/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>Hold no quarter to Libertarians on this board. Their mass ignorance and cultural neglect resulted in this exodus. Stop them while they are not near.


People who whine non-stop about censorship led to censorship?

>Libertarianism is ultimately not a Right-wing ideology. "Liberty" was the first of the three watchwords of the French Revolution.
Liberty is the catchword or underlying motive of almost every ideology in history.

>The roots of the ideology go back to the American Revolution and the Manchester School, all illegitimate movements to any honest observer.
No, they go back to early liberalism in the 18th century.

>Libertarianism is ultimately not a Right-wing ideology.
Are you talking about left libertarians, right libertarians, or both?

>Most Libertarians are atheists or agnostics. They can easily be wooed by socialistic and anarchistic subversion
A lot of right libertarians at least are religious, they just don't believe in state mandated religion. Uh, I take it you don't like socialists. Most of the people on this board are National Socialists, so you're saying you dislike most of /polpol/?

>A state who cannot do all the things required of it
What all should the state be doing?

>With a weak state that does not coordinate foreign or social policy
Libertarianism!=no foreign policy. Explain what your idea of social policy is.

>Libertarianism only makes sense with Jews and Anglos
Who ever said there only had to be one political system for the whole world?

>>7504
>Uh, I take it you don't like socialists.
You are just pulling semantics here. You should know damn well there is a big difference between National Socialism and Socialism. The Socialism half in NatSoc is about supporting the poorest rung of the nation state.
'Regular' socialism is universalist like libertarianism, they believe in certain rights for everyone and only disagree on what those rights are specifically. That is where OP is getting at with the relative ease of wooing them, because of the similar foundation of universal human rights.

>>7329
>People who whine non-stop about censorship led to censorship?
What do you mean by this? There mass ignorance and cultural neglect resulted in the current state of /pol/, that being a complete lack of quality control in management, which has caused an exodus of users who actually cared about board quality.

An individual needs freedom, a group needs structure. You can't abandon the latter in favor of the former, or you don't have a group in the first place.

>>7678
>The NAP is based on not iniciating violence
The NAP is based on the idea that aggression is inherently bad, which is naive and foolish. It assumes violence is the only way somebody could have an intentional deleterious effect on another person or group, and that aggression can ONLY serve to have a deleterious effect on another person or group.
When you realize that aggression can be used for good, and that non-aggression can be used for evil, you throw out the NAP since it's basically baby's first morality lesson.
>Small goverment can be effective and conservative
But it will never have the power to shape a society in the way it must be shaped. Libertarians often love to claim that in a Libertarian society you'd be allowed to form your own NatSoc community, and act as if that's a positive to the Libertarian column. If anything it shows that the Libertarian government would be too weak to actually do anything, and adherence to their NAP would prevent them from bringing up the lower rungs of society.
>with a kind of system you would like you would just be a repressed peasant (and probably chipped in the head, due to modern technology). You are not part of any elite, do you think that system would favour you?
You try to bring the focus back onto individual freedoms rather than group structure. Every individual has a different method of governance catering to their specific strong-suits in which they'd be best off under. But you can't let everybody form their own island if you want to build a strong society. If a sheep wants peace and a wolf wants war, you can't let them both have what they want, and you can't expect to convince anybody by appealing to their individual strengths due to them being so different. You need to have strong authority which serves the interests of both parties as members of the body politik.
>If the goverment has too much control you are fucked if it ever gets corrupted
And that is why you allow people the means to fight against tyranny. There's no reason the people can't bare arms under a NatSoc government. What's to stop tyranny forming under a Libertarian system, through the media?
>Libertarian freedom and creative/profitable energy + natsoc's order and morality would be a nice system.
The biggest problem being that Libertarian freedom isn't going to bring about NatSoc order or morality: If Libertarianism was ever going to be feasible, it would need decades of NatSoc governance teaching people how to make the most of themselves.

Man is like a dog. You use a leash to keep it in line. When the dog is trained, and is capable of acting well, you can let it off the leash and very few problems will come about. But the modern man is not a trained dog. He is like an untrained pitbull. And letting him go without a leash will only bring about chaos.

Wow, a thread criticizing a specific political ideology that doesn't involve immature shitflinging? This is the first time I see that in months. /polpol/ is looking pretty promising so far.

