dont talk shit abour libertarians you red coat commie cocksucker

Yeah, libertarianism is a naive as communism is. The end result of libertarianism is all the wealth is controlled by like 10 people, and the environment is completely polluted beyond repair. The ground water will be all used up and polluted. All the trees will be cut down. Most of the wildlife will have been killed off. Sounds like a real paradise.

Ridiculous statement. Tree hugger faggot

Then explain to me why these things wouldn't happen you internet faggot.

Outta curiosity why is a democratically socialist government with a heavily armed population naive? I honestly don't know. I know that socialism has failed miserably several times but it was always a dictatorship. In fact it seems to work pretty well in places like Denmark. I'm honestly really asking here, I have no real stance either way, I'm just curious why some form of democratic socialism isn't possible?

If we adopt Denmarks brand of socialism, who's going to pay our defense budget?

Denmark has failed to pay its fair share in NATOs defense budget for decades. Essentially, we pay it for them.

That works with a piddly little country that has a relatively inconsequential role in the global marketplace, but not for one of the major players.

We could halve our defense budget and still spend more than the other superpowers combined.

Most of thay military budget goes to bureaucratic shit and salaries. America spends more than China cause China doesn't feed their soldiers half the time. So it's having the force and then also living up to Western standards.

The Pentagon claims they don't even know where a lot of the money goes. War's a business, and business is good.

A lot, not most. It's not like military spending is 90% black hole. They misplace hundreds of millions of dollars at least though because the government can't do anything right.

That's why I typed "a lot" and not "most."

I know what you said, but if you just jumping in to say "they waste some" has little to do with the point I was making about how the majority of it seems to go to maintenance and benefits and salaries, which I think misleads a lot of people into think it's all war machines and conquests.

Contracts are a huge part of it.

So your solution to an already opaque beurocracy is to give that corrupt government even more power to spend irresponsibly?

They don't need a huge defense budget cause they stay the fuck outta bullshit that doesn't involve them. Plus we can cut defense in half and still have the largest military spending in the world. Shit we can cut it to zero and still have enough bombs, tanks, planes, and nukes to wipe out entire nations

How old are you? That peace and love shit isn't reality.

The entire world is caught up in a web of IOU's and the United States is at the center of it. We owe and are owed by almost every country on earth. The value of many nations' currencies correlate to how much the United States owes them and vice versa.

If the United States collapses, it would cause global destabilization; for that reason, we need an extensive military to protect ourselves and other countries in which we have economic co-dependence.

Denmark isn't as big of player and, as such, they don't need as big of a military.

Interesting way to defend perpetual war and constant military overspending.....it's purely for profit

Never said it was for profit. It's to keep the global economies from crashing and causing widespread suffering.

We've opened a pandoras box if you will

I said communism. Where did you read democratic socialism? Denmark is not a socialist country. Remember in the election Bernie Sanders kept calling Denmark socialist, and then the Prime Minister of Denmark said "While we are proud that we are being spoken about in the US debates, we are not a socialist economy". These Northern European countries use the "Nordic Model" of economics. A mixture of free markets, with high taxes and generous welfare system. It works very well. I am a huge fan of what they do in those countries, and I want America to be governed the same way they are.

It works very well

Not according to Danes it doesn't

Well according to the quality of life index it does...

America can never be governed like that because even with immigration, Nordic countries are still overwhelmingly homogenous and have a much different view of government than we do.

Also, we pay our politicians a shit-ton more than they do.

Pay our politicians a shit-ton more than they do? What a strange argument. Congressmen make like 180,000 per year. The US government has a 4,000,000,000,000 a year budget... We pay our congress very little actually. If we paid them more, it might reduce the amount of corruption. My dad is just a mechanical engineer and makes way more than 180k per year...

Nancy Pelosi is has a ton of influence over her party and politics in general and is worth $80-100 million dollars. She is also corrupt as shit.

The newly elected may feel the pinch, but for long-term people, especially those who wield influence, higher salaries don't fucking matter to them.

Ok we're probably on a very similar page then. You know how it goes socialism and communism typically get conflated

Terrible. Take a lap.

