Libertarians: why has there never been a libertarian-based nation? (speech, money, abuse)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by T0103E

That can happen now, too. With or without government, someone can overpower your society and take over.

No one can. It requires a group of people engaged in group-think.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I heard a good argument where someone used Vietnam, Afghanistan, the U.S. in the Revolutionary War, etc. to show how difficult it is to take over a more unofficial or less organized military force.

You heard wrong.

Originally Posted by T0103E

The U.S. is by far the most powerful military in the world and they couldn't even defeat a bunch of guerrilla troops.

The reasons why are varied and unique to the specific situation.

Avoid generalizations.

Originally Posted by T0103E

You'd also have to take over every single person and property at a time because there's no government to take control over.

I could do it.

If I cut off the water supply to your cul-de-sac, street, neighborhood, village, township/city, or whatever....

...you'd be kissing my arse.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Final little nit-picky side note...a government is only a government when the people see it as legitimate.

I could not agree more.

Originally Posted by T0103E

A gang could take over a neighborhood by force but nobody would see them as a legitimate government and willingly pay taxes, etc.

Um, that's what Organized Crime is all about.

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

You don't need to explain, I know the reason why there is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are.

See if you can grasp the concepts of tribal society; supra-tribe; nation-State; monarchy; feudalism; serfdom/slavery; and homogenous society.

Slavery existed in Europe --- and yes......*gasp*...I'm talking about White-on-White Slavery through the

• 16th Century for much of Western Europe
• 18th Century for all of Western Europe excluding the Vatican
• 19th Century for the Vatican States
• 20th Century for Eastern Europe

The concept of Private Property doesn't exist until the Utilitarians start writing about it the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I never said the absence of government is anarchy,....

The absence of war is not peace.....

...

Mircea

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Well then any political ideology is similar because it is from a human being's thoughts.

The point is there are libertarians out there who do think various forms of anarchy is the key to running a government..

Then they arent libertarians, they are anarchists.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Still don't know what utopias you are talking about.....could you try and be more vague?

Thats because your sense of utopia is far more different than others, for example, your utopia is government handing you everything you need, where others might be a decent job so they can pay for it.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

Oh, yeah, what a great society 19th century America was ... as long as you were a rich, white, Protestant, male. That's the only group that benefited from the "libertarianism" of the 19th century. Women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Catholics, anybody who had to work for a living were all at the mercy of those who had the power.

Sorry, but Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in the real world: the rich and powerful get to exercise their individual rights and everybody else suffers for it.

The usual mélange of misconceptions, half-truths and scare-tactics common to the pitch(wo)men for big Brother/Sister.

For openers, conditions in the early Nineteenth Century weren't uniform throughout the United States ... and most surely not in the slave-driven economy of the Agrarian South. The economy most closely resembled a purely competitive scenario only in the small communities of the East and near Midwest, and then, only until the recognition of the need for, and financing of internal improvements got underway around 1820 (see Post #19 -Page #2- of the thread linked below).

Will America ever turn away from corporatism?

But as I have emphasized before, there is ideology ...... and there is realpolitik. Pure (anarcho-) capitalism is what might happen in the absence of all authority, and obviously, that is not going to happen. The overwhelming majority of people become followers at some point (because most of us recognize that the world does not begin and end with us, and get scared at one time or another), and the question is not whether a system of laws develops, but how.

The development of large-scale enterprise, and the evolution of finance capitalism from individual, or proprietary, capitalism concentrated most financial power in the hands of a relative few, and that trend, coupled with the broadening and diversification of the workforce, concentrated managerial power, and its potential for abuse. The further emancipation of women was a natural and unquestionably moral process, but it was a huge gift to the service industries and the aggressive managers who run them via raw intimidation. It seems that no one has the resources to confront a "Korporate" bully head-on anymore, but that can be traced in part to the breakdown from the time when most employees were sole family breadwinners and different standards prevailed. I can't offer a pat answer to this, but I can assure you that Big Brother and Sister, and all the wannnabees, don't want to undercut that abuse -- only to (supposedly) balance that power with some more of their own, at the expense of the rest of us.

The proper way to counteract this disturbing trend is to empower the individual; to encourage and reward self-reliance. and responsibility.

As for the need for a "safety net", it exists in all First World Nations, and I don't see much evidence that most of us want it abolished. But it can be readily and inexpensively reformed by returning the administration of the process to local control (the tactic known a "re-insurance" can be invoked to prevent a local "safety net from being wiped out by a catastrophic event, BTW). There are, and have existed for many years, a minority of individuals who have turned indolence into a career, and closer monitoring of individual cases, combined with sharing of information among affected agencies, could address that issue, particularly if a direct monetary incentive (I'm not ashamed to call it a "bounty") is offered for weeding out persistent parasitism; that would be a far more effective remedy than the current practice of allowing "problems" to fester and grow into bigger "problems" in hope of a bigger staff and budget, and more power for the bureaucratic dead weight.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats because your sense of utopia is far more different than others, for example, your utopia is government handing you everything you need, where others might be a decent job so they can pay for it.

Then enlighten us, tell us what this Libertarian Utopia would look like, and how would libertarians achieve this dream of a utopia?