Anyway, I recommend people in this thread to read a bit Hoppe to realize a lot of things you're criticizing Libertarianism for aren't inherently incompatible with the ideology itself: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/hans-hermann-hoppe/open-borders/

>>7708
You assume a goverment is like a nice father who loves you, if it has your favorite ideology. It does not work like that…

Non physical agression is agression too. Example, if you breach a voluntary contract you made of your own free will you are agressing, if you insult someone for no reason (and you suffer some proportional consequences, it was you iniciating it).

You can't force a society to improve that much, you have to encoure the lower rungs to bring themselves up. Sure help them, but don't give them fish, teach them HOW to fish. That is what a small goverment wants.

But strong authority usually serves it's own interests. "Group structure" tends to be used for marxist bullshit, but I get your point. Strong authority need checks to it's power, or it will fuck up like it always does.

Now I agree with you, BUT, if the public is socially controled by such a strong goverment they won't even use their guns.

I also agree with your end statement.

I am simply very afraid of the goverment being corrupted, or being taken over by the people it should be fighting.
Humans are flawed and the goverment is made of humans.

>>7715
There's no reason a government should love me as an individual. I assume that a NatSoc government by its very nature would support me as a member of its citizenry and as one of its peoples, but aside from that I don't expect it to coddle me or save me from the horrors of the real world. I just expect it to act in the interests of the nation, and if they go against the interests of me as an individual so be it.

I understand non-physical aggression exists, but there is also non-aggressive acts which cause deleterious effects on others. An example would be buying up all the food crops for a small town and withholding them out of malice, or buying all the property around an area and refusing passage through it. These acts are deleterious to an individual, and if scaled up enough to a group, but they are not aggressive. Likewise, to aggress against these evils would be a use of aggression for the cause of good.

A small government may want to teach a man to fish, but the problem isn't the he has no fish, or even that he can't fish. The problem is that he's not getting up to come to the class. A NatSoc government seeks to not only provide the class, but to foster a sense of community in which he is encouraged to go to this class, and chastised for not doing so. Obviously you can't just legislate away human nature, but you can give them the means with which to change themselves. A small government finds it much harder to provide the means for strong community and cultural cohesion than big government, the only difference being that one of them has the power to do what the small government leaves up to individuals and corporations: Both of which are just as corruptible and dangerous as a large government, but with even less incentive to do right by the people.

Strong Authority usually does serve its own interest: But this is just as true of a corporation in the Libertarian system, a professional in the technocratic system or the media in a democratic system. What matters is not whether a system of governance CAN be corrupted, but whether or not the people are equipped to handle and remove corruption. A strong government has far less sway over the minds of people than the media does, or a professional would in a technocracy. Even a corporation can withhold goods the people have come to rely on.Only the strong government MUST bend to the will of the people if they choose to be serious about it, and be obligated to do so.

>if the public is socially controled by such a strong goverment they won't even use their guns.
We're seeing that in the media today. Part of the process is getting people more involved in government. Not in the "everybody votes!" democracy way, but in the "everybody has a duty to make sure the government isn't overstepping its boundaries" way. People need to be encouraged and incentivized to start caring about how they are governed again, and that starts with giving power to local communities allowing them to make direct change.

>I am simply very afraid of the goverment being corrupted, or being taken over by the people it should be fighting.
And you're very right to be: Politicians are not molded from finer clay than the rest of mankind. But I've never met a NatSoc who thought the government was the sole part of the solution to solving our problems. In a NatSoc society, the onus is just as much on the people to maintain vigilance to ensure their government is continually acting in their interests, and one the government to ensure that it is not swayed by corrupt individuals/groups.

All in all I'm a NatSoc because it's one of the few methods of governance in which both the government and the people are directly responsible for keeping the other party in line, and where both parties have the power to ensure the other is acting in the interest of the peoples. There will be issues, but there will ALWAYS be issues because man is flawed. Man can't make something flawless from his flawed position.

>>7752
Just to clarify there, when I say
>I just expect it to act in the interests of the nation, and if they go against the interests of me as an individual so be it.
I mean with respects to government policy going against ideological or situational interests.

I realized the statement could be used to justify the old "We have to take your kids for the good of the community" schtick, or the "we need to send this man off to re-education for the good of society" shit.

A government should not love individuals, but it should respect their autonomy and rights as members of the body politik.

>>7752
I like your points. But they aren't mutualy exclusive.

