Libertarians: why has there never been a libertarian-based nation? (Iraq, Hispanics, compare)
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.
There are varying versions of libertarianism, but generally lack of government, nor feudalism constitutes libertarianism. Somalia is certainly not libertarian; it is Islamist.
Again, consider 19th century America. There was a central government, but it was very limited in scope, at least compared to today. There was no FBI, IRS, or BATF. There was no war on drugs, war on tobacco, or war on prostitution, which was generally tolerated until the Progressive Era (late 19th-early 20th centuries). But there was not no government.
It sounds like you are looking at the 19th Century America with rose colored glasses. Should we dig up the problems of the 19th Century America?
Squalor in 19th century America was less than anywhere else in the world at the time. When Euro visitors such as De Tocqueville, Trollope, etc. came over, they all had one question: where are all the beggars? There were few or none to be found, unlike in Europe.
To all the people that claim 19th century USA was libertarian, no rights for women, blacks and gays.
Are you overlooking that unpleasant fact or do you agree they should not have rights?
I'm curious how many so called libertarians went to public schools, drove on public roads, use public airports, go to public libraries, ever been to a National Park?
My big beef with libertarians is their position on the public commons, which would barely exist in a libertarian nation.
Also, "keeping order" is more of the statist mindset. Instead of coming up with one set of rules that one group violently enforces, the AnCap model would be allowing people to follow their own moral codes and organizing to protect each other if those nutjobs you mentioned decide to do something harmful.
But how does one do something harmful? Would say driving drunk or under the influence of drugs be harmful or is only when they nearly act on another?
Quote:
As I said earlier, most people will interact peacefully with others simply based on their own idea of right and wrong, but in addition to that we would need to have the security measures in place (that I mentioned in my post) so that we aren't just relying on the goodness of people. I know that people won't always do the right thing.
Yes but how can do that if you don't want to initiate force? In someway force may have to be initiate health to be a stick to acting bad rather than relying on the goodness of people.
Quote:
1. You shouldn't initiate force, so you can't be the one attacking someone else or threatening them, but if someone uses force against you first, you have the right to use force in retaliation. An example of why threats are included in that would be someone pointing a gun at your head. They haven't actually attacked you yet, but you should be able to forcefully stop someone who is threatening to hurt you.
But the issue is the degree. When a gun is pointed at your head, many people think it is kill or be killed and so it maybe logical to be kill them. But what is logical to you and another person, may not to you. We as a society have to decide if it is with reason. This is why when it came to the shooting of Michael Brown, I thought the officer should have went to trial to let the people decide.
Quote:
2. It's possible that the community would only decide on a private police force if everyone there signed the contract to be part of it, but let's say Dave already owns property there and doesn't enter that agreement. One solution I like is that the community could simply ostracize him and refuse to let him buy food, gas, etc. or use any of their services until he makes up for his crime...he'd have to completely fend for himself or move. That doesn't sound as harsh as violently punishing him, but it would be devastating for Dave, and a good deterrent for others. Ostracism used to be used much more than it is today.
3. There could still be neutral courts to help resolve things. People still believe in the right to a fair trial, having a neutral judge and jury, and they don't actually want to wrongly convict anyone of a crime. If the suspect refuses to go to court, see the ostracism example above.
I talk about societal sanctions such as ostracism, all the time with defending those who end up keeping up with the Joneses and people look at me funny, but in way it still exists. It may not be as common as it was say 50 years ago when me as a white male dating my ex (a black female) I would have been ostracized. I think the main reason ostracism has been rolled back is due to silly sanctions just like that based on race or sexuality being discrimination rather than by action.
But wouldn't ostracism in this case be a use of force? Wouldn't one forcing an alleged suspect to move by letting them know they aren't welcome be the same as outright kicking them out of the neighborhood?
Quote:
That's where my first answer comes in. Having some kind of deterrent is important, but it doesn't have to be a violent threat. Criminals fear being hurt themselves, or having their life impacted negatively. If you have armed people protecting their own property, plus the threat of ostracism if you're caught, that should deter the people who wouldn't normally commit crimes, in addition to the few criminals out there.
Armed people scare me just because I don't know your motivations with your gun. I know mine with my gun. I wouldn't know if you are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun until it is too late. This is why I disagree with the libertarian beliefs on law and order. There is a lot of room for chaos to occur.
To all the people that claim 19th century USA was libertarian, no rights for women, blacks and gays.
Are you overlooking that unpleasant fact or do you agree they should not have rights?
I'm curious how many so called libertarians went to public schools, drove on public roads, use public airports, go to public libraries, ever been to a National Park?
My big beef with libertarians is their position on the public commons, which would barely exist in a libertarian nation.
