Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually think a lot of south and central american policies are more on par with libertarian principles. For instance, the police force. If you want a police man, you hire him, you don't pay taxes for this "social wellbeing" nonsense. Also, if you don't want your house broken into, you put bars on the windows and adequate home defenses like walls with glass on top to prevent invaders.
Also their roads and driving conditions could be said to be more libertarian. There are no speed limits in Belize, the bumpy roads just slow you down.
I heard from someone while in Costa Rica who just got back from Nicaragua that there were two guys having a dispute, and they had an old fashion gun fight to even it out; both took like 50 steps, turned around and shot. And that was that. That wouldn't happen in USA. And one guy on a spice plantation showed us his cocoa bush and explained how cocaine helped him with headaches. He said current rates down there were like under a dollar per ounce. If drugs really are illegal down there, I don't think it is too well enforced.
As far as lack of environmental regulation, I think you could find a lot of that in Central/South America as well.
Also, a lot of them have rather weak national militaries.
Don't think there is any zoning or building codes in Belize either.
Really, if you look at Latin America, particularly central america minus Mexico and Panama, you would find the most actual representation of what libertarianism looks like, with all of its goods and bads, which can be pretty dang bad in Honduras's case, but pretty decent for some in Belizes case or in Costa Ricas case.
Humanity actually started out with libertarian government 6500+ years ago. Since then, society has become progressively more civilized and less barbarian, and consequently less libertarian.
4485 BC (6500 years ago) was prior to the invention of writing. How do you know that there was libertarian government in those days?
It counts as 'close' when individual rights only applied to a small minority?
(Those being white male landowners)
And it's funny to me how so many Libertarians are also neoconfederates. I guess that's kinda consistent if you don't see black people as human.
First, you should read up on your history a bit. The Bill of Rights applied to more than white male landowners, and many more than a small minority.
Second, I am capable of holding these two separate and independent concepts in my head at the same time:
1. States who freely joined the union should be able to freely leave the union when it no longer suits their purpose. After all, this is precisely the argument made very persuasively in our Declaration of Independence.
2. Slavery and discrimination based on race is wrong.
It is an unfortunate artifact of our history that these two notions are so strongly tied together by so many who would throw the race card at the slightest provocation. They are in fact totally independent of one another.
I think in ways we did and in ways we didn't. In the early days of the US we did have more individual rights but they weren't equal. It was similar to Europe where only white males who owned property truly had rights. If you are black or a woman, you didn't have equal rights. Sadly to get those rights, the government had to intervene and step into the state's right to decide on issues because they went against the law of the land.
I think the thing that complicates libertarian view is how vast it is. You can be libertarian socially and/or economically. A left leaning libertarian for instance would only be socially libertarian and want people to have more control over their liberties. The other thing is how much anarchy they believe in. Some want a small government while others want no government altogether. It's not like liberals or conservatives who generally have similar views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
It would work as well as any other system of government.
God forbid we let people make decisions for themselves every now and then.
We do, the problem is many "libertarians" point to states controlling "X" rather than the government. The problem is that when the state decides, a government still decides what is best. It may not be daddy government but perhaps it is uncle government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Libertarianism is an ideology, not a government. Governments require compromise, and as soon as you compromise you've lost your purity. As soon as the sidewalks become clogged with the bodies of the mentally ill, handicapped, drug addicted, homeless kids, etc., what then? Ignore the problem? Admit that not everyone is a rational actor capable of independently maintaining their livelihood? The government will have to step in, and then you've No True Scotsman'd your way out of your example government.
This is a great point, we can take portions of the libertarian views but not quite the whole thing as we would need to know who is right. If two men are debating property and one feels threatened enough to draw a gun and shoot, are they really wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Oh, and to the OP, you asked a loaded question.
The Libertarian party is exactly as old as I am - 43 years. Now either you knew that, and also knew that there's no way that any country would be being governed under a platform that's so young, or you didn't know that, and this thread is just a demonstration of your ignorance.
Which is it?
The Republican party as fairly young when Lincoln was elected president, it was not even 10 because you had people that left the Whigs and abolitionists. They won their second presidential election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
One can imagine King George III chatting up his court in early 1776 about the inevitable permanence of the rule of the monarchy over his kingdom, and asking, rhetorically of course, "Why have there never been any constitutional republics?"
Just a thought ...
Anyway, our time will come. We have been close before, as an example in this country in the late 1700's and early 1800's (as you note). Unfortunately, Lincoln took us off course. I think the modern state is close to collapsing under it's own weight, and the innate desire of individuals to live in freedom will result in a return to our founding principles. At least, one can always hope ...
Well what is the alternative, anarchism and not knowing if someone is right? I'm sorry but we need clearly defined law and not vague no laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
If you support someone having the right to burn the American flag does that mean you support burning the American flag?
Supporting the right of states to secede is not the same thing as supporting slavery. You should read the deceleration of independence when you have a chance.