A small goverment can be strong. It has to be the smallest possible, and rely on safeguarding tradition and social norms (or even morality fines), to solve shit in simple ways. Instead of having a huge bureaucracy, bureaucracy is where corruption hides.

You have to make a goverment that spends little in that regard, just doing the most important stuff, BUT encourage people to self-regulate instead of cluttering up the bureaucratic system of the state.

>Libertarianism is ultimately not a Right-wing ideology. "Liberty" was the first of the three watchwords of the French Revolution.

This is literally the stupidest assumption upon which to build an argument that I have witnessed this week. Next you will tell me that being protected from murder is leftist ideology because murder was illegal in the Soviet Union.

>>7785
>bureaucracy is where corruption hides
But it's also the only place corruption can be rooted out and dealt with.

A corrupt businessman isn't breaking laws. So long as he abides by the laws of a Libertarian government he can cause effects deleterious to society or communities if he wishes and the people won't be able to do much to prevent it. It becomes somewhat feudalistic. But if that corruption occurs in government, then that corruption is in itself a failure of the individual or group in question to act in the nation/peoples interest, and since they are accountable to the public they can be dealt with accordingly.

There's no need for a complete government control on society, there's definitely room for private enterprise in the realm of luxuries: But I'd rather the people controlling necessities to be accountable to their countrymen than for them to be protected under the guise of economic freedom.

Like I said, I don't think Libertarian Nationalism is impossible. But at the state we're in now, I don't believe it goes far enough to bring about the change needed.
If you're traveling a couple blocks over you'll only need 10 bucks for a Taxi, but when you need to get to the next town then that amount just isn't doing enough to get you where you need to be. Once you're almost there, then the 10 dollars becomes useful for the rest of the trip.

>>7806
That's kind of like saying you can only cure cancer if you have it the first place.

But, yes I agree that atleast in the transitional fase people would need stricter oversight. But the bureaucracy would have to be very public, and easily verified/intreperted. Because, for example, just because you have a Freedom of information act doesn't mean the goverment won't make up an excuse to hide what they want.

>>7640
>supporting the poorest rung of the nation state
And that makes it a socialist ideology. Socialism encompasses a huge variety of political theories, many of which are incompatible with each other.

>relative ease of wooing libertarians to socialism or anarchism
This argument doesn't make sense to me, and I'd like someone to expand on what the thought process behind this is. Left libertarians already are socialists, so there's nothing to woo them to. I imagine there is a lot of flow between them and anarchists since the ideologies have a lot in common, but anarchism is socialist, so they'd still be socialists. As for right libertarians, you can't get much more anti-socialist than that. Right libertarians are actually closer to conservatives than to left libertarians.

>>7814
Corruption IS going to happen. You're not going to stop it, you're not going to end. All you can do is make it easier to stop.

A business has no obligation to be transparent, and has no obligation to its countrymen. They can legally be corrupt and you can do nothing to prevent them from choosing to do so.
But a government can be forced to be transparent. To be public. While a government may try to find excuses to hide shit, a people who care about their governance can force it to spill those beans. Acts don't insure that the government does what it's supposed to, a knowledgeable and active populace do. And that's why we're in the state we're in, because we lack that.

You can't legislate society into working order. You need the people to use that legislation to make their society better too.

Libertarianism is right-wing-lite

They really believe that the "free" market will establish a natural hierarchy and promote traditional values

>>8459
And in the past it did.

>>8198
But if the goverment is so poweful how you force it to do anything?

>>8529
How would a Libertarian society force a powerful corporation or group to do anything?

The citizens always have the number advantage, and the threat of revolt is ever present in a NatSoc society.

>>8534
I don't know how an Anarcho-Capitalist society would do it, but a Libertarian-Nationalist one would use the state.

No, not when the goverment is as powerful as let's say, Hitler or Stalin. And because in modern times a goverment has much more control over you. It can even chip you in the brain.

>>8534
>How would a Libertarian society force a powerful corporation or group to do anything?
It wouldn't. If a powerful corporation arises then it's a product of its own success. Its power would be derived from consumers. If the people feel threatened by it then they're welcome to do business elsewhere thus denying the corporation its source of power. Unless an act is criminal, the market serves as the great adjudicator.

>>8543
Sounds a lot like feodal lords. Just in marketing.

>>8543
what if the corporation hired its own private army to enslave citizens who couldnt afford a private army large enough to compete?

>>8545
Borderlands, just on Earth.

