CDZ Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws

[Mac1958]

Like all ideas, Libertarian is, at least, a good thing to have around. It reminds us to guard against government overreach and excessive costs.

The problem right now is that its often-binary, shallow and unrealistic elements have essentially taken over the thought processes of a "major" political party, and that has damaged and distorted the conversation every bit as badly as pure communist thought would.

There are those who want to dismiss and attack any thoughts and ideas that don't match theirs, and those kinds of people will always be around across the political spectrum. But anyone who completely flushes ideas out of hand simply won't be a part of any constructive conversation.
.

 

[grbb]

Libertarianism only presume two things that are wrong

1. Fraud
2. Force

What about something between fraud and consensual?

What about misleading advertising?

I know some products are sold hundreds of time it's cost due to misleading advertising. The fee is written but obfuscated.

What's the solution?

Under libertarianism, it may not be obvious it's fraud. Someone could put "I agree to sell my soul" in a very large contract. You read the contract, didn't see it, and tada...... Under pure libertarian-ism you're a slave now.

Another is a statist solution. A government decides that it's fraud nevertheless. I like this solution except for one thing. Statist solutions are very easily abused. The fraudsters can lobby government officials to do this sort of thing.

So what's the middle ground? What about if the local government itself is privatized.

Obviously this kind of scam is not beneficial for population on that local government. A local government seeking profit will prohibit that.

The same way, why drug is illegal?

The truth is, opium and weed and wine has been around throughout history with no significant problem whatsoever.

You see why China are destroyed by English? Not due to opium. Opium have been around in China for a very long time. Hua Tuo is probably the first chinese, could be the first man in the world, that do operation with anesthesia. The ingredient of anesthesia is opium.

If the price is high, it's not a problem. When the price drops people took too much of it. It's like sugar and butter. Now that the price is so low compared to our income we took too much of it and we're fat.

So what's the solution?

Left to libertarianism we will all be fat junkies. Drugs and delicious food are cheap. And some other country will invade us and we're fucked.

Left to stat-ism and we see what happens. Endless war on drugs. Prisons filled with non victimless crime.

An privatized state will see that if something cheap is valued by the market but causes externalities, I would just tax the hell out of it. Make money.

Win win.

Many states do that. Colorado did it. However, it took 30 fucking years. If more cities are "privatized" and "have owners" we can do it in 1 year at most. Let the owners decide. If you don't like it you don't come.

This is actually a criticism of democracy more than libertarian-ism. Democracy provides check and balance against government abuses but it's sluggish.

Under democracy, you can't have bad dictators, but you'll never have a good one either. And a good dictator can be awesome. All shops and corporations are lead by dictators and I buy their products anyway. I don't care that I can't vote how govern that corporation.

Privatization of states give us the best of both world. We can avoid bad dictators and we can move to a good place.

 

[grbb]

There are areas where I am simply not libertarian

Usury. I agree with usury laws. Some people are just too stupid to borrow money with 20% interest per month. Make it illegal. The state can decide I am not enforcing this sort of bullshit.

Job safety. Under free market, too many poor people will work dangerous jobs without adequate safety.

Financial market regulation. There are times where the market won't regulate itself. People can gamble with their own money knowing full well the government will pick up the tab. Even Alan Greenspan advocate more "regulation".

So, no. I am not libertarian on those things.

However, as most libertarians say, governments will make it even worse. And I agree. But that's a different point.

A democratic government will make things worse.

A privatized state? Well, if the owners make things worse, the owners will be the one losing money. Allow people to bed against sub mortgage crisis? Don't bail them out. Why would an owner a state bail out loans that's not his? In democracy, it's tax payers' money anyway. Your leaders choose to bail out those capitalists. The people couldn't see that their citizenship valuation drop because of it. They have other issues to think about.

In a privatized state, any governments that give welfare to corporations will see that he's losing money. No amount of lobbying can convince owners to make losing transactions. Duh.

Another weakness of libertarianism is that libertarians hate politicians. You can't get an ideology done without politic. Free market is a political game. What constitute free market is also a political game. How it's enforced is also political. We swim in politics. If we want to achieve anything, we need some smart politicians. Most libertarians do not understand politic. They have this idealism of "This is what things should be". This is right this is wrong.