Not to mention the anarchy and violence. It's great that the state can no longer commit violence in his fantasy world, but now everyone else can commit violence against each other freely and they definitely will.

There are still laws and courts in a libertarian society.

Who makes the laws? How do you pay for the judges and law enforcerment? Dave Smith seems to be into full-on anarcho capitalist style libertarianism, so I don't think he believes in any use of state force (i.e. laws, police, etc.). He just repeats the same superficial shit ad naseum on his podcast so I'm not completely sure though.

Who makes the laws?

The people, like every other time in human history. Government is just a way to reflect the public, government is reactive, it invents nothing.

How do you pay for the judges and law enforcerment?

Communities do, the people pay. I get the sense that you think that in a libertarian society there's no such thing as unity or community or people pooling their money for the common good. That's still permitted. In fact, it happens now. There's still neighborhood watches. 69%of firefighters in America are volunteer. It's within the capacity of a population to work for a common good on a smaller scale, the argument is that when you just write it off to a central power it just fucks it up.

Dave Smith seems to be into full-on anarcho capitalist style libertarianism, so I don't think he believes in any use of state force (i.e. laws, police, etc.).

He may, I know people who do. They are open borders and everything else, and I do think it's naive to believe the community model is weaker to a single larger force that can sweep over them easier (this is a big reason we have a grand military to defend everyone, not 1000 police forces) but I see most Libertarians believing in some government and that government's main role is defense, courts, and some other smaller shit.

But I know what you're saying though, I see these Anarchists talking about the non-aggression-principle and it's just dumb, all they're doing is waiting for the first aggressive group that doesn't play by the rules and uses shady tactics. This is why I like the Libertarian model, at least it's sensible enough to realize there are some things that need to exist to both contain and empower the people within the system, not just be a landlord and waiting for the next warring group to move in and destroy the system.

All I was trying to say is that Dave's podcast is dumb, repetitive, and shallow and he wants the state completely abolished in his libertarian Utopia.

As other people on here has said, he's more of an anarchist if he wants a stateless society. An anarchist utopia looks almost exactly like a communist one.

That's fine. I don't really care either way, but anarcho-capitalists are considered to be a type of libertarian, so technically he is one.

Without any real power to enforce.

Yes there is.

Yes, as the NAP invalidates most force.

The NAP is used by anarchists, not libertarians. I think you're just confusing groups.

Ah, no. It's the central point for many libertarians.

No its not. Libertarians are about small government, not no government.

Which libertarian speaker calls for the Non Aggression Principle as a foreign policy position?

False. NAP is a central point for many libertarians. Conservatives are about small government.

I've never heard a single libertarian speaker or writer memtiom the NAP as a position on police or national defense, that's more an anarchist thing. Conservatives also want a.aller government but libertarians want it as small as possible and that's where they differ from conservatives. Conservatives also have more of a belief that the government ought to have a hand in issues of morality and culture.

That's not true at all. There is no enough written about the NAP by libertarians to disprove that.

Conservatives also want smaller government but libertarians want it as small as possible and that's where they differ from conservatives.

That's not a logical or measurable difference.

Of course it's a measurable difference. Find me the libertarian writing that says they abolish police and courts and law.

What does that have to do with the NAP?

Because that is how this conversation stated, I asked if people thought a libertarian society was lawless. You jumped in and it went from there. I am saying that the vast majority of Libertarians want small government and what that government handles is courts, national defense, and some infrastructure shit. Total absence of government would be an anarchist society. What I am explaining to you is the NAP is not the central point of Libertarianism as some people are stating, and I've only ever heard it talked about by Anarchists.

So if you think that in a Libertarian society there are no courts or laws or some sort of functioning police, I'd be interested in that because every single Libertarian writer and personality I've seen has said the contrary.

Show me where I said there will be no courts or law in libertarian society? And NAP is not the total absence of government.

You're trying to defeat arguments no one has made.

Show me where I said there will be no courts or law in libertarian society?

