excel at asking good questions, but are infamous for hardly ever providing decent answers.

This question is hardly Misesian. In fact, it is largely within the bounds of libertarian thinking to steal the base amount needed to survive. Since the farmer is not willing to act rationally (not willing to exchange under any circumstances), he is not acting within the bounds of the free market and is a monopolist.

Also, since he is withholding your means to survive under any circumstances, he is essentially committing attempted murder.

Of course, the simplest answer is to not accept the premise that I would ever be in a situation like that, due to gaining a skill set the market finds useful.

Fuck your hypothetical scenario. The only thing that matters is the real world, which has proven that socialism doesn't work time and time again.

>>167733155
Socialism is rubbish, but I'm sure you fellows will figure that out for yourselves sometime between now and your nineteenth birthday.

Socialists, after overcoming the initial shock of seeing a farm IRL and dealing with a person who has actually worked for a living and therefore doesn't feel like sharing his food with you, would simply use the GPS on their iPhone to search for the nearest Whole Foods, and then drive the Prius their parents gave them for graduation. They'd spend like $100 on "fair traded" arugula and goat cheese, then go eat it at their waterfront loft.

>>167734039
Which still beats "free market capitalism" - a true free market has never existed in human history.

Every functional economy on the planet is ideologically impure and combines a "tame" market with a social welfare state.

Every functional moder economy on the planet: no exceptions.

Not one.

Ideologies are for stupid assclowns, go with what actually works in the real world.

>>167734659
WINRAR

>>167733155
OP here:

I couldn't agree with you more.
The problem right now is that government officials are profiting from the larger businesses and are heavily vested in them.
There needs to be a division between government and business.
We do not live in a free-market as Ludvig Von Mises recommended.

Unfortunately, government is a necessary evil, because men are evil.

>>167729515

OP here:

Best reply upto date.

>>167734218
Yes, Sweden, France, and Finland are wretched, third-world hell holes, whereas America's "red states" represent the zenith of human civilisation.

I'd just headbutt the cunt and eat what I need, then burn the rest

>>167733919

Thank you.

>>167734970
The thing socialists don't understand is that corporations own our government precisely because we keep giving the government more power.

The more power you give the government, the more money lobbyists will pour into Captial Hill. Were government's power more limited, there would be no incentive to pay off every government official.

God, I would kill for a sammich right now.

>>167729515

Where dreamland do you come from?

People wouldn't stop trading with the farmer if he let the guy starve to death.

kill yourself

live Glenn Beck livestream!!

www.livestream.com/acw2097

Tonight on TV: Glenn has the exclusive, shocking and sad new video that will put yet another face up on the chalkboard. Don't miss it tonight at 5pm only on the Fox News Channel!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>167733919

>>167730754

>>167733796
>anarchist as long as the police and government shows up to protect our wealth.
huh???

>>167735204
France IS a shithole.

Northern Europe and Scandinavia are going to wither when the North Sea oil dries up and takes the massive trade surpluses that support their systems with it.

>>167733796

I'm not a libertarian. I'm more a neo-anti-federalist, really.

My question stands, though: what kind of libertarian are you? Clearly not an anarcho-syndicalist, so fill us in.

>>167735204
For the lulz!

>>167726258
>I'm a human and I would just steal it so I didn't die.

>>167735484


Stupid.

Corporativism didn't installed itself in AMERICA because the government has too much power. Lobby doesn't exist because the government has to much power.


If the power is descentralized, less goverment, corporations would still buy decisions and power. The government is just one big corporation. Every trader is a potential lobbyist.

ITT people who think socialism is communism and libertarianism is conservatism.

Pay the farmer for food? Like in mericuh?

The better question someone should ask a libertarian is "If the free market economy rationed or overcharged for food, is it the responsibility of the government to give food to those who can't afford it?". If it's your argument that the free market doesn't work that way, look at the current insurance system. They ration a necessary need for human life.

>>167736061
This man speaks the truth. The only reason the UK didn't collapse under its own socialistic policies 3 decades ago was because of the huge cash injection from North Sea Oil. All this 'knowledge industry' stuff is a load of bullshit.

>>167735815

This is in reference to the many types of libertarians.

>>167735204

Oh my gosh you are so wrong, those countries you listed first are way better than red states are. I should know, I am from Sweden!

>>167736556
you just keep on believing that.