I agree with you, I addressed some these points in another post about the belief of taxes being theft. The problem is that I don't see private industry moving in to improve say town roads (I can see them taking over thruways and bridges though) but there is no reason to improve roads until they are none by private industry. Airports, I can see becoming very much like a shopping center. Instead of the city owning it, it may turn into CBRE owning it. No idea if this would raise prices due to overhead though.
First off, when do the IRS actually kill you besides if you draw a gun when police arrest you for tax evasion? I sense hyperbole.
If you continually refuse to pay, at some point they will try to repossess your house (or arrest you possibly...I'm not sure, but either way they'll use force against you), in which case you would physically resist and they'll kill you. Best case scenario is that they subdue you non-lethally and lock you in a cage.
I'll move over there after I finish answering these...
Quote:
But how does one do something harmful? Would say driving drunk or under the influence of drugs be harmful or is only when they nearly act on another?
It would be a threat of violence because they're endangering the lives of others. It may not be intentional, but if there's a chance they'll hurt or kill someone they should be stopped.
Quote:
Yes but how can do that if you don't want to initiate force? In someway force may have to be initiate health to be a stick to acting bad rather than relying on the goodness of people.
The security measures would be for self-defense only. None of the examples I listed require the initiation of force...only using force if someone else uses force first.
Quote:
But the issue is the degree. When a gun is pointed at your head, many people think it is kill or be killed and so it maybe logical to be kill them. But what is logical to you and another person, may not to you. We as a society have to decide if it is with reason. This is why when it came to the shooting of Michael Brown, I thought the officer should have went to trial to let the people decide.
I somewhat agree. I'll put it this way: Society needs to accept that initiating force is a crime, but self defense isn't. We actually already do, its just that we make one big exception for government. If we apply the same principle to government, we still have a society that can judge whether a crime was justified or not, it's just that we would hold the people in government to the same standards as citizens. People wouldn't lose their ability to judge whether someone committed a crime or not.
Quote:
I talk about societal sanctions such as ostracism, all the time with defending those who end up keeping up with the Joneses and people look at me funny, but in way it still exists. It may not be as common as it was say 50 years ago when me as a white male dating my ex (a black female) I would have been ostracized. I think the main reason ostracism has been rolled back is due to silly sanctions just like that based on race or sexuality being discrimination rather than by action.
Yeah, that's definitely a bad reason to ostracize somebody. Luckily we're finally getting past that. If you take that example, you can see that once society moves past an irrational belief and accepts a more logical and rational one, they won't likely go back to it. I hope that's the case for government as well.
Quote:
But wouldn't ostracism in this case be a use of force? Wouldn't one forcing an alleged suspect to move by letting them know they aren't welcome be the same as outright kicking them out of the neighborhood?
You wouldn't force them to move, you'd just stop letting them shop at stores, buy gas, stop providing them with utilities, stop interacting with them altogether...they can stay, but they have to get all supplies and services without the help of anyone else. It would be like being stranded on your own and having to survive. I think with technology today, it would be easy to enter someone into a database if they commit a crime and refuse to cooperate afterward...that way people would know not to do business with that person.
Quote:
Armed people scare me just because I don't know your motivations with your gun. I know mine with my gun. I wouldn't know if you are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun until it is too late. This is why I disagree with the libertarian beliefs on law and order. There is a lot of room for chaos to occur.
Most gun owners are more responsible with their guns than police are (as we've seen lately), but anyway...why do you think chaos would occur if everyone was allowed to protect themselves equally? I think people have this idea that the average citizen with a gun would go around shooting people irresponsibly, but I just don't think that's reality. Even if regular citizens had no guns, the ones who want to do evil with them would find a way to get them. I'd be more afraid in that situation because you wouldn't be allowed to defend yourself against those people.
Do you point a gun at people to get them to do what you want in your everyday life? Would it be okay if they did that to you? I just think that people are conditioned to think that that type of behavior is wrong, but magically is okay when the government does it.
Yes, humans use force (initiating force is the problem, not self-defense...just to be clear), and people most certainly can organize voluntarily to protect themselves from criminals. Why wouldn't they?
I don't see that any of that matters.
Some people will use force. Some will do so in large groups, and call it a government. You can't beat them, therefore you will pay up.
Some people will use force. Some will do so in large groups, and call it a government. You can't beat them, therefore you will pay up.
Ain't freedom grand?!
That can happen now, too. With or without government, someone can overpower your society and take over. With or without government, people need to organize to defend themselves.
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. The U.S. is by far the most powerful military in the world and they couldn't even defeat a bunch of guerrilla troops. You'd also have to take over every single person and property at a time because there's no government to take control over. The incentive to invade isn't even that great because there's no tax base to take over. It's way easier to just invade a country where you only have to target their government...just take over that and you have all the citizens under control as well. Not the case when every person is sovereign.
Final little nit-picky side note...a government is only a government when the people see it as legitimate. A gang could take over a neighborhood by force but nobody would see them as a legitimate government and willingly pay taxes, etc.
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.