Now look at this guy

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Qatar-...en-they-are-one-of-the-major-funders-of-Hamas

Look at what the king of Qatar did to maintain the independence of his country.

This guy did a hell of a good job. He deserves a lot of money for doing so.

Is Qatar libertarian? No. And I won't live there.

However, I don't see king of Qatar as evil. If the muslims can have a good sultan, why can't we have a good CEO?

Well guess what. When you understand politic, you don't think in terms of right or wrong. You think in terms of interests. Right and wrong also stems from interests.

Ask someone, is it right to prohibit weed? For a statist who will lost his salary if he doesn't do it, of course it's the right thing to do. It's what he politically did to keep his job.

Is it right to have a religious laws? Why not ask mullahs who will lost his salary if the country is secular.

Politic will always be part of the game.

Instead of saying politics are evil, I say we need good politic. We need a political system that allow local governments to "experiment" and benefit greatly if the experiment is successful. One such system is privatization of state. Let the market itself govern.

Do you have a better system?

 

[grbb]

Oh ya crucifying cats is another example. Under libertarianism, your cat your right.

It's illegal in most states I think. Thanks God (If he exist).

Again. A profit seeking state will see that allowing people to crucify cats is bad for everyone and decide that it's a no go. Also states that disallow it will have no protector and deserve to be attacked

 

[Oddball]

Libertarianism only presume two things that are wrong

1. Fraud
2. Force

What about something between fraud and consensual?

What about misleading advertising?

I know some products are sold hundreds of time it's cost due to misleading advertising. The fee is written but obfuscated.

What's the solution?

Under libertarianism, it may not be obvious it's fraud. Someone could put "I agree to sell my soul" in a very large contract. You read the contract, didn't see it, and tada...... Under pure libertarian-ism you're a slave now.

Another is a statist solution. A government decides that it's fraud nevertheless. I like this solution except for one thing. Statist solutions are very easily abused. The fraudsters can lobby government officials to do this sort of thing.

So what's the middle ground? What about if the local government itself is privatized.

Obviously this kind of scam is not beneficial for population on that local government. A local government seeking profit will prohibit that.

The same way, why drug is illegal?

The truth is, opium and weed and wine has been around throughout history with no significant problem whatsoever.

You see why China are destroyed by English? Not due to opium. Opium have been around in China for a very long time. Hua Tuo is probably the first chinese, could be the first man in the world, that do operation with anesthesia. The ingredient of anesthesia is opium.

If the price is high, it's not a problem. When the price drops people took too much of it. It's like sugar and butter. Now that the price is so low compared to our income we took too much of it and we're fat.

So what's the solution?

Left to libertarianism we will all be fat junkies. Drugs and delicious food are cheap. And some other country will invade us and we're fucked.

Left to stat-ism and we see what happens. Endless war on drugs. Prisons filled with non victimless crime.

An privatized state will see that if something cheap is valued by the market but causes externalities, I would just tax the hell out of it. Make money.

Win win.

Many states do that. Colorado did it. However, it took 30 fucking years. If more cities are "privatized" and "have owners" we can do it in 1 year at most. Let the owners decide. If you don't like it you don't come.

This is actually a criticism of democracy more than libertarian-ism. Democracy provides check and balance against government abuses but it's sluggish.

Under democracy, you can't have bad dictators, but you'll never have a good one either. And a good dictator can be awesome. All shops and corporations are lead by dictators and I buy their products anyway. I don't care that I can't vote how govern that corporation.

Privatization of states give us the best of both world. We can avoid bad dictators and we can move to a good place.

That's the biggest and most comprehensive run-on straw man argument I've seen in quite some time.

 

[grbb]

Actually. Yea I do not know what libertarians think on those 2.

I used to think that evil is either force or fraud.

If you don't force people (at least not initiating it), and you don't defraud people (I am not sure misleading is allowed), then you're a saint.

May be I am wrong. May be that's just "extreme" libertarianism. I am not that extreme for sure. I just think that many area are grey.

What else is considered wrong in libertarianism that is not force or fraud? Anything?

 

[grbb]

Let's put it this way. If libertarian is so great, why there is no libertarian countries?

I mean libertarian can be great. But until it's actually used and produce awesomeness, it's just potential greatness, not really great yet.