It's not like everytime government expands it's power, every corporation, union, and lobbying group isn't dumping money to get a cut of the new spending. And there isn't nearly as much lobbying for state and local affairs.

Libertarians are just like Marxists, actually.

Both love ideological sandcastles that don't work in real life, and both pretend any failures in practice are merely evidence that the ideology put into practice wasn't pure enough.

Get a room, guys, so the rest of us can get on with running a world that actually sort of works...

>>167736281

Wow.
Thank you for the compliment!

I am more of a minimalist.
But I am curious of neo-anti-federalist, I have heard of it.
Exactly, what is that?

>>167736941
European socialism exists for the same reason that fucking Dubai is building retarded buildings.

It's going to be funny as hell when the oil dries up. I can see europe now. "What??? Giving free money to people isn't sound economic policy?"

NEWSFLASH: Economic theories all fail in life-threatening situations. If you were starving to DEATH, you'd steal to survive. It doesn't matter wether you're libertarian, communist, capitalist, socialist or mornachist.

The question is a shitty example.

eat the farmer

>>167734659

Then they put on an "I <3 Obama" shirt and have gay BUTTSEX

>>167737443 And there isn't nearly as much lobbying for state and local affairs.
THERE ISNT MUCH LOBBY AT STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIR LEVELS BECAUSE ITS NOT NECESSARY.


but once government gets smaller, lobby will install itself again. its inexorable, uncontrollable.

you fucking americunts are so retard, like you have been raped with a 5 inch metal bar in the brain, that you blame everything on the government size.


you are hopeless. and a shame to the world. and i'm not even socialist.

>>167737280
I know, but what you said doesnt make any sense
an anarchist who likes cops + government?
WTF are you on about?

>>167736556

The purpose of decentralizing government is not necessarily to decrease government power. However, it would make it far more difficult for large companies to have as much a say as they currently do -- instead of lobbying a single legislative body, they would have to lobby fifty (using as an example the US, funneling power from the federal level to the state level). Meanwhile, the actual local constituents would have increased visibility into the process, and increased voice in comparison to the single national legislature.

Could companies still buy influence? Absolutely. Decentralizing, though, makes it harder, forces them to split their efforts, and eventually weakens them.

>>167738145
Everyone would steal the food, but libertarians and capitalists might feel more guilty about it.

>>167737363
not big on sarcasm in sweden

>>167729515
>>167727129
Changing the scenario by insisting the farmer *would* trade with you, when it specifically says he will not - or switching the farmer from a position of power to one of weakness, by multiplying the numbers of protagonists and calling them "society" is dodging the question.

Might be better asked which is more immoral - the farmer withholding the food, or the individual forced to steel it.

...and for some, the answer changes based on the amount of food the farmer has... So let's try to be objectivists here. :)

Who cares? Everyone with two functioning brain cells knows that a free market hasn't been relevant for over a hundred years.

>>167738359
You're a fucking idiot.

Yes there would still be lobbying. But lobbyists wouldn't be getting as much return on their investment, so there would be less of it. More importantly, it's a lot easier to hold local politicians accountable, and toss them out when perform unsatisfactorily .

Enjoy your bloated centralized bullshit.

>>167736941

And this coming from an amerifag. The only reason you're a superpower is from using twice as much oil per capita as just about every other first world nation.

>>167738687
you have it completely backwards. a capitalist would say "you should have guarded it better" followed by "if it was my farm, i would have shot the guy trying to steal 1 of my 10,000,000 ears of corn."

>>167738528

People's interests are guided by money. EVERYONE knows that the centralized by GOVERNMENT is currently being bought. Everyone know's.

If its brought to a local level, nothing would change. Most economical, social problems are very know. The problem is not visibility. The problem is morals.

>>167738368
Think he was pointing to the criticism of libertarians that they're just anarchists who want to keep just enough of a vestigial police force to keep their serfs in line.

i no rite decentralized govt worked so well for latin america rite?

ITT: butthurt people who think there's nothing in between libertarianism and socialism, black and white etc.

>>167722862

I would vote for Senators and Representatives that would give me a tax break for once, and give me some sort of food!

That's the obvious answer

You commie fucks.

Well, I guess I'm more of a libertarian then a socialist.
I'd steal what I needed if he refused my payment.
But living in a city I'd be pretty desperate before I'd decide to go to a farm to find food, maybe if the city was overrun by zombies and all the non-canned food in the markets had gone rotten and a man who calls himself Pedro the guardian of can openers had stolen all can openers in town and hidden them in his impenetrable fortress of doom.

