Every time the issue of low wages and the working poor is brought up, Libertarians say those people need to get an education so they can find a better paying job. This definitely works in a micro sense. If one guy follows this advice, his problems will be solved. Where this argument fails is in the macro. If every low wage worker went out and got a degree in a high demand field, there would no longer be high demand in those fields. Wages would drop, and they would be back to square one. You can't escape the fact that pure Capitalism will create mass poverty unless it is tempered by the government.

And that's why I'm not a libertarian. Well that and they aren't really a legitimate party in that voting for them is like not voting at all (and that's why I don't really like our "system" in general).

Well sometime hardcore libertarian are kinda very weird and nearly scary as they are a whole specter of them into conspiracy theory and all (crappy comic also)

Maybe there is an escape. Once the 'good' jobs are taken, there may be a higher demand for employees in the 'bad' jobs, which means higher pay for those jobs. So what if we get some college grads managing at McDonalds? I bet they'd do a damn fine job and pass some of their maturity to their workers. That could mean better service for the consumer.

Just a thought.

I don't think libertarianism is the be-all end-all solution to society's problems, but I also don't think it would crumble to the grounds of poverty and dispair.

It would depend on supply and demand. If there are more unemployed then jobs, the employers wouldn't have to pay much. It seems likely to me that there will (always) be more potential employees than jobs.

Strict libertarianism is generally a bad governing philosophy because it ignores several of the incorrect assumptions required for pure capitalism. Specifically, it assumes that the economy is entirely transparent, and that labor is infinitely retrainable and infinitely mobile - both of which are obviously untrue.

Government intervention in the economy is therefore required, but the basic principle that it should stay out of both the boardroom and the bedroom as much as possible is a correct one.

Wow! everyone seems to have a misconstrued version of what libertarianism is. Well, I am not a libertarian, more of an AnarchoCapitalist, but I can play one pretty well. Let's see if we can address some of these points:

You are making the assumption that all the unemployed would be seeking education and training at the very same time. As Breathilizer pointed out, as job positions were filled in a highly demanded field, its demand would obviously fall until the next highly demanded field was more demanded and workers were then training for that field. This would continue until all the folks who were willing to find a job and the comensurate pay were 'employed'. The other thing forgotten here is the assumption that the only method of garnering an education is through the government school system track. The current system does not have an incentive to be very responsive to the nees of the market, so, when there might be widespread knowledge about a high demand for nurses, these institutions will continue to promote their nursing education programs far and above the market demand, producing a glut of workers in any given field (nursing in this example). The solution to this second problem is to revert to a totally market-driven educational system, filled with a variety of options including, but not limited to, Vocational Training, Apprenticeships, direct business-funded educational choices, etc. For these to work properly, both the minimum wage would need to be repealed (so that low or no-skilled workers would not be breaking the law by discounting their unproductive labor to compete with more skilled folks), removal of government grants and funding for all educational endeavors.

The Libertarian Party is just as 'legitimate' as any other recognized party: they get enough endorsements t be on almost every ballot, they field candidates, they can and do win elections (granted, very few elections, but they have shown they can win). I fear the reason you are really not a Libertarian may stem from a variety of other reasons that you are reluctant to discuss...

This is the most truthful post yet - I understand why Libertarians may be considered weird and/or scary to a majority of folks - BUT, this does not mean that they are incorrect in their political or social efforts. They are only different from the mainstream.

The first part of your response I already talked about, now I address the bolded portion:
Nothing human will ever be perfect, only 'best' for humans - we are not robots or completely predictable mathematical equations. There are MANY benefits offered by a Libertarian society which would greatly improve human conditions. Poverty and dispair are the direct result of 'anti-Libertarianism', aka: socialism/communism.

The Great Limited Jobs Myth.

Human needs/desires/wants are unlimited, and satisfying these constitutes a 'job'. There are UNLIMITED jobs available at all times.

Two things prevent these jobs from being all filled: government regulation and laws (minimum wage, etc), a greater desire by some to not work over the choice of working & receive benefits thereof.

Understand, even if you cannot afford to pay the prevailing market wage for having a maid, you STILL have a 'job' opening (just happens to be at a wage no one will currently accept!) for a maid position. I know I would hire a maid for $1/hour!

LOL! Pleasee re-read what you wrote: "Libertarianism is ... bad... because it IGNORES ... incorrect assumptions" - sounds like that means Libertarianism is then GOOD!

Well, on to your misunderstandings: Libertarianism does not assume the economy is transparent, only that humans take action in order to improve their circumstance. Labor/humans are retrainable and mobile, no need to be infinitely so because the human sphere in the universe is not infinite it self.

(note: actually 'libertarianism' doesn't assume anything of either of what we have said, but Austrian Economics does, and that is what a majority of libertarians also believe in)

Let me get this straight: the basic principle is correct, but violation of this principle (through government intervention) is assumed to be required? Sooooo, murder is Bad, but we need to do it anyways, huh? Understand how one does not follow the other? You make an illogical leap here...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps in your understanding: What is Libertarianism?

By "legitimate" I mean they can contend with Dems and Reps in most races. This they cannot do. They get excited over 10% in polls. But of all of the "other" parties, the libertarians seem to be the best contender for a third party, I just don't see them really breaking through any time soon (or at least not soon enough).
Well, I'm talking about the real world, not an ideal world. This is another problem I have with them, they are idealistic and they seem to not want to deal with the real world. In the real world there is a limited number of jobs. The limitations(I can't think of a better word now) that you list exist in the real world and they therefore must be taken into account. You can't call reality a myth and call an ideal reality.

I agree - the libertarians will probably not be achieving much greater than a 10% vote in most elections - BUT, they do bring out certain issues and views which might not have been considered if not for their participation. In general, most people do not understand or dismiss out-of-hand libertarian positions (especially extreme ones which I advocate), we are a socialist country with some facist tendencies and all the screaming and yelling done by others to point this out probably won't change many minds. But, I still need to scream...

I am talking about the real world as well... there ARE many more jobs than people to fill them. Some folks choose to not be employed or otherwise working: retirement, sabbaticals<sp?>, and others who just choose to not be apart of general society (homeless, hermits, etc), in addition to folks that are 'between' jobs, so there will always be an 'unemployment rate'. But, if any of these folks desire to work bad enough then they could easily find work to do that people valued and would pay for.

According to you, if jobs are limited, what determines the number of jobs available then?

If everyone was educated to a much higher degree I'm pretty sure we would have computers managing most of the jobs that would be freed up.