>>8545
That is why Libertarian-Nationalism exists.

>>8543
And we can see this happening with consumer revolt right now as well! Oh wait, consumers are stupid sheep who are influenced by advertisements and market dominance instead of acting rationally.

If this 'consumer market will fix it' dogma is true, then you would have to see it happening on a grand scale right now! The morally bankrupt behaviour of these corporations are allowed to be even more grotesque with lobbying and big government after all. This is where the ancap stuff always falls flat on its ass.

>>8549
No, since the corporations have goverment support.

Why doesn't anyone talk about Libertarian-Nationalism? You just attack the evils of both (libertarians and natsocs) instead of join the good and droping the bad… To make one sweet sweet political baby.

>>8547
>>8545
..Isn't this (to an extent) happening in Ukraine (Borderland) at the moment, though? They just have different national coalitions backing them.

>>8548
the only kind of libertarian esque government i can support is one that is similar to what the US was pre 1912

>>8551
>No, since the corporations have goverment support.
Even when the government support allows the big corporations to do even more heinous stuff, they still enjoy massive consumer support because consumers for reasons I already said and you decided to ignore. The libertarian utopia is a pipe dream just as communism, it fails miserably on judging human behaviour.

Nobody talks about Libertarian-Nationalism because it's an oxymoron, go for paleocon instead or some other real political position.

>>8557
>consumer support, for reasons I already
fucked up my sentence, sorry

>>8541
>No, not when the goverment is as powerful as let's say, Hitler or Stalin
…what? The citizens still had the numb er advantage even under those regimes. There were not more people in government than not.
>And because in modern times a goverment has much more control over you. It can even chip you in the brain.
If the government does something like that, overstepping its boundaries, it's the job of the people to violently revolt. If they don't, it's a problem they allowed to come to fruition.

>>8543
>If a powerful corporation arises then it's a product of its own success
And then the corporation gains more and more power until it becomes administrative, and badaboom you've got yourself feudalism. This is the biggest problem with Libertarianism: You've got no safety measure to ensure that it STAYS Libertarian. The NAP ensures that a Libertarian country cannot stay Libertarian in the face of opposing ideologies.
>Its power would be derived from consumers
And when it inevitably forms a monopoly?
>If the people feel threatened by it then they're welcome to do business elsewhere
When a corporation buys every farm within a hundred mile radius, do you propose I just drive out 101 to grab my groceries? What about when you CAN'T do business elsewhere, because the inevitable occurs where a corporation amasses enough power to monopolize the market?
>denying the corporation its source of power
So you put yourself at the mercy of mass-consuming idiots. It doesn't matter if Apple said they planned to put bombs in each new phone as a security measure, the new Iphone would still sell out on launch day. NatSoc protects people from idiots, Libertarianism puts you at their mercy.
>Unless an act is criminal, the market serves as the great adjudicator.
And that's the kicker. The market doesn't act that way. Because in a Libertarian society the media is owned by corporations, and thus the power remains with them. You've got no out. What difference would that Libertarian society and this "democratic" one have, aside from the Libertarian one being honest about giving power to corporations?

>>8549
This is the crux of the thing.

Nixon tapped a couple phone lines and the backlash was so intense he had to resign.
The NSA taps the entire nation and nobody gives a fuck.

People don't care about their governance anymore, and Libertarianism will fail because of that.

>>8560
To violently revolt with small-arms… And be crushed by a Spartan/Highly martial goverment.

Are you serious? Do you have a mental condition? I am dumbfounded with your statement.

>>8545
That's illegal. If you went ultra-minarchist and privatised law enforcement then you might have a problem.

>>8549
"Corporatism"

But you're absolutely right. "the free market will fix it" is a lie. The market is the culmination of all human wants and desires, in a free market you're a slave to the majority will. If NetSoft Inc. insert microchips into their employees – and people around you are stupid enough to go along with it – then there's nothing you as an individual can do about it. Libertarian utopianism is founded upon the assumption that humans act purposefully, that men are rational enough to exploit market indicators. They're not.

If you legalise hard drugs. They'll consume it. If ISPs sell internet traffic to advertisers. They'll pay for it. If the dump carcinogens into the lakes? They'll suffer it. If Libertarians grossly overestimate human nature. They think all regulations are uncompetitive because most are, and that all humans are rational because they are.

The only benefit is that you are finally a free, sovereign individual; beholden to none and entitled to nothing.