>>167739423
I think you have it backwards...
We consume so much oil because we have the largest economy.

We also rely on automobile transportation more than anyone else. Not because we want to, but because it's the only choice many of us have. I live in a rural area and have to drive about 20 minutes through rough terrain to get to my current jobsite.

>>167728288

>moral obligation to feed myself no ifs ands or butts,
>these motherfuckers from mises.org can blow my nuts.

>If we were in a socialist society, these same problems could arise and end up the same or we could wait in the bread line waiting for our daily rations like the jews did before they walked the line.

this needs to rhyme

Ayn Rand objetivism is not even considered philosophy in academy centers around the world.

Its shit tier.

>>167740358

>We consume so much oil because we have the largest economy.

No you do retard. You have the largest economy because you installed dictators in just about every oil producing country on earth to keep the price of crude down.

>We also rely on automobile transportation more than anyone else. Not because we want to, but because it's the only choice many of us have. I live in a rural area and have to drive about 20 minutes through rough terrain to get to my current jobsite.

WTF are you talking about? You vote against any government subsidy for public transport. Are taxes the only thing you amerifags care about?

>>167738687
I'm a libertarian, and I would still if it were a matter of life and death. Now, I would absolutely not say that theft is moral under any circumstances, but I'd do it if I had to. I'd just pay the guy back (which still doesn't make up for it0.

oh you silly libertarians

Under Socialism the government owns you.

Under Libertarianism the corporations own you.

What's the difference?

At least the government's bottom line isn't profit, regardless of who suffers.

>>167740787
Of course not, narcissism is not a "philosophy".

the answer is that free market solves everything

>>167741191

>>167741204

in theory it is

Why the fuck do you yankees use the word libertarian as if it was a synonim for anarchocapitalist fags? Anarchocomunists fags do fit in the spectrum of the word.

>>167741592

>>167741051
About 80% of the oil the US consumes is either produced domestically, or imported from Canada and Mexico You're a retard.

There's tons of public transit in the cities.

Doesn't exactly work in rural areas, where half the country lives.

PROTIP: If you have to be wealthy enough to benefit from a system, it is not laissez-faire. Asshole.

Socialists are underage b& that can't afford nice things.

Libertarians are underage b& that get nice shit bought for them, but don't want the socialists to take it off them.

>>167742586
(and this was in reference to >>167733155 )

>>167742498

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.
html

No you get about a third of your oil from them, stop making things up. And WTF does being out in the country have to do with it? I can take a train out to just about any point in sheep fucker land here.

>>167741204
problem is, corporations control the government.

damned if you do..

I would steal it.

It has nothing to do with being a Libertarian, but instead with the fact that he has something I need to live. We're in the state of nature.

If all the internet and electricity and phones and running water went out in the world right now....
Do you think my political affiliation would matter when I was breaking into the farm of the man who refused to let me work for him? While killing him? While killing his family? Not a bit. It's a matter of survival. After I'm alive, I can have the comfort of my beliefs. First, stay alive.

>>167741204

I think you're confusing socialism with its archaic definition. These days socialism = (NOT conservative)

>>167743551
solution is, keep a government that regulates the corporations (NOT the people - do away with police) but isn't influenced by them. no lobbying, no congressmen that sit on corporations' boards.

what is this philosophy called? i'm subscribing to it.

>>167744371
communism

>>167724074
best be trolling

ITT: 'Socialism' and 'Libertarian' being misunderstood.

>>167743352
Yeah I looked at that too...
Again, it's imports.

Canada and mexico are the two biggest petoleum importers. Canada and Saudi Arabia are the two biggest crude importers. Of those, only Saudi Arabia is really a dictatorship, and their bullshit system was inplace long before we showed up.

Second, you have a lot... LOT less territory, and a much higher ratio of your population lives in cities. I can go to the nearest town and hop on a train or bus to a big city too. But I cannot take a train or bus to work everyday, because it's just fucking impractical for anyone implement such a system.

Even with all that in mind, we still have more miles of rail per capita then any other country. But we use it for transporting freight, not people. Europe has a lot more trucks on the road than the US.

gay

>>167744807
Problem is, there aren't really rigid definitions of the two concepts. People are arguing completely different ideas ITT.