You can have the best widget blueprint (libertarianism, ancap) in the world. It's just a blueprint.

Someone with less wonderful blueprint (democracy, secularism, libtardism, conservatism) is good in one very real way. It's actually used.

Even something that's bad (communism, syariah) is better than libertarianism in at least one area. They're tried. They're at least tried.

That's what I am getting at.

So how do we put libertarianism into practice? What should actually be done so countries can be more libertarian?

Bitcoin is a way. Corporate start ups is another way. Things that used to be governed by the state, like taxi and hotel, is now governed by start up.

Competition among states is already done. States compete with one another. We can push it further so cities and provinces compete the fuck out too.

What else?

I think if government itself is privatized or have to compete like private companies we're done. You know. I am not sure if anti trust laws are good idea or not. One thing I know is government is the biggest monopoly. If we split that up into a bunch of competing businesses, it'll work out.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The major flaw in libertarianism, as I see it, is that it does not protect people from exploitation as it is unconcerned with addressing the inequalities of power dynamics.

Might makes right should not be the basis of a political ideology.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Did you just call all libertarians pedophiles?? I think you did. And you demonstrated a basic ignorance about freedom and liberty.. Freedoms and Liberty are built on tolerance of choices that YOU would not make YOURSELF ---- but MORE IMPORTANTLY -- that those choices do no damage and are NOT coercive to others. And "diddling kids" is definitely coercive.. You should stop and realize your fantasies about libertarians are pure crap...

No, he didn't. Be honest, please.

He said nothing about the actions of libertarians nor their sexual proclivities. His point had to do with attitudes towards the issue, not the personal behavior of those holding the attitudes.

 

[Votto]

'Gee, who could be against 'Freedom N Stuff' ,dude? .... Just call everybody a 'statist' when ever you're stumped, out of slogans, and have no real answers.

That's a rather bold statement there. Do you want to test that theory against any policy of your choosing?

Well, I'm a 'statist' according to libertarians already, I don't support mindless self-indulgence or believe in the fantasy of 'free markets', so you already have the pat memes, just go ahead and throw then out; no need for me to waste my time since I already know your 'answers', they're the same as the rest of your answers on this board.

Take a man's money and property and what does he have?

Does he have any freedom?

 

[Votto]

Someone told me that my idea of privatization of states is not libertarianism. It's ancap. I thought about it.

I thought I am a very moderate libertarian. Libertarians see governments as oppressors. I see governments as a very inefficient protectors. Libertarians see others as parasites (I used to be libertarians). I now see other people as defense pacts partners. So yes it is natural and fair that we care about what other voters think.

If they wanna a job, if they wanna prohibit weed, if they wanna have some religious influences, I would disagree with them. However, I do not consider them to be a very wrong evil being either. I also don't see that as an efficient deal among allies.

Libertarians see tax as robbery. I see tax as legitimate protection fee. If I don't like paying tax, I am welcome to move to another state.

Don't get me wrong. I still love libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a great ideology.

I think you can still call me a moderate libertarians.

Just look at legalization of drugs. If drugs are taxed and regulated instead of prohibited, a state doing it will collect tons of tax money. It will save a lot of money on this useless war on drugs.

Or look at prostitution. I don't like prostitutes. I understand prostitutes can spread disease and stuff. However, marriage sucks. I avoid anything infested by religion and governments. Just because I want to have kids, why should I give any fuck on what other people think "ideal" relationship is?

Or what about welfare? If there is no welfare programs, women will not pick the poor to father their babies. Poverty will be gone by themselves? What about those already born? Well pure libertarian solution is to just let them starve. If that's too hard to stomach, what about if we offer welfare on condition of sterilization? That'll greatly reduce poverties.

Or what about taxes? Like all libertarians, I don't like taxes, especially income taxes. What about if it's changed to simpler lower taxes? The economy will boom. Corporations will flock to register in places with 0 taxes.

On many other areas, I am not sure I am a libertarian.

I think it's okay if governments build road. Transaction cost of road is high and it's best for governments to just compute the cost carefully and charge those who benefit from it fairly.

I don't think every interaction has to be consensual. If a doctor see an unconscious people and help him, it's fine for government to charge the patient.