I happen to agree with you. The one thing I do think is that the problem is that we often allow states to decide rather than the individual. If your state wants slavery, you get slavery. If your state wants to ban gay marriage, gay marriage is banned. We forget that individuals have the same amount if not more than a state. This is why gay marriage bans end up getting appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
When I take political quizzes, my test results are usually 'left-libertarian". And that makes sense since I'm a former Libertarian who moved left when I could no longer support the rigid ideology and thinly veiled racism of the movement.
If Libertarians were to drop the subtle racism and wealth-worship at the expense of ordinary people, I MIGHT reconsider them. But as it is- once you get past the rhetoric and posturing- Libertarians mainly fight for upward wealth redistribution and the right of the powerful to take advantage of the less powerful. That's it. Those are their priorities. I don't see how that appeals to anybody except the hateful and the billionaires. And of course the hateful billionaires.
Unless you are an idealist I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
I would've agreed with that statement several years ago.
But as soon as a black guy was elected President, it became impossible to distinguish between Libertarians and Conservatives based on that criteria.
Yeah I don't know why libertarians are claiming to be conservative now and become Republicans to take congressional seats. See Ted Cruz and Mike Lee...
Humanity actually started out with libertarian government 6500+ years ago. Since then, society has become progressively more civilized and less barbarian, and consequently less libertarian.
As usual, people on the left confuse anarchy with libertarian ideas..
As usual, people on the left confuse anarchy with libertarian ideas..
Depending on your stance as a libertarian, you could want anarchy. Not saying all libertarians do just as not all liberals/progressives are "socialist" or all conservatives are monarchs or dictators as many do, some are though.
First, you should read up on your history a bit. The Bill of Rights applied to more than white male landowners, and many more than a small minority.
Second, I am capable of holding these two separate and independent concepts in my head at the same time:
1. States who freely joined the union should be able to freely leave the union when it no longer suits their purpose. After all, this is precisely the argument made very persuasively in our Declaration of Independence.
2. Slavery and discrimination based on race is wrong.
It is an unfortunate artifact of our history that these two notions are so strongly tied together by so many who would throw the race card at the slightest provocation. They are in fact totally independent of one another.
Sure, I understand each of those ideas independently. I used to be Libertarian after all.
But I couldn't help but notice that "states rights" ALWAYS comes up as a method of discriminating against people that certain white males don't like. There's a REASON why it's primarily Southern White Males promoting the 'states rights' argument. It's 'cause they know that within whatever inbred Southern State they inhabit, they have the votes to allow discrimination against ******s and ****. It's as simple as that. Sure there are a few high-minded idealists who really believe that 'states rights' is the way to go. But by and large we're just talking about good-ole-boys who hate basically everybody who isn't like them.
And the fact is that the South seceded primarily to defend their institution of slavery. I know revisionist historians have claimed otherwise many a time- but that doesn't change the simple and obvious fact that every single state that seceded was a slave state- and that this was a fight that had been going on for decades. Slavery is a pretty damn heinous thing. If Libertarians actually WERE concerned with something like 'freedom' (beyond their own personal selfish interests), the institution of slavery should trump ALL the other issues. We're talking about human beings bought and sold, beaten, raped, kept in chains. The fact that White Male Libertarians gloss over all this... well that shows precisely where their priorities lie.
And as for your silly 'history lesson'... fact is that the Bill of Rights basically applied only to white people. Women couldn't vote. In many cases only property owners could vote. Black people were bought and sold as property. And this is what our Libertarian friend in this very thread holds up as "close" to the Libertarian Paradise?
I actually don't disagree with him entirely. I think the end result of a Libertarian regime WOULD in fact be close to what I just described... where only a wealthy minority have ANY power at all, and where humans are effectively slaves.
I think in ways we did and in ways we didn't. In the early days of the US we did have more individual rights but they weren't equal. It was similar to Europe where only white males who owned property truly had rights. If you black or a woman, you didn't have equal rights. Sadly to get those rights, the government had to intervene and step into the state's right to decide on issues because they went against the law of the land.
It was the government that enforced slavery, didn't allow women to vote, etc. but they took credit for "solving" this problem when it became illegal. Government didn't actually step in and fix anything, they just stopped enforcing these unequal laws. Making slavery illegal, for example, was sort of redundant because there was nobody capturing and returning runaway slaves anymore (among other reasons...it just wasn't sustainable without the state enforcing it.
Quote:
Well what is the alternative, anarchism and not knowing if someone is right? I'm sorry but we need clearly defined law and not vague no laws.
If we need the law to tell us right from wrong, that's pretty sad. The only thing keeping you and I from murdering, stealing, committing fraud, etc. is politicians threatening us if we disobey? I could go on about this but I'm short on time at the moment...I'll just say that people don't need one set of laws that everyone must follow. Would you argue for one world government? We're stuck in this mindset that without the government telling us what we can and can't do, people would act like stupid animals and cause mayhem. The majority will not abandon their own morals, and there are many ways they can organize against the tiny percentage of sociopaths who would try to do harm to everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