ITT: americans not knowing what socialism is

Libertarian = no central government (nothing to do with Free Market)

black and gold
black and gold
black and gold

Libertarianfag here.

I would violate my principles and morals to stay alive, then face the consequences like a man.

>>167745143
Sorry, forgot to finish my point. After imports, we still produce a lot of our oil domestically..

SOCIALISM SUCKS AND ANYONE WHO LIKES IT IS A BIG FAT FUCKING RETARD

also OP's post has nothing to do with political idealogies so shut up about it

You're confusing Libertarianism with brattiness, OP.

hail

Everyone on the internet should applaud socialism, because there would be no internet without it! (State-guided economic development)

Nothing wrong with 'Atlas Shrugged', you faggots.

anarchy for rich people

>>167744278
There has been a clear drive on the right (mainly in the US) to drive home the idea that if you're not a Milton-Friedman spewing Rush clone, you're a state Socialist just like fucking Fidel Castro.

Thus we have people here who seriously believe that Obama is a diehard Marxist, even though it's pretty clear he's another in a long line of corporate capitalists.

>>167745365

>>167745428

Sam Sparro

Nice choice /b/rother

Steal farmer -> Ransom for food

>>167745365

Americans have vitiated the notion...

>>167745143

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

The us consumes over 9000 billion barrels a year, you produce about 1/4 of that. I know you're an amerifag but even you should realize that 1/4+1/3 does not equal 80 percent.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_rai_tot_percap-transportation-railways-total-per-capita

And again, those railway figures are made up.

Find another farming who will give me a better deal.

>>167733155

Idiot. Because we think what Obama is doing will back fire and MAKE THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER.
Jackass.

>>167745786

go teach yourself something. the state failed to educate you.

>>167738694
You got trolled faggot! Go Sweden!

>>167746175
Primitivist Objectivist: kill & eat farmer.

>>167747118
You really are a special kind of idiot, aren't you?

Randian Objectivism = only rape can give a woman an orgasm

no wonder /b/ subscribes...

>>167747553

define your position

>>167722862
I would just kill the mother fucker then and take his hole farm, if he's gonna be a fucking prick about it and not help someone who is dying then that's his choice and he can accept the consequence of getting his head bashed in with a fuckin garden shovel.

>>167748060
Above you in the food chain

>>167747065
My ideology says the moon is made of green cheese.

Unfortunately the astronauts beg to differ, and the DOW is up over 10k and climbing.

How unfair of reality not to reflect my ideology!!

>>167748334

This statement suggests you are not human.

>>167748725
You know, I think you might be right.

Libertarian here.

I'll say first that this question poses an absurd situation that reflects no reality I've ever seen. No one with food to spare will deny it to a man on the brink of starvation groveling at his feet. No one. And that goes for every last one of you /b/tards pretending to have a soul made of ice

That said, if I assume for a second that this question ISN'T irredeemably fuck-tarded, then the answer comes down to the degree of importance an individual places on personal responsibility and owning up to the wrongs done against another individual. Yes, stealing his food is wrong. But the situation on my end as a man dying of starvation necessitates I break my own personal convictions with the knowledge that I'll happily own up to my wrongs later. I won't feel good about it. I would return later and do what I could to repay him for the stolen property

>>167722862
It really depends on the type of Libertarian you are as well.

Anarchic Libertarians uphold that if you cant assert direct control over an object, you hold no property control. Thus if you can steal corn, it aint his corn.

I would steal, but I aint no nigger

>>167746668
1. The total consumption figures on that site are for all petroleum and natural gas consumption. The production figures your looking at are only for crude oil. So your percentage is inaccurate.

2. Fair enough. I believe the article I read before was counting rail that was out of use. We still have quite a bit of rail, but we don't use it to move people, we use it to move freight. First in total, 6th in per capita, behind a couple statistical anomalies like Mayotte and Swaziland.

I'd rather we move our goods by rail and have cars on the road, then move people by rail and have trucks on the road.

Adam Smith's invisible hand would give you all the food you want!

duh

>>167749920

and hand jobs!!

An actual Libertarian won't be able to answer this. The publications that formulated the basic platform back a few decades ago specifically disconnected the political philosophy from any supporting philosophy ... that's why you get everyone from NAMBLA to laissez faire.