The problem with statism is that there are so many ways to abuse statism. Markets have flaws. However, often, state solution is even worse. However, just like free market can theoretically solve the same problem better than state solutions, state solutions can be better than the market.

I do not think it's wrong for government to prohibit truly harmful drugs. However, when government have power to prohibit some drugs, the government will be lobbied by money and the drugs that are prohibited are the safe ones.

The problem is who decides when states should do it or when the market should do it? Now it's voters.

Why not let the market decide?

Yes. Libertarian-ism and their variants or at least something closer to it are good ideology, if you judge ideologies based on result.

There is one problem.

An ideology that is adopted is not necessarily an ideology that produces the best result.

Let me repeat that again.

Many libertarians think that capitalism and libertarianism gives good result.

They complain, lament.

They said socialism is good if you judge them based on promise. However, Capitalism is awesome when you judge them based on result. I think there is a libertarian quote on that. I forget the actual one. Can you add.

That's true.

However, result is only 30% of the game when it comes to ideological war or competition.

Look at North and South Korea. Everyone can see that capitalism gives better "result" in South Korea.

However, socialism, in a sense, won in North Korea.

Ideologies don't win by result alone. Ideologies win by being convincing and promising.

Capitalism give far better result. And yet, it's socialism, that win in North Korea and Venezuella. Think about it for a while. Socialism wins because it has better promise.

We may say that capitalism is winning all over the world. North Korea and Venezuela is an exception. However, can't we win faster?

How many people have to eat their own shit and starve due to communism before the capitalism "win"?

How many life have to die in religious war before secularism win?

How many people have to rot in jail due to war on drugs before people realize the obvious fact that most prohibited drugs are not even dangerous?

Imagine if penicilin is not approved by government fast enough. Millions would die. Now, every drug have to go through very long approval protest. Can a small state decide, fuck the approval, I wanna let patients make well informed decisions to be guinea pig. Then millions of life can be save.

But progress toward capitalism is slow. Every body knows that weed is not dangerous. It took what? 30 years before it's legalized in some states. Many other drugs are also not dangerous and it'll take 50 other years.

If it's legalized, I bet the result is great, but we'll probably never know. Very few states try to legalize it.

We capitalists should know. Often it's not the best product that sells a lot. In fact, many people fall into various scam. Often products that sell are the one with the best promise, and not the one that actually will produce the best result.

I talked to a muslim friend. I asked what does he think about all the corruption in muslim countries? He told me that it's not islam's fault. It's the corrupt people's fault. So, he still wants islamic government.

I was surprised with how he thinks. So basically there is this result where muslim countries tend to be more corrupt. That is expected by any countries that jail good governors and stifle freedom of speech.

However, that guy still support islamic ideologies because they think the fault is not in the ideology.

I think think. At first I thought that this guy is very crazy. After a while, I understand that it's just how people are.

People simply do not pick the ideology with the best result or that will produce the best result. Hell, if I can pick stocks that will raise up the fastest, I am already a trillionaire now. I don't pick stocks that will raise up fast. I pick stocks that I think will raise fast. Sometimes the difference is big. He he he....

So it doesn't matter how awesome capitalism is. It doesn't matter how awesome the prosperity that capitalism win. Capitalism cannot win just counting on result. For an ideology to win, that ideology must be able to give good promise and convince large number of people.

You can say that porn is great. You can show how fast our internet now thanks to huge demand in porn streaming. Another screaming Allah is great will convince enough people to prohibit porn.

It's just like that. Your opinion can be true. Their opinion is more convincing.

So if you want libertarianism or any best ideology to actually win ideological wars, you need a system that is more result oriented. You need a system that ideologies that win are ideologies deliver.

Are there such system?

Of course. It's called free market.

Under free market, result is also not everything. Scams are around and stuffs. However, facts and results have more bites under market mechanism than democracy.

I would say, under free market, truth and result constitute like 80% of success rather than just 20-30% in ideological war.

As customers, I wouldn't buy a specific brand if the brand don't deliver. Shits that don't work get screwed very quickly under market mechanism.

Any share holders that make correct decisions, install the right CEO, will be rich. Any share holders that make bad decisions will lost money. Any share holders that disagree can just sell the share.

Free market are not only good for share holders they are good for customers too. Hell, customer is king is not an empty word.