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Because that is law. I am not saying that following law is the moral thing to do but if you break law as it stands right now you are charged; arrested; held until you can see a judge; your bail bond and bail requirements are set; and then the charges get dropped, you pleed guilty or go to trial. This happens with any crime. Specific crimes like tax evasion, you may get your house repossessed. But unless you have a good excuse (and IMO refusing to pay taxes because you think they are theft is more of a bad excuse than a good one) you will likely have to pay it out whether it is through liens, garnishes, or repossessions.

I like that you said that following the law isn't always the moral thing to do...that's an important concept to me and I wish more people thought that way. Anyway, just replace the government with the mafia...they come around and ask for payment from you and if you don't cooperate, they do bad things to you. That's theft, and it's how government operates as well...it's just that the people under government control imagine them to be legitimate authority when they aren't. People at least know that the mafia doesn't have a right to extort them for money.

I know they won't accept that reasoning for not paying taxes. I have no hope of telling the government they're stealing and actually having them say "Alright, I guess your logic holds. We'll leave you alone now." I pay them for the same reason I'd give my wallet to a thief who pointed a gun at me.

And as I said in regards to the Mesa, AZ shooting spree yesterday, if the cops shot the man you know people would claim police brutality even if they were in the right with the rash of recent manslaughters if not homicide by cops. We saw this two years ago with the Dorner manhunt in California when many people thought that the cops unnecessarily shot him and allegedly burned the cabin down despite being a cop-killer.

But the issue is in many cases we blur the line for what initiates force. It's like in school if the stupid kid next to you kicks at your feet in the bathroom stalls and then you punch them out for doing so, you are wrong even though they goaded you into it by initiating the need for force.

In that case I agree that I'd be wrong for punching the kid. He wasn't attacking me...I brought violence into the equation. People can try to blur the line to get away with it, but as long as most people understand what it means to initiate force, that's all it takes. Even today people try to bend the rules and misinterpret things, but we have people who understand those rules and can make a logical case that their misinterpretation is wrong. Maybe I didn't word that very well, but hopefully you get what I'm saying there.

But wouldn't that theoretically be a violation of civil rights? I ask this because if all the shop-keeps deny me entrance I would have to resort to hunting and gathering or hope that my job is in the next town over so I can do my shopping there. Granted it wouldn't be because of race, gender, sexuality, age or ability, but, I would need to at least be able to purchase utilities and a single store for groceries.

No, it wouldn't be violating your rights because you don't have a right to someone else's services. If you had a right to their good and services, that would mean that they're basically your slave. So yes, that would be the case and that's why it's such a good deterrent. If you commit a crime and/or refuse to clear your name when accused of a crime, that will be your fate. It's a really good incentive to not do bad things in that community.

You may be responsible, I know I am. The mother at Sandy Hook thought she was responsible then her sociopathic son that she knew had issues got the guns from their house, shot her, several other adults and many innocent children. I'm sorry but I am for responsible gun ownership and that starts at home. I don't know if the man is a responsible gun owner like me or you, or someone like the old man I talked about in previous posts or the Sandy Hook sociopath. It's not a game I want to play.
The other thing is when it comes to protection, how far is too far? Obviously you can shoot people who are attempting to rob you but what about someone on your property that isn't disturbing anything but you feel they should leave?

I think those irresponsible gun owners are a very small minority, and if you're irresponsible you should face the consequences of that. I think that if everyone was irresponsible except for the police, you could argue that citizens shouldn't have guns, but I don't think that's reality at all. I know this sounds a little conspiracy theory-ish, but I really believe that the government wants you to be afraid of your neighbors so that you're more willing to give them control. It just makes their job easier, so why wouldn't they do it?

[alphamale]

Because those in power don't like it.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Mircea

No one can. It requires a group of people engaged in group-think.

Maybe that's a more accurate way of saying it, sure.

You heard wrong.

The reasons why are varied and unique to the specific situation.

Avoid generalizations.

I probably didn't do the argument justice, so I'll have to go back and find it. You may be right...I just remember having most of my skepticism put to rest after hearing what the guy had to say.

I could do it.

If I cut off the water supply to your cul-de-sac, street, neighborhood, village, township/city, or whatever....

...you'd be kissing my arse.

How would you cut off the water supply if people are prepared for that type of strategy? Each individual property would need to be conquered and controlled, but that doesn't mean that everyone is individually protecting their own property. People would know that their chances of safety are higher by working together, so I see no reason why there couldn't be a strong defense system in place in case of invasion. The advantage comes from decentralized power and not having a concentration of it to take over (like capturing a major city or a leader and gaining control of a large region).

I could not agree more.

Um, that's what Organized Crime is all about.

They control by force, not because people believe they have the right to rule them. The lawmakers and government leaders are vastly outnumbered and overpowered, but people believe they have a right to control them (including their agents, the police and military). They only have the ability to rule because people think it's legitimate and go along with it.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Then they arent libertarians, they are anarchists.

I think the confusion is that there are Libertarians who believe in minimal government, and libertarians who, if following the philosophy completely consistently, are anarchist. I advocate no government at all, but I'll sometimes say I'm libertarian. Libertarian party vs. libertarian philosophy...I try to just stick with voluntaryist or anarcho-capitalist to avoid confusion.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Then they arent libertarians, they are anarchists.

There are anarchistic libertarians. They may believe in different forms of anarchism and it may not be madness like Utopia, Oh but there is no government.