However, if you did have one who could answer it, they'd probably say that, while some idiots try to build philosophical systems around such "lifeboat situations", philosophy is only useful as a guide to how you would live your life normally, and does not provide guidelines for such emergency situations, attempts to do so by random fucking idiots in a futile attempt to show the inadequacy of a philosophical system notwithstanding.

Personally, I'd steal the food and kidnap the farmer for grilling later.

>>167749920
ITT: economic theories predicated on magic and the idea that humans are "rational actors".

>>167724645

This man speaks the truth.

Only /b/ could read a few posts from mises.org and condemn the entire group.

survival > moral code > political code

Also, libertarian philosophy is anticentralist, not anti-government. We are all better represented from closer to home.

Libertarians believe in choice. If you want to live under socialism, then you and your friends of like mind can do so at your own expense, as long as you dont force anyone to support it against their will.

>>167749146

hey, that would make sense if we were an Ork waaagh.

Libertarians don't want to pay taxes because it's a violation of their private property rights.

However, libertarians should have no problem paying user fees for the public services they actually do use; roads, parks, police, etc.

BIG difference between being libertarian and being a cheap bastard.

>>167741051
public transport doesn't work outside of a city. Eurofags don't seem to understand that we have individual states that are larger than entire european countries.

>>167751688
yet i don't see the point (if we except the 'hurr durr, big country' fallacy. go ask the russians)

>>167739274
win

>>167751688

Why doesn't the 'Free Market' provide the choice of a bus or train or conveyor belt? Why are my only choices a car or death?

Holy shit, this thread almost reads like a decent discussion, wtf /b/?
I'm proud of you motherfuckers!

>>167752207
If you can't afford a car, it's better for the rest of us that you die.

We can't have the burden of your incompetence draining us and our sacred lucre, we have important useful new alloys to make damn you!

Anarchy! the world is too weak. we need over 9000 to 10 years of people fending for themselves to make them stronger and instill more common sense. then we can retry life with governments. from time to time the old system should be torn apart to be rebuilt better by a better group of people. too many bastards around just waiting for their handouts and bitching that it isn't enough. so i say you need the food take that shit.

Almost everyone in Russia lives in the cities in the western parts of the countires. The inhabited part of Russia is a lot smaller and a lot more densely populated. There's practically fucking no one east of the Urals until you get close the the Pacific.

If over half the country lived scattered throughout Siberia, you'd have a more accurate picture of what it's like in the states.

Should my government build a rail line near me that costs millions and will only serve a couple dozen people?

>>167753021

that's not anarchy at all. that's at best a darwinist style of fascism. you just eliminate the 'weak' naturally, instead of growing some balls and doing the job yourself like adolf.

i just don't know what to say. i'd bitchslap you with a crowbar for being a dum little fucker

>>167753113

Yes.

So, why would this situation occur?

Theres no point in basing ethics off situations that would never occur.

Why? It costs less for the people in this area to just drive cars than it would to build, operate, and maintain a train.

Your a fucking idiot.

You're all living under the delusion that money is real.

ITT:
- thoughtful answers to interesting questions
- the confused political views of under 25ers
- aynrandlol

>>23978785617

NEW pornpage passes, Fresh 15th October passes video BONUS:
http://freeporn0zs.blogspot.com/

>>241677418169!

>>557221038523

DO IT FAGGOTS!!!
http://maximumPENIS.blogspot.com

>>65024385469!

>>167753859

Why does 'cost' matter?

>>167753113

nope, a rail line would be a dumb cost/effectiveness choice. but a minibus with fifteen places would be quite nice (supposing you're really 12, and allowing for a little growth). everybody would win by mutualisation of cost and ressources.
making dumb choices isn't particularly socialist, it's just dumb. in fact as a socialist, i particularly ressent poor utilization of common ressources.

Libertarians - Communists - Anarchists

All want the same thing - No Government and No property

I would steal the food and face the consequences of my actions.

