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

[Ben Kenobi]

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

2 weeks.
Non-specified revolt.
All you need is one man with a dream of a better society.

[Berzerker]

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

Be honest, you'd tax the poor too. That's the difference between me and you leftists, I wouldn't tax the poor because the cost of government wouldn't require the vast amounts of money y'all need to pay for your policies; but you, the defenders of the little people, would tax them because there aren't enough rich people to tax to pay for all your guilt.

[RGBVideo]

Be honest, you'd tax the poor too. That's the difference between me and you leftists, I wouldn't tax the poor because the cost of government wouldn't require the vast amounts of money y'all need to pay for your policies; but you, the defenders of the little people, would tax them because there aren't enough rich people to tax to pay for all your guilt

France in the 18th century rocked, there was equal chance for everybody to be rich...

[Straybow]

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.

It isn't our job to define libertarianism. It is our place to comment on what we think would happen if libertarians tried, through enacted legislation in an existing and known society (the USofA), to get the non-libertarian majority to act like libertarians.

It would be overturned in the very next election, the way the Democrats were removed from power in the House in '94. However noble the ideals they would fail in terms of implementation.

After all, the ideals of the constitution itself have failed in implementation. I don't have the reference off the cuff, but one of the founding fathers said that it is better to have 10 guilty persons go free than to have 1 innocent person wrongly convicted. But in implementation the populace won't settle for that 10:1 ratio. Instead it has to be enforced through farcical interpretations of search and seizure limitations and other evidentiary protocols.

Law enforcement spends vast energies trying to work through and around the system, while defense attorneys basically subvert the limitations into injustice on demand (the best defense money can buy). I guarantee any of those founding fathers would vomit if they could see what goes on today in a court of "law."

Libertarians would only make the existing system worse. We'd get a flood of petty criminals released from prisons, sentences imposing restitutions that can't be met by shiftless thugs without the discipline to hold down a real job, bogus criminal complaints against "deep pocket" individuals and corporations, etc.

[Wycoff]

I agree with Speer. No communist revolution. The U.S. doesn't even really have a proletariat any more. There aren't many industrial workers left in the country. A libertarian regime would quickly lose control, chaos would break out in the inner cities, and a military coup would put the U.S. squarely with the side of the political spectrum that has the real power: the right.

[Kidlicious]

It would be like Chile when they let Milton Freidman make the monetary policy. The effect on the economy will be disasterous. Then they will abandon their policies, and the economy will recover. Finally, they will use it as an example of their policies, claiming that it was their policies which created the economic growth.

[Spiffor]

Is there such a thing as a monetary policy ? I thought libertarian economists advocated the right to issue money to each individual / bank, and let the market decide what money is the most solid.

[Al B. Sure!]

Spiffor:

I doubt that... that just sounds stupid and would be a blatant break from the constitution which only allows the federal gov't to coin money.

[Spiffor]

It doesn't sound stupid to those who developed the idea. And it respects completely the laws of the market, which is an absolute good for the Libertarians, if I understand correctly.

[Kirnwaffen]

While I'm not terribly familiar with Libertarian philosophy, I have to agree that it is generally unworkable in the United States, if only because of the sheer numbers of enemies we've accumulated. The Libertarian government, assuming it doesn't immediately fall into mob rule and corporate exploitation, would attempt to disband the military (which would probably fail). Assuming they were successful, this would be seen as a profound sign of weakness abroad, probably resulting in some form of attack, that, with only a "militia" of sorts to defend the nation, would probably be quite successful.

That's just one scenario, which assumes that the government lasts that long.

[Al B. Sure!]

Spiffor:

i'm not sure the market would work if there's a dozen different types of currency all with different values. there needs to be some sort of standardization. then again, the global economy is of dozens of different currencies so i dont know


thanks

[Spiffor]

AS :
I am absolutely not a Libertarian, so don't take my word as any informative. I think Berzerker or Floyd will dispel my crass ignorance next time they come here.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
The Libertarian government. . .would attempt to disband the military

While there may be a fringe group of libertarians who'd favor this, most of us believe that national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. We want a big enough military establishment to protect us from attack; we just don't want it to be so big that it can station hundreds of thousands of troops halfway around the world, mucking about in other countries' affairs.

[OliverFA]

I think you are talking about an extreme libertarian country. Such country wouldn't fall in anarchy, it would be anarchy from the begining. But if we consider a "soft" libertarian system (the one that limits the government as much as posible, but always keeping an eye in realism) this would work and be a very good system.

[Az]

Berz: I was just explaining the supposed position of a libertarian government. The change of the crime level is a wholly different debate.

And no, I don't think that freedom is necessarily ethical. neither it is necessarily unethical. That's the whole point, freedom and ethics don't lie on a single scale for me. They do for you. Many of the actions you would condone I would be appalled by.

taxing is not pillaging. Taxation is using the resources of the community for the betterment of the entire community. I believe in public good. Libertarians do not, AFAIK.

and on the thread... it was deleted, apparently. an old thread.