>>8551
Because "libertarian nationalism" is a nonsense. It's just a form of conservatism. Once the state starts acting against degeneracy or directing the market, it is no longer libertarian. It's controlled capitalism, just like corporatism, neoliberalism, social democracy, the economics of the modern world.

>>8552
Governments aren't companies.

>>8560
>>If a powerful corporation arises then it's a product of its own success
>And then the corporation gains more and more power until it becomes administrative, and badaboom you've got yourself feudalism. This is the biggest problem with Libertarianism: You've got no safety measure to ensure that it STAYS Libertarian. The NAP ensures that a Libertarian country cannot stay Libertarian in the face of opposing ideologies.
Force makes sure the system stays libertarian. Violate the NAP and you are punished for it.
>>Its power would be derived from consumers
>And when it inevitably forms a monopoly?
Then well played. You beat everyone else.
>>If the people feel threatened by it then they're welcome to do business elsewhere
>When a corporation buys every farm within a hundred mile radius, do you propose I just drive out 101 to grab my groceries?
Yes
>What about when you CAN'T do business elsewhere, because the inevitable occurs where a corporation amasses enough power to monopolize the market?
The idea is that you don't let this happen. People will prevent this by consuming rival goods.
>>denying the corporation its source of power
>So you put yourself at the mercy of mass-consuming idiots. It doesn't matter if Apple said they planned to put bombs in each new phone as a security measure, the new Iphone would still sell out on launch day. NatSoc protects people from idiots, Libertarianism puts you at their mercy.
BINGO. Libertarians think that consumers are a hive-mind that punishes uncompetitive firms, they're not. If everyone around you makes the wrong decisions, then their mistakes reflect on you. The whole world becomes one big mistake.
>>Unless an act is criminal, the market serves as the great adjudicator.
>And that's the kicker. The market doesn't act that way. Because in a Libertarian society the media is owned by corporations, and thus the power remains with them. You've got no out. What difference would that Libertarian society and this "democratic" one have, aside from the Libertarian one being honest about giving power to corporations?
Fraud, slavery and coercion are crimes against the individual. In this area it is law the that acts, not the market.

>>8583
>>8583
>
>>And when it inevitably forms a monopoly?
>Then well played. You beat everyone else.

and i think thats the problem a lot of people have with the ideology

>well played you beat everyone so we're all at your whim

i mean you could argue thats whats happened to our own reality, but in the sphere of hypothetical ideals do you really want to endorse that outcome, or the ideology under which that outcome is a foregone logical conclusion?

>>8586
If everyone is on the same playing field, as far natural and civil rights go, when you fuck up, it's your fault. Being born to fuck ups is no excuse either. There's no equality of opportunity here, just equality under the law.

Other systems can't say the same.

>Then well played. You beat everyone else
>People will prevent this by consuming rival goods
The fact that you don't see the contradiction here is the reason why people don't take Libertarians seriously.

At any level above small town stores, that principle simply does not work - and before you that Government creates/reinforces monopolies, I suggest you look at Microsoft and Intel's anti-competitive practices, the subsequent decrease in quality and increase in prices following monopoly status, and the utter lack of choice for the common consumer.

>>8583
>Then well played. You beat everyone else
>People will prevent this by consuming rival goods
The fact that you don't see the contradiction here is the reason why people don't take Libertarians seriously.

At any level above small town stores, that principle simply does not work - and before you that Government creates/reinforces monopolies, I suggest you look at Microsoft and Intel's anti-competitive practices, the subsequent decrease in quality and increase in prices following monopoly status, and the utter lack of choice for the common consumer.

>>8661
>lack of choice for the common consumer
Government forbids people from selling shit without specific regulations tax payments and licenses of all sorts. You blindly point at something that refutes your point and ignore all the major reasons it does so while pretending it reinforces the benefits of government.

The current governments especially are attempting to treat all humans like cattle and sheep. Obeying them or saying what we have now is superior to anarchy is an action of a coward of a cow of a lower life form. Why do you even post such easily defeated arguments?
>ID000000
Is someone just playing devils advocate for fun?

>>9020
Come on, if you can't see that monopolies and subsequent abuse of that power is inevitable with or without government, then you're living in a fantasy world
>live in a lawless semi-anarchistic society
>company is first to market and establishes itself early
>can subsequently prevent competition by marketing, abuse of consumer trust and anti-competitive practices like dictating to stores how much of their competitor's product they are allowed to sell
You should read up on Microsoft and Intel instead of dismissing them out of hand, because that greentext is exactly what happened and all without the interference of big bad gubmint.