Also, you should post this on www.ronpaulforums.com / www.libertyforest.com

>>167724645
Hmmm, imagine what happens to the poor fucks in North Korea who steal from thier dear leader. What a stupid fucking question

>>167753962

i am 23, and not really confused, but thanks sir, you made me laugh.
altough, i agree, yes for some reason recently, /b/ has delivered a lot of well thought answer on a lot of politcal subjects. something is happening in the hivemind

>>167733155
oh shit, i must be so stupid, cause i am 19 for a few months now and still believe libertarianism is one of better ideas i have ever heard of

not a libertarian for sure, i have my doubts about everything, i am sceptic... but what is YOUR agenda, huh?

libertarianism FTW

>>167753021

If the world weren't constrained by the ideal of paucity invented by 'money' and 'capitalism', there are enough resources and technology to feed and house and transport every human being on the planet.

maslowe would have kicked OP, OP's friend, and OP's friend's farmer in the nuts
SIMULTANEOUSLY

>>167754352

Uhh, no. Libertarians, both big L and little l, want property, as do many anarchists.

The common theme is the reduction or complete absence of the STATE, not property.

The first Anarchists callled themselves Libertarian Socialists. They believed: "All property is theft".

what do you libertarians believe?

Anarcho-socialism. Not traditional anarcho-socialism (in which there is no government and no personal property) but rather the government controls the means of production and there are no laws governing the actions of individuals, but the military will kill a person/group if enough people ask them to. This only works if everyone is as mentally strong as a spartan, as there will likely be a lot of rape. No one likes a bunch of faggots sobbing in the corner.

this thread gives me hope for /b/. thanks OP

>>167754890
and by "property" they meant "ownership of the means of production"
lern2history

>>167754831
Without a state, how will u know its ur property>> what if I claim it, theres no state stopping me from killing u

>>167754890

I'm not a Libertarian because i believe in private property - i'm a fiscal Conservative. We need Government to protect property.

>>167754127
There is a minibus line in my community. Of course it only runs between the two small towns in my county. The nearest stop is still about a 15 minute drive. Why drive 15 minutes, ride a bus for 20, then walk for another 15 when driving to work is just 20 minutes to begin with.

As it happens, this minibus line operates at a loss and is subsidized by state and local taxes.

>>167745428

anarcho-capitalism ftw

Communists and Libertarians are the same. Personally i want to protect my property, that's why i vote Republican

>>167754890

'Libertarian Socialism' was coined after 'Anarchism' fell into disfavor and those who espoused it were considered criminal.

>>167755223

Libertarians do not believe in the abolition of government, that's anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians believe in limited government whose only role is to protect the rights of the people.. Think classical liberalism / John Locke.

>>167755407
property laws are made to protect the rich.
cuntnigger

>>167754890

libertarians would let the niggers steal everything

>>167754954
Cool society, bro

Socialism is illogical; self ownership implies property rights. Not rights over land mind you, just rights over the goods you produce. A life is worth more than a couple of carrots, steal the carrots from the as$hole farmer. These lifeboat scenarios are ridiculous.

libertarians are commies under another name.

Don't trust Libertarians - they will let the poor steal all your stuff.

LIBERTARIANS go to Africa. There's no pesky Government there. Then we left at home can get on with nation building. btw. Enjoy your hell hole.

>>167755054
>>167754890

"property is theft" is a quote by pierre-joseph proudhon, the first to qualify himself "anarchist", from his book "Qu'est-ce que la propriété ? ou Recherche sur le principe du Droit et du Gouvernement" (don't know the english title) he was referring to *all* property, but he differentiates property and possession. he famously explained "un amant possède, un mari est propriétaire" ("a lover possess, a husband owns") to distinguish between the two.

get your facts rights faggets, i hate to act like wikimotherfuckingpedia

My life is more important than avoiding the punishment for a crime.

I would steal the food and then pay for the crime if I was caught.

>>167754954
I can't think of a single good thing about that style of government.

libertarians and communism amounts to the same thing. Both try to shoe-horn an imperfect world into their narrow ideological framework. Both live in a fantasy world

Libertarian Communist reporting in

>>167755227

And thanks to you & heartless fucks like you, some poor yuppie has to settle for a plain old Cayman instead of a Cayman S because of the crippling tax burden you impose.

I hope you're happy!

>>167756199
Keeping on your toes is better than rotting in a cubicle for your entire life.

>>167755227

so it makes it a dumb choice. my point stands.
particular case will always have to do shit themselve, because establishing a service for a community means establishing a service that as much people as possible will use. and sometimes you're not in the "as much people"

Libertarianism is the same as Socialism.

sauz http://rapidshare.com/files/292598628/Lexi.rar

OP's example just goes to show that life trumps ideology. Hence, any ideology should be set aside to save lives. And finally, no action taken by individual or government that saves lives can be considered contrary to any ideology.

