How long would a libertarian society survive, and what would kill it?

[KrazyHorse]

It would last long enough for me, Che and a few like-minded souls to get some guns.

Remember that old quote about "selling you the noose to hang him with"?

[RGBVideo]

3 weeks before the anarchy kicks in. Some queer twist of Mad Max and Red Khmers in Kambodzha.

It would last long enough for me, Che and a few like-minded souls to get some guns.

The only sensible option in the situation.

It would fall in two months into general anarchy. The lack of government will be almost immediately overwhelmed by the use of violence made by individuals / mobs. Its likely outcome would be a temporary form of feudalmism where strong mob leaders / warlords would hold power over a chunk of territory.

True.

If the military doesn't coup then there would be generally anarchy... all the poor would start going crazy on each other and anyone... they would not be united enough to establish communism.

Still true.

[ixnay]

I read something somewhere about a plan to move enough libertarians to Delaware so they could take control of the state. I would think if that were to happen it would be a few weeks before things fell into anarchy and disrepair.

[Berzerker]

Stefu - If I said that, wouldn't you quote me instead of hypothesing about what you think I might have said? Libertarianism won't exist as long as the majority rejects freedom. If the majority embraces freedom, then libertarianism will exist. That's true for any ideology, pretty simple...

Vader -

Three little words: Articles of Confederation. Lasted a couple of years if I remember. Then the states realized they were powerless on their own...

You have that backward, it wasn't the states that decided they were powerless, it was the federalists who wanted a more powerful central government who decided the Congress didn't have enough power. The states had more power under the AoC than the Constitution...

The ignorance about libertarianism in this thread is so profound as to render it meaningless. Not one of you have correctly defined libertarianism and have trotted out the spector of anarchy (revealing an ignorance about that ideology as well) as a strawman. Congrats! You've created an argument to refute.

Since Ramo is the resident anarchist, maybe he can explain the differences. He'd certainly reject equating the ideologies too...

[Spiffor]

I have indded used the word "anarchy" in the bad sense, meaning a general disorder and violence with no superior authority to settle it down (through the use of its own violence, recognized by everyone as the only legitimate)
I indeed didn't use the word "anrchy" in the anarchists' meaning of a deliberate attempt from a society to free itself from domination by making it useless through a behavious change.

And if you care to explain me how a libertarian government deals efficiently with mass / organized crime and impoverished individuals pillaging goods, I'm ready to listen.

[Az]

The ignorance about libertarianism in this thread is so profound as to render it meaningless. Not one of you have correctly defined libertarianism and have trotted out the spector of anarchy (revealing an ignorance about that ideology as well) as a strawman. Congrats! You've created an argument to refute.

Personally, I know very well what Libertarianism is all about. I played devil's advocate, thus persuading people that they're not libertarians. And David Floyd gave me an A grade on this, this has to be worth something, right?

You seem to be a real libertarian. I think that the ideology of you and your pursuit is highly unethical, because my ethics are radically different that yours.

And if you care to explain me how a libertarian government deals efficiently with mass / organized crime and impoverished individuals pillaging goods, I'm ready to listen.

a) since people will have guns, they'll be able to defend themselves. They'll be allowed to form self-defence groups, or contract the police corporation to do that for them.
b) this is besides the point. As long as the government is libertarian, it is the most moral, utilitarian consequences don't matter.

[Sarxis]

Someone with a unifying goal and vision for their nation would kill the Libertarianism.

[MRT144]

so azazel, youre saying in a libertarian society its better to be right theoreticly than right in practice?

[Az]

No. what I am saying that a libertarian government would rather allow higher crime than tax the income of its' citizens.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

And if you care to explain me how a libertarian government deals efficiently with mass / organized crime and impoverished individuals pillaging goods, I'm ready to listen.

Through law enforcement just as now. A libertarian system would limit laws to actions that harm (or threaten to harm) others or their property via force or fraud, and eliminate the "red-distribution" of wealth. Being poor doesn't give me a special right to pillage the property of others...

Azazel -

Personally, I know very well what Libertarianism is all about.

If you say so, but I haven't seen the proof.

I played devil's advocate, thus persuading people that they're not libertarians. And David Floyd gave me an A grade on this, this has to be worth something, right?

I wouldn't know without seeing your attempts at persuasion.

You seem to be a real libertarian. I think that the ideology of you and your pursuit is highly unethical, because my ethics are radically different that yours.

So you think freedom is unethical.

No. what I am saying that a libertarian government would rather allow higher crime than tax the income of its' citizens.

That's pretty funny given that we have high taxes now and higher crime rates than when this country was more libertarian, i.e., fewer laws, no drug war, no "re-distribution" of wealth, and extremely low taxes with no income tax. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are essentially libertarian documents excluding slavery of course.

You guys take the position that since the poor will pillage society, government should do the pillaging and hand the stolen goods to the poor as if the poor will stop their pillaging. Well, if the pillaging is undesirable in the former, why does it become desirable in the latter? Stange ethics you have there.

[Thud]

I said a week and anarchy. Indeed, the only way that it could ever thrive would be on a hostile\new enviornment, Mars being a good example. However, the same argument could be made for Communism and every other failed form of government that human nature just doesn't work out for.

The party platform was mostly... funny.

The Green party platform is a hoot. The Green part was only to lure unsuspecting enviornmentalists in becoming communist. My opinion is that a vote for a third party is not a wasted vote... but it seems you have to be careful on choosing the right third party.

But then, I suppose any liberal platform when it is spelled out succictly is recoginized as ludicrous. Its only through smoke and mirrors that today's liberalism has any credibility.

[Thud]

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

This pretty much sums it up. Liberatarians as opposing the government's policys solely for the sake of opposing the government's policys.

[Berzerker]

Thud -

This pretty much sums it up. Liberatarians as opposing the government's policys solely for the sake of opposing the government's policys.

What you quoted doesn't say the LP opposes every policy for the sake of opposing policies , it says the fact the LP platform does not address each and every law, etc, should not be construed as support for each and every law not addressed.
You derive amusement from what you cannot understand and I derive amusement from your confusion over something so simple to understand.

[gigapimp3001]

Well i think the main problem with any idea of a libertarian state (at least on this thread) is that both sides are dug in on their political opinions and wish death and mockery on those who dare differ.

As I take it (I a do have the naive opinion that deep down people can respcet each other) both sides of the arguement (capitalist libertarian and anarcho-communist) both agree that everybody mostly disagrees with their neighbour and the pnly way for a person truely be free is for the means of production to be in the hands of the individual (capitalist libertarian) or the means of production to be in the hands of the masses (or individual) as in the political ideal of communism or anarchy.

I maybe wrong but as nobody bothers answering a newbie then I am a "one trick pony"

So much for the democractic ideal of the internet.................

[Odin]

A libertarian society would end up with all the power in just a few people. (DUH!)

TAX THE RICH, YOU IDIOT, NOT THE POOR!!!



Libertarianism = Feudalism