>>8560
>Corporation gains power until it becomes administrative
With an-cap that's likely a risk. With a minarchist government not really. Probably less so than with our current system rife with lobbying and corporate welfare.

>inevitable monopoly
If a monopoly manages to form, eventually it will become a victim of its own bureaucracy, implode, and the remaining assets will be bought out by start-ups. In a system where corporations don't get to influence legislation or receive hand-outs from the government it's more difficult for monopolies and oligopolies to form.

>When a corporation buys every farm within a hundred miles
Unless it's a part-time hobby farm, or it serves a niche market that's how it already is. So your grocery shopping would remain the same.

>at the mercy of mass consuming idiots
Yes, most people are idiots. There's no fixing stupid, but if you can prevent private sector stupidity and government stupidity from getting together and amplifying each other's stupidity it's an improvement.

>Apple said they put bombs in new phones
If you're dumb enough to buy one, then you did the human race a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool. Eventually, the average intelligence of the species might increase by giving people enough freedom to hang themselves, and not a cent of government funds used.

>the market doesn't act as an adjudicator
Currently no. The current market is distorted from government interference.

>the corporations have the power because they own the media
How does putting the media in the hands of a government run by fallible, corruptible humans improve the situation?

>>9052
>If a monopoly manages to form, eventually it will become a victim of its own bureaucracy, implode, and the remaining assets will be bought out by start-ups
That's some fucking mighty wishful thinking. Why would it suddenly implode just because it's large? Monopolies that currently exist aren't imploding. Many monopolies that previously existed didn't implode. How does a large company magically self-destruct just as the convenient time for it to do so?
>In a system where corporations don't get to influence legislation
But they very much can in a libertarian society, since the government can't do shit if stupid people willingly submit themselves to corporate rule and you're caught in the blast zone.
>or receive hand-outs from the government
And also don't have restrictions placed on them by the government.
>it's more difficult for monopolies and oligopolies to form.
Arguably it's easier, since there's nothing standing in their way of trying to do so.

>Unless it's a part-time hobby farm, or it serves a niche market that's how it already is. So your grocery shopping would remain the same.
And then when they decide arbitrarily that I'm not allowed to access their products until I submit to their authority, what then? At least in this system a government enforces SOME limits on their power, but a minarchist government allows them to withhold their products from me for arbitrary reasons, even if they're necessities.

>Yes, most people are idiots.
And you put yourself and your community at their mercy because you do nothing to stop them.
>but if you can prevent private sector stupidity and government stupidity from getting together and amplifying each other's stupidity it's an improvement.
Yes, instead you just allow private sector stupidity to grow and grow until it becomes indistinguishable from government stupidity.

>If you're dumb enough to buy one, then you did the human race a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool.
I'll tick off the "not caring about your fellow man" box from Libertarian bingo. A company is knowingly killing stupid people and your only response is "well they're dumb so I don't care".
>Eventually, the average intelligence of the species might increase by giving people enough freedom to hang themselves, and not a cent of government funds used.
"Who cares if society goes to shit, a sense of community completely evaporates and our own countrymen are dying, so long as it's free!"
You're seriously going with the "kill the poor" method of removing poverty? The "legalize crime" method of lowering the number of criminals? That's just tremendously sociopathic and selfish.

>The current market is distorted from government interference.
You can't keep trying to say that "the free market would totally work if these pesky governments would just go away!" when the consumer is the biggest problem with the free market being seen as an adjudicator. Refer to >>9048 for info on why that's retarded.

>How does putting the media in the hands of a government run by fallible, corruptible humans improve the situation?
At least one of them is designed with the interests of the people in mind, and has an obligation to its people to do right by the nation. It's better to have a group of fallible, corruptible humans who answer to the people running it than a group of fallible, corruptible humans who answer to individuals.

>why would a monopoly implode
Lack of competition means the corporation isn't forced to remain efficient, so it devolves into bloated bureaucracy and petty tyrants fighting each other. If you've ever worked in government you get to see this since government can suck up more tax dollars or borrow more money from foreign countries instead of fixing the inefficiencies. An inefficient corporation that can't get a government bail out will lose shareholders and eventually die.