Where does that take us?

Socialism doesn't equal stealing. You can still live by capitalism but commit crimes. So yes, I would STEAL his crops to live.

>>167751231

Really? Where are these non-cheap bastard Libertarians of whom you speak?

ITT: people confuse libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism

I want to keep my property. Government helps protect my property. Libertarians would take that protection away. It is a step towards Communism.

>>167756199
>>167756531
ALSO it's the future. Probably should have mentioned that earlier. The main purpose of this system of government is to foster awesomeness, not happiness.

egotism vs collectivism

>>167756866

libertarian are about personal liberty, not about economic liberty. so no they wouldn't "take your property"
see >>167755506 for more details.

>>167756531
Said by someone safely ensconced in Mom's basement watching badass action movies no doubt.

The people I've known who have actually lived in brutal environments like that would take the cubicle any day.

SEE: Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, you will fulfill your basic needs regardless of your moral standing if they are required for survival and you have been without them for long enough.

ITT: Libertarianism doesn't mean anything anymore.

Big Government made the USA a SUPERPOWER.

Libertarians can kiss my ass

Pic related: Trinity

answer is simple. offer to work for food.

/thread

So what's to keep me from taking some crops from another farmer who isn't a total jerk?

>>167757161

I made the second post you referenced, and you are wrong to say that libertarians don't believe in economic freedom.

liberals believe in social freedom, but believe government should have more control of the economy
conservatives believe in economic freedom, but believe government should have more control of personal lives
libertarians believe in social and economic freedom, but believe government should play a limited role in protecting both

Libertarians will steal all your money and say it's the free markets fault. Don't trust them - they are Jews

>>167734659
Then they would head out to the cafe, order an espresso, open their iBook and post flawed pro-socialist questions on internet forums.

>>167757646

makes sense. point taken.

dude check out jackeechan.com/b/, all OC is stifled here it's a repetitive shit hole :/

>>167757198
That's because they're wusses. If it's the future and everyone's genetically engineered and raised to be tough and not take shit from anyone, and there's rail guns and particle dissociation fields and shit, it would be awesome. Also if there's zombies. Aw, man, can you imagine, like, zombies getting blown up with particle beams? AWESOME.

LIBERTARIANS ARE JEWS

They will fucking steal all your money. That's why they want no Government. Strong Government like the Nazis is the only way to protect ourselves

i would kill him and take over his farm
people have no rights
only the rights you choose to give them

The internet is a result of socialism*.

*government-directed economic development

Vikings take what we need. If the farmer wouldn't find it in his good nature to give me some food then I would fucking kill him and take his property and women. The world loses an asshole and I get property and women. Win win.

>>167758225
the internet is the result of cooperation.

>>167758023
lol, agreed, i actually checked it out, some win there.

>>167758470

created with Pentagon funding...

Big Government put USA on the moon. Big Government kicks ass

Pic related: It's owned by the USA. If the Libertarians had their way it would be owned by Russia

>>167758113
This is a serious discussion.

Here's a twist. What is the quantity of the crops? Are these crops all that the family has to eat? Are they also on the verge of starvation? In that case, who has more right to the food?

>>98359959431

DO IT FAGGOTS!!!
http://maximumPENIS.blogspot.com

>>758356011677!

I consider myself libertarian, but I support government regulation to prevent monopolies and provide safety standards and such. I don't think a completely free market would be a good idea. Socialism has some good aspects and libertarianism has a lot of good aspects, but with equally big flaws. I would support libertarianism except in the case of the welfare of the people.

Something I should point out that I see socialist/liberal people always complaining about is corporations. The government allows corporations to exist. In a free market, the government wouldn't free the owner from the responsibility the way they do now, so we could hold him liable for the bad things his company does.

http://tinychat.com/btarditics

inb4 404
you guys got me interested

>>167757270

Well, Maslow is hardly gospel. Refer to Quakers refusing blood transfusions - faith more important to them, than right to life. But still, loaded moral issue or not, your average person would still steal the food than just die because some faggot farmer decided he'd rather hoard his precious crops, than let you live.

He would be committing murder via neglect if he did not give you food. So even if you are a religious person, from a utilitarian viewpoint, could you argue that stealing is a lesser sin than murder and therefore it is more justifiable to steal when the greater good is taken into consideration?