Anyone producing something no body wants to buy will go bankrupt by it self. In fact, the beauty of free market is that each firm doesn't have to please every body. If I produce porn for normal heterosexual males, what about the homosexual men? Well, they can have their own porn website.

We do not need to argue whether McDonald is more delicious than Burger King. Those who like McDonald can go to McDonald and those who like Burger King goes to burger king.
Free market is very result oriented. It doesn't matter whether whose fault is it. The one that make the correct decisions will be the one prosperous.

For best ideologies to be practiced, we need a system where results matter more. We need a system like free market for ideologies.

Under free market business are allowed to do things their own way. If I buy a specific machine for my factory, I do not need to convince other factory owners that my choice is the best choice. I just buy it. If it's a good decision I am rich. If it's a bad decision, I will be out of business.

We need to have something like that too for local state governments. We should let local governments to experiment. Then we need to ensure that those who make decisions on those local governments should be the one rewarded based on the success of the decisions.

What about the interest of tax payers and the other populations?

The market will take care of it.

If I produce ice cream, and I produce ice cream that sucks, people won't buy it.

The same way if tax is too high, crime rate is high, if the government prohibit too many things, then tax payers and people will flee to another state.

At the end, the market itself, that works so well on private sector, will also works well in governments.

In fact, huge amount of prosperity that we enjoy now happens because states behaves more like private companies. States compete with one another. Hence, tax is lower, tariff is lower, and the productive gets richer and richer. So people are productive.

We do not need to promote libertarian-ism directly.

We need only people to try what they think is good. Keep a good score on what's working and not working. Reward those that choose what's working.

The best ideology will win.

And I bet that's not far from libertarianism/capitalism.

And that is why I propose privatization of provinces and cities.

CDZ - Why I think the state itself should be more like private companies

Oh yea. Libertarianism is also sucks at 2 other things too. Politic and military. No wonder libertarians hate politicians and war. So? Just pay protection money to a normal powerful state. Avoid this mistake okay Republic of Minerva

Here is my take on the situation.

Politics is about collectivism. You try to side with a group of people, or create a group of people, to be pitted against another with the hopes of winning an election so that your peeps will prosper, usually at the expense of the group you just defeated politically.

We see this all the time. Obama, for example, won the election and shoved Obamacare down our collective throats. Then he single handedly bypassed some of the laws within the legislation with a single stroke of the pen so that certain unions that supported him had special perks under the law. Then there was the IRS targeting conservative groups. Sure, the conservatives won a settlement and Obama apologized, but Obama successfully won 2 consecutive terms using such tactics, so what does he care?

Of course, Trump does the same thing. For example, he stuck it to liberal states like California by not letting them deduct their state taxes from the Federal taxes, etc.

Both parties simply seek more and more power over their opposing groups as freedom continues to wane in the process.

But Libertarians don't play this same game, by in large. They have adopted more of a philosophy than a practical political ideology to grab power and then use it as a club. In fact, their very philosophy is counter to the current system, hence they have no voice or place in the Federal government and never will have.

The object of politics is not to give people their freedom, it is the exact opposite. The object is more and more control over the people.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

'Libertarianism' has a sort of Wally N Beaver Cleaver vibe to it; it mostly appeals to middle class suburban types with little experience in human nature or true competition that isn't structured by rules and clear outcomes.

This article is one of the better short essays on it. The title 'Marxism of the Right' is particularly appropriate as well.

Marxism of the Right

"There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

... and more at the link.

Marxists aren't the only propagandists who have read and applied Antonio Gramsci's methods to political language. Gee, who could be against 'Freedom N Stuff' ,dude? .... Just call everybody a 'statist' when ever you're stumped, out of slogans, and have no real answers.

How cute. Naming calling is now the preferred tool of political debate. Libertarianism does NOT "aspire, covertly or overtly, to reduce social life to economics".. This is a FUNDAMENTAL lie.. Because you could not find any other party or political value who adamantly DEFENDS social and personal Civil Liberties and choices.

The 1st NATIONAL presidential candidate we offered in the 70s was an openly gay man.. We DID NOT do that to make a payment to a constituency as the Dems do today.. We did THAT -- BECAUSE he was the most qualified.. In the FREAKING 70s dude. And we paid for that move for DECADES being called "queer lovers".. Just like our CONSISTENT stand on non-intervention in the Middle East got us called "traitor doves" or our long term support of decriminalizing marijuana got us a label of "potheads"...

