/liberty/ - Liberty

>Markets won't self-regulate

Apparently the libertarians he talked to never heard of NGO watchdogs etc. that can oversee corporations. He's also, inevitably, talking about minarchists i.e. not real libertarians.

>We need to protect ourselves from each other

>The majority of us agree on this

wew fam

>How could less regulations not lead to corporatism

If there's no regulatory body to lobby….

The first actual example he gives is a governmental failure, not a failure of economic knowledge. The government actually places caps on how much companies who deal in natural resources can be sued for, and also provides them with licenses TO pollute. If the gulf of mexico were privately owned, BP would have been sued to oblivion even more than they were. Secondly, what is he basing the need for "more regulation" on exactly? We've had continuous regulatory growth for at least 50 years now.

>What if a company does something that kills a bunch of people, but it can pay them off?

Is this guy retarded? How much does he think people are going to sell their life, their literal existence for?

>They just print the goddamn dollar bills

Libertarians don't support fiat currency

Additionally reports have been done showing that even if the 1% were taxed at 100% it wouldn't pay for single government programs, such as medicare, for more than 3 years. So no, there is not "enough money to go around", though I would argue there would be enough to go around if the government didn't drive the cost of medication up.

>On education

Even ignoring the fact that public schools teach children to be inept, they especially don't help people in poorer areas and that they're government indoctrination camps, why is it so bad that education should be privatized? Private schooling is doing wonders in poorer countries, and schools that have poorer results would naturally receive less customers. Even assuming we have public schooling, people who are poor and could not afford private schooling would be better off running around in the street or playing video games. Schooling in ghetto areas is fucking abysmal.

>The greater good

>Sacrificing the minority for the good of the many

>>12975

People are so dangerous that we need to protect ourselves from each other by granting an arbitrarily selected number of people weapons of war and exclusive rights to use violence as they see fit. Sure, makes perfect sense when you think about it.

>>12989

>What if a company does something that kills a bunch of people, but it can pay them off?

Do these people realize that the government commits crimes daily and gets away with it? Even if there was a tiny elite that could regularly commit murder and only had to pay someone off, we'd be better off than we are now.

>>12972

The guy seems to be an a-grade edgelord. Just look at his fucking t-shirt.

>>13029

The guy in the original video had less than 200000 views. It was hardly a groundbreaking opinion-piece, particularly innovative or even popular. So what did you expect? That Ron Paul would address it in his next book? Not gonna happen.

As for Chris Cuntwell, he's an embarassment to the anarchocapitalist cause and can go get fucked.

Shane Killian makes quite a few debunk videos

>>13082

He made an a-grade comment under his own video:

>This is another thing I've noticed about these discussions: in almost every post, the statist HAS to denigrate the character of the libertarian: he's evil, he's greedy, he's a wannabe rich guy, whereas NONE of the libertarian arguments depend on this kind of character assassination. When we do go after the statist personally it's because of the irrationality of the arguments that he makes, in pretending the state is omnipotent or that laws have the power of magical incantations.

>There are times when individuals are insulted for their dishonesty, but it's the dishonesty, not the statism, that's the foundation for these insults. Whereas the statists use nothing more than the fact that the libertarian is a libertarian to call him greedy or whatever, with no other information at hand whatsoever.

>But not only is it not necessary to impugn the character of statists to argue for libertarianism, libertarians point out all the time how many if not most of these statist policies are well-intended, just misguided and frought with unintended consequences. Libertarians say that intentions don't matter; only actions and their consequences. Statists just can't seem to stop tying intentions into it, even when there's no reason to do so.

>So I ask you: is it REALLY the case that the side who has to attribute bad intentions or character flaws to the other side as a whole, simply on the basis of their being on that side, has the higher Prior Probability?

>>13079

Of course, it's just why post a video that has already been thrashed?

>>13139

That's a good question. Why open a thread about a video like that, of all things?