I hope that makes sense... it's getting late here.

>>167758225

Indeed anon. Governement using tax payers money created the internet. Libertarians = no internet

>>167727129
This

People who are libertarians are scared and dwell in fear lol

>>167756149
Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.

>>167758362
Vikings. Now those were real men.

>>167758113
Well I have to admit you make a good point here.

>>167759207
good boy, you did your homework.

inb4 another élysée reclus quote.

>>167759207

Nice revisionism anon, but bullshit.

Anarchists believe property is theft. That includes private property. Same as Communists, same as Libertarians

>>167756531
If the government controls the means of production, yes, you will very well would be in a cubicle for most of your life. And how does this government come about? If elected, it would gradually start leaning democratic. If appointed, or seizing power, then it would become totalitarian. Also, I doubt the commonplace occurrence of rape will make people "mentally strong", as you describe.

>>167759635

i stated where the quote "property is theft" comes from, and what it means. what do you have to back your statement ?

>>167759635
Anarcho-socialists believe that (not this kind)>>167754954 lol

>>167758767

>government regulation to prevent monopolies
government regulations create monopolies, not prevent them. It is the harsh regulations lobbied by big corporations that hurt new startup businesses that have to comply with costly regulations imposed by big government. Also, if there were no restrictive government properties, and a monopoly was created without a history of coercion or force, then the monopoly would have a legitimate existence. The only way a monopoly can exist in a truly free market is with the consent and will of the people.

>provide safety standards and such.
The free market provides safety standards as well as or better than the government. Companies and non-profits would form to give out ratings on electronics, food, etc. In fact, such organizations already exist. Underwriters Laboratories is a private company that tests over 20,000 types of products and they do a damn good job. Also, the government does a piss poor job of regulating, see the FDA and Department of Agriculture and their respective failures. They do not face punishment of going out of business for their failures, and thus care less about the success of the company. This is because the government will always ensure funding.

Libertarians are Jews - don't trust them.

Nazi Germany was strong because it had a strong Government. The jews tried to destroy the Government.

Only niggers confuse morality with ideology

>>167759950

nope, but it would probably help sales of RapeX.

>>167759950
No, being constantly raped would not make people stronger. They must be made stronger before being constantly raped.

america was basically founded on libertarian beliefs
fuck democratic socialism

'anarchia' [greek] = 'without a ruler'
'libertaire' [french] = 'freedom [+adj.]'

>>167760029

hehe - all Anarchists should know. You obviously don't. You are a dip shit Conservative using the rhetoric of libertarianism to justify your greed.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon actually said all those words above about you in the 1840s

>>167760382

why would you try to rape somebody strong ? it would be risky !

>>167759950
Also, in regards to your cubicle statement, it's the future, remember. Robots can do everything better than we can in this wonderful (rape-infested) post-scarcity utopia.

>>167760697

'libertarian' was used in place of 'anarchist' when anarchist publications were banned in France.

>>167722862
The simple answer is that the farmer is failing in his civic duty if he withholds food from you when you are starving.
In some areas, failing to render aid is a crime.

>>167760085
>Companies and non-profits
>forming regulations
Do you live in some sort of dream world? Talk about socialists being idealistic, that's absolute bullshit. I'm going to disregard non-profit organizations because that's completely hypothetical, but why would you trust a business to regulate another business? All they would have to do is pay them under the table for an A and there, everyone is eating dog meat salad. If anything is for profit, it's going to make profit it's main incentive, and there would be no way to tell if they're trustworthy.

>>167760697
We are using different words in a different language a millenium later. This has very little bearing on anything.

>>167760753

hu wat ? *i* referenced proudhon, an asked anon what did he have to back up his statement. i'm not sure i'm understanding. or maybe you're just dumb and didn't read correctly.

ITT: Greedy conservatives hiding behind libertarianism to give their greedy values some form of authority.

/b/ sees straight through you.

kill everyone, including self.

>>167760516
Yeah "democratic socialism" (really just tame-market capitalism with a strong welfare state, as practiced universally in the developed world) has just lead to the highest standard of living ever enjoyed in human history.

Really you're right, other than that, it truly sucks.

I long for the days when everything was like a fucking Dickens novel @_@

>>167761384

It bears on the utter lack of consensus on what any of these terms mean in this thread.

>>167734659

god damn, fucking /thread.