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.
The libertarian movement is undeniably influential, especially in the US, but also worldwide. Milton Friedman, who self-identified as libertarian, was perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century. The libertarian Cato institute has been ranked as one of the top 10 most influential US think tanks.
Yet despite the popularity and influence, I think it's safe to say that not one of 196 nations in existence is remotely close to being libertarian. From what I've read, Hong Kong may have been closest until it was ceded back to Red China by the Brits. The US in the 19th century had a lot of libertarian aspects, albeit for white males only.
We've had nations governed by strange and radical ideologies from communism to fascism to Islamism, to "l'etat, c'est moi." Yet never so far in the history of the world has there been even one libertarian-based nation
The two main principles of libertarianism are the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights. There are minarchist Libertarians (Libertarian Party) who believe we need some government, but as small as possible, and there are libertarians (anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, etc.) that are completely consistent with libertarian principles and therefore see the state as immoral because it inherently violates both of those principles.
So...
1. There hasn't been a libertarian state because (a) they don't want a state in the first place, and (b) for a stateless society to exist, the majority needs to believe that the initiation of force is wrong, even for government (similar to how the paradigm shifted in our society when the majority accepted that slavery was immoral).
2. Libertarianism was tried by the founders of the U.S. and the government grew as people slowly gave up liberty for security. Jefferson and Samuel Adams both said that this would naturally happen, and it did. I personally think that it's inevitable that a government will grow over time, which is one reason I'm not a minarchist. I don't think its a coincidence that the smallest, least intrusive government turned into the largest in history.
Because libertarians are basically anti-government and tend not to want to be involved with it. So, the people that are involved in it tend to be pro-government, to at least some degree.
As a result, those pro-government folks who are actually in the government start implementing laws and policies that are not libertarian, as they fear the masses of the people; and because the libertarians all stay home, moaning and grumbling, but not doing much else as far as shaping our government goes.
We had a libertarian country. Slowly that has changed as those in power have pried and clawed to increase the power of government and therefor their own power.
Because it a US named movement. But even here its never really gotten anyone elected I know by running as one. The closest I have seen is Ron Paul who ran as republican and never got beyond a congressman in a district in Texas. When he ran for nomination he was a major player by any means. Others perhaps but never saw in return amounting to anything. Within republican party tea party is much more of a factor.
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.
