After reading these posts I think I figured out that you don't understand libertarianism at all. In terms of the workplace, a libertarian society would allow for any job to hire whoever they want. As for the free market, it's not the policies that oppress people it's the people in the market who oppress people and who happen to be greedy and take full advantage of the system. It's this funny little thing call "human input."


Communism makes people complete "equals" in society and completely reliant on the state for everything.

Let me explain this: democratic rights would be something that are found in all democracies, the freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms being just two of those select rights in American society. We "libertarian fascists" would implement laws that forbid anyone from interfering in these rights.

Wow, what a great way to illustrate the extremes.  It is obvious that only an effective government can implement policies that lie in the middle.  Authoritarianism failed already.  Negligence I believe will be found in developing Eastern European and Indonesian countries that have lax economic laws to spur investment and will soon move into the middle as infrastructure has been implemented.  Anymore cuts on regulation and America may be faced with the same problem of negligence.

All very true. Southern Asia is a prime example of sate negligence.

What you fail to realize is that a laissez-faire society, by its very nature, is economically unstable. People will be forced to exploit each other to survive if the government does not establish order.

Yes, they'd allow any job to hire whoever they want...I'm not sure what your point is. Generally, that isn't really any different to any form of capitalism. The difference is wealthy, powerful elites would also be allowed to fire anybody who they want, to cut costs on safety as much as they want, and to pay as little as they want.

If you think competition to attract a workforce will fix things, you're wrong. Proletarians are more desperate to take any job they can get to avoid starvation (especially as Libertarians want to abolish a jobseekers allowance) so will take merely a subsistence wage if you abolish all the legalisation the workers have fought for the past 100+ years to protect them. Trade unionists fought for suffrage, right to organise, and then once they had been achieved they could use their influence to bring in legislation guaranteeing unemployment benefits, pensions, sick pay, legally required minimum wage, free education and healthcare etc.

Libertarians want to abolish all these; apart from, they claim, suffrage and the right to organise. But suffrage and the right to organise were what gave birth to the other things; despite the sophistry of neo-classical and austrian economists, simply looking at Pinochet's Chile, the effects of IMF policies on the developing world, or Capitalist Europe in the 19th Century and early 20th is evidence that unregulated market makes things worse for the workers; hence, if a Libertarian Party gets elected (very unlikely) or comes to power through a coup (far more likely) the reality of it's policies would instantly either see it getting kicked out and replaced with another party, or in the case of coming into power through a coup would face resistance from workers. In both cases, the Libertarian state either perishes or must abolish the right for people to organise outside of state channels and the right for anyone but the employers who benefit from this system to vote. Essentially, Libertarian ideology wants to regress Capitalism to an unreformed state and can only keep in power through a repressive state apparatus.

The same applies to Classical Liberalism.

Where exactly has unregulated capitalism occurred?

I can foresee libertarians' next answer: "Oh, but they were not really unregulated, you know? And it was precisely regulation/the government what caused all the problems".

You guys have all the answers, I don't see why you would need anyone else for this discussion.  So have at it, I'm out.