Because that is what the conversation is about so I don't know what point you're trying to make right now. This whole thing started with me asking if someone thought a Libertarian society was lawless and then a bunch of people jumped in and gave different versions of "yes." So if you're not talking about that then what conversation are you trying to have right now?

Go back to my posts and see what I said. I said that the NAP makes courts and the law ineffective. I never said that the courts or laws won't exist in a libertarian society.

You in turn bought out the non sequitur that the NAP is not a libertarian principle, which is false based on even a cursory google search.

How would it make the courts and police ineffective. People use the NAP until someone decides to be a murdering rapist. Then what do you do? You still have prisons and laws. How the fuck do you imagine this shit works?

NAP severely limits the use of force the police can use to enforce the law.

But it exists. It exists to deal with precisely what I described. There are laws, those laws are enforced. Contracts exist between consenting parties, and courts exist to enforce them if they are broken. All of these things exist in a Libertarian society. As I said numerous times, this has been backed by every Libertarian speaker I have ever heard so if you believe otherwise you're free to provide those sources.

You're loying

faggot

You have no fucking clue how libertarianism works, do you?

Explain it to me then. Why will all these things not happen in an economy with absolutely no regulations or rules? Why will inequality not get out of control?

Why is everybody not paid minimum wage?

[removed]

Sounds like all of Asia today without the personal freedom.

That's a retarded argument with zero explanation behind it

With no regulations, companies can do whatever they want. This would be large amounts of pollution, destruction of wildlife, over fishing, chopping down all the trees, farming pretty much all the land, using up all the ground water, polluting the ground water. And with no taxes, the rich will just continue to get richer, and inequality will continue to rise. No child labor laws sounds pretty fun. Libertarians are also pro open borders. I don't know if many of you internet libertarians realize that.

You're right, thankfully regulations have prevented overfarming, overfishing, pollution, the water in Flint is well managed and the Department of Defense isn't one of the biggest polluters in the world. Widespread immigration helped America back when there wasn't a massive welfare system to swarm to from overseas. People came to work. For some reason, over-immigration isn't working so well in welfare-centric Europe.

We didn't have open borders back in those days. We had incredibly strict immigration quotas. Immigration worked well for us back then because we were undergoing the industrial revolution, we needed workers. Now days us and Europe are post industrialized nations. The jobs are being automated at record levels. So there isn't really a need to cheap labor. Also, there were massive amounts of problems with immigration in America. And those problems were way worse than what Europe is currently dealing with.

Well if immigration isn't such a great thing, giving poor people the incentive of moving and living in relative luxury without having to work, isn't a good way to deter it.

wait, so how is this different than what we currently have?

We have some regulations that keeps a lot of these things from happening. We have giant national parks that are allowed to reaming wilderness. We have limits to how much hunting is allowed. We have regulations on pollution etc. If we didn't have these things it would be much worse. Now, Europe has much better regulatory system, and has less problems with these issues. And China has less regulations and has way more problems with pollution and other things. The libertarian philosophy is that things will always naturally work themselves out in the long run. That is very naive. Like people will be angry with all the pollution, so they will only buy products from companies that don't pollute. That is very unrealistic.

He not just a libertarian. He is better described as an anarcho-capitalist

Will Smiths middle name is not Dave

[removed]

It's not that it's awful, it's just too childishly naive to ever be viable in a world as complex as ours. It's why self-professed Libertarians are usually the dumbest people on earth.

It's interesting that statist liberals are characterized as pie in the sky idealists when libertarians are much more idealistic about the purity of humanity than any mainstream liberal.

libertarians in Dave Smiths school of thought arent idealistic about human nature theyre firmly cynical about it. Nasty Brutish Short

Dave Smith is so fucking annoying

No, he's a Jew.

I like librarians.

Every vaguely political point he's ever made is 100% predictable.

Because it isnt just picking and choosing what you like. Silly "philosophy" or whatever

There are still laws and courts in a libertarian society.

How would it make the courts and police ineffective. People use the NAP until someone decides to be a murdering rapist. Then what do you do? You still have prisons and laws. How the fuck do you imagine this shit works?