Libetarianism :lupe:

[Prince.Skeletor]

I like this cartoon, it sends a positive message, and that's why I like it. So Dapped!
But I only like it philosophically.
I don't agree with it because i'm not an idealist, I prefer solutions for real life.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Probably because, in practice, Libertarianism would be horrible for minorities and poor people, and really only beneficial to the rich.

But we don't have libertarianism now and right now we have exactly the scenario you are describing. Why don't people realize that?
Right now minorities are poor and the rich just keeps getting richer and richer.
Welcome to "NOW"!

We're already in a society where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - completely cutting out and wealth redistribution would pretty much, after a while, take us back to the days of serfs and peasants.

But serfdom is the opposite of libertarianism!
And right now we have massive govt., libertarianism promotes limited govt.
During today, the opposite of libertarianism, you have exactly what you are describing.
No before you say that opposite if massive govt. isn't anarchy, that's the opposite of totalitarianism.

There's also the fact that having so much of the wealth concentrated at the top is bad for the economy in general.

Your opinions stem from a complete misunderstanding of libertarianism.
In a libertarian country there would be no monopolies because free market economics would decentralize all business segments. That means money is spread out throughout the entire country which means more jobs, and for some gravy it also means more competition which means better service and lower prices.
It's govt. that creates monopolies not the people, remember that!

This is because, without a strong middle/working class to buy goods and services, not enough money will be exchanged and the economy will slow.

You are correct, congratulations you are now a libertarian!

 

[badvillain]

Probably because, in practice, Libertarianism would be horrible for minorities and poor people, and really only beneficial to the rich.


We're already in a society where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - completely cutting out and wealth redistribution would pretty much, after a while, take us back to the days of serfs and peasants.


There's also the fact that having so much of the wealth concentrated at the top is bad for the economy in general. This is because, without a strong middle/working class to buy goods and services, not enough money will be exchanged and the economy will slow. That's what happened before the Great Depression (huge concentration of wealth at the top) and again before the late-2000s recession. True story.

Agreed on all your supporting points, but you realize the big government liberals are supportive of only reinforces this correct?

A real "libertarian" utopia would be a world in which everyone has a fair shot to compete, without wasteful spending by government. Governments wouldn't allow monopolies/duopolies, the prison/military-industrial complexes would be eliminated, etc. The whole world would be completely different; for one, oil would have been replaced decades ago by a better fuel. The auto industry could have been totally electric starting in the 90s. But the rich people at the top won't let anyone fukk with their money.

Big government rigs the game and favors corporations(many of which are run by ex-government officials).