>corporations can influence legislation if people willingly submit to corporate rule
No they can't if you get rid of lobbying and minimize government's role in refereeing customer-corporation relations.

>not receiving a bail-out is not a restriction to a corporation
By not giving money to badly run companies it restricts their ability to continue being badly run. They have the choice of fixing themselves or being outcompeted and dying.

>it's easier for monopolies and oligopolies to form
Large companies having the ability to lobby and get legislation changed to favor them makes it easy for them to get bigger and bigger until they become a monopoly. In a free market, the playing field is level and favors those who provide the best combination of product, service, and price to customers while maintaining profitability. If big companies use the government to tilt the field in their favor, it's no longer a free market.

>corporation withholds product until you submit
A corporation's purpose is to make money, if they're withholding product they're not making money, that will piss off shareholders and the company will lose access to capital. If the product in question is a necessity, a competitor will step in or a black market will form hastening the corporations death. If you're a corporation with no government to back you up, making unreasonable demands is suicidal. Centralizing power in the government is more likely to result in necessities being withheld.

>nothing can stop idiots but the government
Giving them the freedom to win a Darwin award minimizes the problem. Should the government round up low IQ people and euthanize them so they don't muck up society?

>private sector stupidity will grow until it becomes indistinguishable from government stupidity
The two may very well run neck and neck in that regard, but it's still dramatically better than letting them get into bed with each other and reach new heights of corruption and inefficiency.

>a company is knowingly killing stupid people and I don't care
As long as the customer is fully aware of what they're buying, then you're correct, I don't care. If someone decided to drink a bottle of drain cleaner for shits and giggles, despite all the warnings on the bottle, how much would you care about them?

>"kill the poor" method of removing poverty
I said let the stupid kill themselves, I never said anything about poor people. I think that society should return to helping the poor through family, community, and church. Having the government take a big chunk of your paycheck and redistributing it to people you don't know doesn't make people want to help others, they feel like they've already done plenty, and frankly after taxes a lot of people can't afford to do anymore helping. Government handouts disincentivizes family and community cohesion and makes the church a less relevant institution. Having kids with somebody you shouldn't isn't punished in the current system, so people don't think about what they're doing beforehand, and they're family probably won't do much about it because they won't be having to directly foot the bill. This results in broken families which leads to increased rates of poverty and crime. Meddling in family matters is one of the many things the government does poorly and at a hefty price tag too.

>>9075
>the consumer is the biggest problem with the free market being seen as an adjudicator
The consumer is the adjudicator of the free market. Corporations exist to make money, they do that by providing what the consumer wants, if the corporation stops giving the consumer what they want, the consumer stops giving the corporation money.

Both Intel and Microsoft have engaged in some heinous behavior, yet neither has managed to become a monopoly. In Microsoft's case, while they have the most market share in PCs they're soundly beaten by other companies in the server, mainframe, and mobile sectors. If you include all the sectors Android actually has the largest market share. Operating systems are one of those things that are likely to only have a few choices because applications have to be written for specific OSes, and it's expensive for developers to rewrite an application for a lot of different ones. This is why the government shouldn't dictate the size of companies or decide how many is the right number in each industry, the ideal size and number of corporations will vary from industry to industry for a lot of complicated reasons. Letting the market hash it out is not going to bring a utopia into being, but it's less likely to cause a dystopia than letting the government control it.

>the government is designed with the interests of the people in mind
That's how it starts, but it isn't how it ends.

>state run media is better than privatized media
But you won't know when you're government becomes dangerously corrupt because they can tell you whatever they want you to believe.

>>8565
Do you think most people would even fight? Revolutions are made by a small minority of fighters, see the american revolution.

I would like to make a better response but I don't have much time. I'll come back to this thread later. Hopefully.

>>7752
>A small government may want to teach a man to fish, but the problem isn't the he has no fish, or even that he can't fish. The problem is that he's not getting up to come to the class. A NatSoc government seeks to not only provide the class, but to foster a sense of community in which he is encouraged to go to this class, and chastised for not doing so.

In a small government you if you don't show up for class you don't get fish or the ability to fish. This means either you find some other way to survive throught your own engenuity or you starve. If you don't want to learn to fish thats fine do what you want but you are expected to fend for yourself. Don't expect to be coddled by your peers, if you can't fish (Or do something else.) you are a detrement to them.

>>10611
what are you talking about governments coddle people all the time
as long as they suck politicians balls