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.
LOL...you think this country is running just fine? Wow...
Are you able to post on the internet, go to the store and not have to fight people for food, get to enjoy a civilized country with rules and regulations? Do we have financial issues? Sure, but that doesn't mean the country isn't functioning. I know when I hop on the train, there is still someone paid to drive it.
No one is a bigger advocate for libertarianism than I am. I'm just trying to explain the problem with creating a libertarian state.
The interesting thing about libertarianism is. We talk about liberty as being about individualism. But the reality is that, in many ways, libertarianism is more socialist than socialism. In a libertarian state, there is no state welfare net, so you end up with family/community/religious safety nets effectively. This creates a very strong sense of community, which tends to almost be "communal" in nature, and tends to be at least mildly hostile to outsiders.
In libertarianism you would legally be able to discriminate for a variety of reasons. Which means there would generally be self-segregation of groups into their own insulated communities. Where conformity is required, and non-conformists are basically "run-out".
Effectively libertarianism tends to create a kind of tribalism. And even though in libertarianism, you would generally have free-markets, free-trade, and free-immigration. Free-markets and free-trade would certainly exist, because everyone wants each others money. But free-immigration itself would largely be a farce. Sure there might be free immigration, but as a general rule, only Lutherans would be able to live in Lutheran areas. Catholics with Catholics, Jews with Jews, blacks with blacks, whites with whites, etc.
There would certainly be certain areas that are more open to all, but would mostly only exist where there was lots of money, and big business. Creating resentment in the surrounding more tribal(poorer) communities. Who will complain of the immorality that is happening, and how big business is exploiting the worker.
Remind you of anything?
I know, I was just kidding.
That's a reasonable assessment as to why libertarianism cannot effectively be employed as an over arching system of governance on a large scale. I'd say another reason is that no one can effectively describe what in the world libertarianism actually is in practice. "Freedom from the government," can be anything from freedom from moral based laws to anarcho-capitalism. And much of the so called freedoms allowed by the various definitions of libetarianism is really just freedom to discriminate and pick and choose which rules you care to follow. Even that comes with the backing of some coercive force, it just privatizes or individualizes that force.
But using force to protect life, liberty, and property, is not the same as using force to take it away.
Presumably the use of force against a murderer or rapist would result in the life or liberty of that person being taken away.
And how would the guilt of that person be established in the absence of a government-funded justice system with a certain monopoly on the use of force?
Presumably the use of force against a murderer or rapist would result in the life or liberty of that person being taken away.
And how would the guilt of that person be established in the absence of a government-funded justice system with a certain monopoly on the use of force?
Well, you seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians believe in having a government only to protect ones life, liberty, and property. Basically, it can use force to stop the use of force by others. And can punish people who take away other peoples life, liberty, or property... Force can also be considered "fraud, or coercion", which in a sense is just theft.
Even in anarchy, there would still be "justice". But it would most likely be more like "vigilante justice", or at least community sanctioned justice. Where criminals are "dealt with" by the community(got lynchings?).
I think you are making the wrong conclusions about libertarianism. And I think you should focus on its inherent flaws, instead of making up crap.
That's a reasonable assessment as to why libertarianism cannot effectively be employed as an over arching system of governance on a large scale. I'd say another reason is that no one can effectively describe what in the world libertarianism actually is in practice. "Freedom from the government," can be anything from freedom from moral based laws to anarcho-capitalism. And much of the so called freedoms allowed by the various definitions of libetarianism is really just freedom to discriminate and pick and choose which rules you care to follow. Even that comes with the backing of some coercive force, it just privatizes or individualizes that force.
So maybe it isn't an ethos at all?
Well, I like libertarianism. I think it is a much superior type of government than socialism. I think socialism is always immoral. Libertarianism sounds immoral, but the results of libertarianism are more along the lines of what socialists hope to accomplish.
I think people concern themselves too much with discrimination. Discrimination is a good thing. It keeps people from behaving poorly. It basically requires conformity. And through discrimination, you end up with like-minded people who are more apt to work together. A libertarian society tends to basically be much more "moral", than a socialist society, where immorality is basically protected and expanded by the government.
If this country was libertarian, the number of people going to church would skyrocket. Even people who claim to be atheists would be showing up to church on Sunday, because thats where the social safety net and job opportunities would be.
Well, you seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians believe in having a government only to protect ones life, liberty, and property. Basically, it can use force to stop the use of force by others. And can punish people who take away other peoples life, liberty, or property... Force can also be considered "fraud, or coercion", which in a sense is just theft.
Even in anarchy, there would still be "justice". But it would most likely be more like "vigilante justice", or at least community sanctioned justice. Where criminals are "dealt with" by the community(got lynchings?).
I think you are making the wrong conclusions about libertarianism. And I think you should focus on its inherent flaws, instead of making up crap.
Taxes. Libertarians aren't opposed to taxes. They just believe that the government should only be doing what is absolutely necessary to guarantee a free society.
Even in anarchy, people living near each other would most likely hire someone to protect their life, liberty, and property. Effectively creating private security(police force), which would have to be paid for by the people.
Libertarians are fine with taxes, they just don't believe the government should be taxing people to pay for social safety nets, bailouts to corporations, and an aggressive foreign policy where we have almost 800 military bases all over the world.
Even people who claim to be atheists would be showing up to church on Sunday, because thats where the social safety net and job opportunities would be.
But the churches would be perfectly free, as indeed they are now, to prevent those atheists from attending. So the result would be a de facto theocracy where non-believers are implicitly unwelcome.
Taxes. Libertarians aren't opposed to taxes. They just believe that the government should only be doing what is absolutely necessary to guarantee a free society.
Even in anarchy, people living near each other would most likely hire someone to protect their life, liberty, and property. Effectively creating private security(police force), which would have to be paid for by the people.
Libertarians are fine with taxes, they just don't believe the government should be taxing people to pay for social safety nets, bailouts to corporations, and an aggressive foreign policy where we have almost 800 military bases all over the world.
So basically Libertarians are just upset where the money of the collective society is spending money towards. You do realize you can't make everyone happy, even in a libertarian world. When you get a large group of people together and ask them each what they want out of a government of their community and you will get a different answer from each one of them, even in a libertarian society.
But the churches would be perfectly free, as indeed they are now, to prevent those atheists from attending. So the result would be a de facto theocracy where non-believers are implicitly unwelcome.
Well, churches generally want you to convert to their religion. They invite atheists in all the time, in hopes of turning them into Christians. I mean, I suppose if you showed up every Sunday telling everyone how god doesn't exist, they might ask you not to come back. But, I would assume that atheists would probably just keep their mouths shut.
I don't think you would create a "theocracy". Because you wouldn't need to be part of any particular religion. And since there wouldn't be any actual laws prohibiting anything then there is no "force", all there would be would be people with opinions. Basically, it would probably create something more like the "no-go" zones in France. Where non-muslims just don't go. Not because they can't, but because they basically aren't welcome, and it can be quite dangerous. Of course, there are some areas of this country I make a conscious effort to avoid, because I don't really feel welcome either.
But regardless, its likely that many atheists would start up their own organizations, to cater to other atheists. I'm just saying that, as a general rule, people would need to be associated with something. For the sake of job opportunities and a safety net... So in a sense, socialism is far more "individualist" than libertarian. In libertarianism, community is far more important than under socialism.
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.
