you obviously don't know libertarianism. government is what screwed up stuff.

ill use an analogy of a libertarian society.

the farmers make food. seeing that a factory makes tools they decide to support his hunger in exchange for tools. the baker makes bread, he sees that the teacher helps educates him and he says, hey ill pay him in bread for teaching. as simple as that.

no need for gov to interfere and force factories to make weapons, or for gov to tax the money you rightfully earn. no need for us to put our trust into one leader and a group of his advisers to represent us. i mean, do you let your friend represent you when you ask say, a girl out, no that was 3erd grade stuff, you do it your self. we need to move out of childhood and support our own lives.

but back to you idea that libertarianism would destroy society. its quite simple, if a factory owner is mean to its workers the workers go to an other factory. the society stops feeding the man, or paying the man for its goods, hence, the factory owner is forced to reason to demands or leave the town.

libertarians believe in one crime. that is hindering people from using the full extent of their freedom. in a libertarian society slavery, assault,theft would all be illegal and people would hire people to keep these rules in effect, the counter example to you argument to the evil libertarianism supposedly brings.

and to also counter argue ur statement, people for 200 years lived in a libertarianism society, our for founders.

thats right in the 15 and 1600s the British paid no attention to the colonist and the colonist self ruled. if a town needed to be built, they got to gather and did it, if they needed a defense force against Indians they rallied men to do it. no need for gov involvement. they lived in a society of complete freedom. and thats what our fore founders fought against the British to keep, but sadly, they felt in defense, when already they proved they did not need it, erected a government.

I read your argument, and I laughed.

You are the 1st person to even insinuate that I'm conservative. I supported Obama in the 2008 election and continue to do so. I would never burn a flag(?) of Obama, but that's mostly because I've never seen a flag of Obama. I also supported his push for universal healthcare. In addition, you seem to be very confused about Barack Obama's views on economics. Obama is not in favor of socialism...no American politician is. Why? Because it's a dumb fucking idea. This is why some right wingers try to paint people on the left as socialist, but the truth is they aren't socialist at all. What many on the left are advocating for is a market system in where certain basic needs (such as healthcare) are ensured for all citizens. Allow me to make this very clear, since you seem to have a difficult time grasping this idea: THIS ISN'T SOCIALISM.

In addition to certain social programs, what Obama also supports Keynesian counter-cyclical economic policy. This type of policy is only relevant in a market economy in which people would be allowed to respond to increased aggregate demand....but please tell me about how I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Now, there are a number of issues with your analysis of the island scenario. Let me first ask you why you believe that a central authority organizing people is more efficient than people working for their own self interest. Do you think people will somehow be able to produce more when they are contributing to the group than when they are working for their own profit and trading? How about we take an example of two groups which produced about equal output before they changed economic systems.

When North Korea and South Korea split their GDPs were basically identical. North Korea chose a centrally controlled economic system, and South Korea went with a more free market, capitalist system. Since this split in 1953 (over 50 years ago) who has fared better? Well according to you the centrally run economy should be more productive and efficient because people are working together. The facts, however, point to something different:

North Korean Per Capita GDP: $ 1,900

South Korean Per Capita GDP: $27,978

Also, what do you notice about satellite images of Korea at night?

Basically, it's not even close. Private property rights and the ability to freely trade are essential to economic growth. Everyone in North Korea may be equal, but their standard of living is still significantly lower than that of South Korea. Even those people in South Korea who are considered poor are still much better off than if they were living in North Korea.

Your basic claim that output can increase in a socialist system is the part of your argument which is most erroneous. I think we can both agree that in a socialist economy/a socialist like economy most (if not all) of what people make would go towards the collective. Another way of putting this is that the tax rate would get very close to 100%. If you knew anything about economics you would be aware of the Laffer curve, which gives a rough depiction of government revenue as it is related to taxes. This curve is the obvious consequence of the fact that people respond to incentives. At a certain point, an increase in taxes will lead to a decrease in government revenues because people have less incentive to work. Once again: basic economics you clearly don't seem to grasp.

You also claim that people who become wealthy in a free market system are somehow exploiting others. What I was attempting to demonstrate in my island example was how this is not the case. One person trades something useful to someone else in exchange for coconuts. In this voluntary transaction both sides benefit. This is what you can't seem to grasp: voluntary trade helps both sides. It is not a zero sum game. Were these people not to trade, or as you put neither would gain, so let me ask you: who is being exploited? Everyone gains in a free market. Some gain more than others but that doesn't mean we should scrap the whole system.

If you have gotten nothing from this whole argument then I would please ask you to read this essay by Leonard E. Read. It will hopefully at least give you some perspective as far as the point of view of those who advocate free markets. You will maybe see why it isn't greed and ignorance that motivates the advocates of capitalism but instead an understanding of the progress and improved quality of life that can be achieved when we allow the market to function.

funny you mention the movie capitalism a love story. the part where it goes about the president giving money to the economy being a capitalist move is actually socialist. thats right we have already shown that socialism does not work with Obama stimulus bill and other nation building by gov.

in fact any involvement by gov in commerce is socialism. and look at our economy now, it sucks. so before you argue get your definitions right.

99 people would be working, very wrong. It would not take long for a few to realize in a socialist island that if they did not work, they would continue to get 1/100 of the results of the groups work.Others would notice the few that no longer contribute and would soon join the non-workers up to the point where there would be more non-workers than workers. This then brings on the problems you now see in Europe and soon the United States. Whenever many are living off the work of few,the workers leave. New York is a prime example,taxing the few top performing workers drives them away.

Most large groups of friends are fragmented, 2 or 3 friends might be part of a group of 8, part of another group of 10, and part of a different group of 6. These three groups probably interact often and the influence of the shared friends likly means they get along. Its rare to have a very large group of friends, its not that uncommon to have a few people bring together multiple groups of their friends and kinda "take the lead" in introducing people, planing etc. since they know everyone and are considered experts on what everyone's tastes are, their abilities, etc. Usually though people are free to leave the gathering if they want, and there isn't coercion. Perhaps some peer pressure.

Those people who "take the lead" are not really authority figures, or seen as "higher". People trusts those they know, and probably are willing to trust the ones who they trust also trusts but are more cautious in their trusting then if it was first hand. This varying level of trusts isn't a varying level of respect. So long as people give newcomers a basic level of dignity, there isn't really a set hierarchy but just what ever structure happens to be convenient and useful at the time; the "leaders" change daily, hourly even. When I think of an authority figure, or a "leader" as commonly defined I think of someone who is in charge, who people feel expected to follow, who is consistently looked to take charge and whos position in the group doesn't flux around too much.

An example of the fragmented sort of large group without set power structures and their natural dynamics would be my family get together today(LARGE family, from all around), I noticed the more immediate families tended to stand closer to each other and the older people who knew everyone made announcements. I wouldn't really call the older people an authority there, they didn't make demands, they didn't coerce, The group knew what needed to be done and allowed them to organize it. I wouldn't say the older people had more respect either, More members of the group was familiar with them though.