The Compiled Rugged Individualist Conversation

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Libertarianism/Free Market Tard is the same bad signal that makes people think communism is a good idea.  In fact, the two are more or less identical.

I see why you would say that, but I think that is because we view things differently on a fundamental level. I'm ok with that though. I disagree with many people in a very similar way. We tend to get along fine now that I've come to see that.

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

[POFP]

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.

If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.

Sigh, see underlined ^

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.

If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.

Sigh, see underlined ^

Okay.  Later.

[hooplala]

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.

If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.

Sigh, see underlined ^

If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.

If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.

Sigh, see underlined ^

If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?

Question of the day.

[Cain]

You assume under a free market you would still have a choice of outlets to use.

However, history and economic theory have shown that, absent of regulations, monpolies can easily form, using their superior economic power to undercut competition and drive them out of business.  Indeed, even with regulations, cartels have undertaken price-fixing and wage setting through secret agreements with each other - agreements which are illegal under existing law, but would not be in a deregulated pure market economy.

You assume a freedom of choice which would not last long in such conditions.

[POFP]

If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?

I'm pretty sure it was much longer ago than that.

I'm not saying I want all of us to live under Libertarian ideas. I'm not very complicated. You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

All restrictions are illusory. I don't ask that we get rid of certain Leftist legislation on the economy because it "limits" us. Some of it just doesn't fucking work. I'm not saying ALL of it, but SOME of it. I think most of you will agree that BOTH SIDES have made legislative attempts that hurt our system. Obviously, an only partially free-market is what has seemed to work the best for the US. That doesn't mean that that is THE RIGHT and JUST way of going about an economy. I won't thrust my free-market shit at you, and you shouldn't thrust anything at me. I will trade/exchange however I want, with whomever I want, and with whatever restrictions I want.

Laws and restrictions are agreements that are enforced by people who make the agreements. I'm recently 18 years old, and I haven't agreed to shit yet. So I'm not trying to enforce shit.

Summary: A partially free-market system works for the US when it's implemented properly. But I won't follow all restrictions put in place by other people if they hurt me. Imma do me, you do you.

You assume under a free market you would still have a choice of outlets to use.

However, history and economic theory have shown that, absent of regulations, monpolies can easily form, using their superior economic power to undercut competition and drive them out of business.  Indeed, even with regulations, cartels have undertaken price-fixing and wage setting through secret agreements with each other - agreements which are illegal under existing law, but would not be in a deregulated pure market economy.

You assume a freedom of choice which would not last long in such conditions.

The way I see it, there's always a choice. It all comes back to consequences. Now you may see why I was so obsessed with achieving immunity to consequences to achieve freedom.

[hooplala]

You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

Oh, come on.

[POFP]

You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

Oh, come on.

You're right, I practically did the same thing. I should've said it in the form of a question: Are you labeling me a Libertarian and assuming I think a certain way?

[hooplala]

You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

Oh, come on.

You're right, I practically did the same thing. I should've said it in the form of a question: Are you labeling me a Libertarian and assuming I think a certain way?

This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.

I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes.  Because they are.  And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.

[POFP]

This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.

I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes.  Because they are.  And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.

Fair enough. I just never saw myself, nor my ideas as Libertarian. So your reaction surprised me.

[hooplala]

This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.

I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes.  Because they are.  And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.

Fair enough. I just never saw myself, nor my ideas as Libertarian. So your reaction surprised me.

Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information.  Nobody else really was.

[POFP]

Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information.  Nobody else really was.

That's funny. I thought Ayn Rand was completely against all Leftist restrictions. I'm not. She wanted to ensure that America and the rest of the world was under a free-market economy. I don't. She sees all restrictions on the economy by the government as wrong, as do all other Libertarians. I don't. So how am I like them?

[hooplala]

Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information.  Nobody else really was.

That's funny. I thought Ayn Rand was completely against all Leftist restrictions. I'm not. She wanted to ensure that America and the rest of the world was under a free-market economy. I don't. She sees all restrictions on the economy by the government as wrong, as do all other Libertarians. I don't. So how am I like them?

Oh, sorry.  I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page. 

My mistake.

[POFP]

Oh, sorry.  I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page. 

My mistake.

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself.

What's desirable for me has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I want the system to be balanced (Close to what we have now, minus inherently broken legislation that has been implemented) between Free-market and Socialism, as does anyone else who's looked at economic theory in the past 100 years. But that's my opinion, and my opinion doesn't mean shit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm just not agreeing to follow all restrictions or procedures because some of them aren't in my best interest (Because some of them are broken).