ALL OF THOSE are NOW -- basic Amer. public sentiment.. We're just decades ahead of "public consensus"...

As for SOCIAL liberty and ECONOMIC liberty -- they CAN NOT BE separated. You have no liberty if govt and populist TRUE Marxist movements put a claim on your TIME and labor that you do to serve others. Which is why our version of the ACLU -- the Institute for Justice -- focuses on disenfranchised Main Street entreprenuers fighting government licensing cartels, or emminent domain abuse, or asset forfeiture.. Not cases that interest the ACLU...We see no reason why African HairBraiders NEED 220 hours of "cosmetic college" to get a licence. Or why multi-$Mill "taxicab medallions" should even "be a thing".. And we're the ONLY group working on ending that renewed govt Domestic Spying program that was ended in the 70s because the govt ABUSED it. And they are now ABUSING IT AGAIN...

We're pro-choice on basically EVERYTHING SOCIAL... I cant "out-choice" ANY progressive or conservative on ANY issue.. That's not "Marxism" man.. Your evidence is weak ad homs.

You use the term "we" many, many times here.

I was rather under the impression that conforming to a collectivist mind sat was something that libertarians opposed.

 

[sartre play]

What's in a name? this site is called the clean debate zone. notice that it is skimpy on posts. that shows that people are really not interested in keeping there views rational, nor is there much desire for debate.

 

[Oddball]

The major flaw in libertarianism, as I see it, is that it does not protect people from exploitation as it is unconcerned with addressing the inequalities of power dynamics.

Might makes right should not be the basis of a political ideology.

The State is the seat for inequality of power dynamics....It is The State that has the monopoly on the proactive use of aggressive force...It doesn't get anymore unequal and unbalanced than that.

 

[Oddball]

Let's put it this way. If libertarian is so great, why there is no libertarian countries?

I mean libertarian can be great. But until it's actually used and produce awesomeness, it's just potential greatness, not really great yet.

You can have the best widget blueprint (libertarianism, ancap) in the world. It's just a blueprint.

Someone with less wonderful blueprint (democracy, secularism, libtardism, conservatism) is good in one very real way. It's actually used.

Even something that's bad (communism, syariah) is better than libertarianism in at least one area. They're tried. They're at least tried.

That's what I am getting at.

So how do we put libertarianism into practice? What should actually be done so countries can be more libertarian?

Bitcoin is a way. Corporate start ups is another way. Things that used to be governed by the state, like taxi and hotel, is now governed by start up.

Competition among states is already done. States compete with one another. We can push it further so cities and provinces compete the fuck out too.

What else?

I think if government itself is privatized or have to compete like private companies we're done. You know. I am not sure if anti trust laws are good idea or not. One thing I know is government is the biggest monopoly. If we split that up into a bunch of competing businesses, it'll work out.

There was a largely libertarian country in Murica, until the end of the industrial revolution....Wasn't anywhere near perfect, though gubmint did, to a large degree, stay in its box.

The very existence of corporate entities -which is The State extending certain privileges and protections not afforded to the regular Joe- is anti-libertarian.

 

[Votto]

Let's put it this way. If libertarian is so great, why there is no libertarian countries?

I mean libertarian can be great. But until it's actually used and produce awesomeness, it's just potential greatness, not really great yet.

You can have the best widget blueprint (libertarianism, ancap) in the world. It's just a blueprint.

Someone with less wonderful blueprint (democracy, secularism, libtardism, conservatism) is good in one very real way. It's actually used.

Even something that's bad (communism, syariah) is better than libertarianism in at least one area. They're tried. They're at least tried.

That's what I am getting at.

So how do we put libertarianism into practice? What should actually be done so countries can be more libertarian?

Bitcoin is a way. Corporate start ups is another way. Things that used to be governed by the state, like taxi and hotel, is now governed by start up.

Competition among states is already done. States compete with one another. We can push it further so cities and provinces compete the fuck out too.

What else?

I think if government itself is privatized or have to compete like private companies we're done. You know. I am not sure if anti trust laws are good idea or not. One thing I know is government is the biggest monopoly. If we split that up into a bunch of competing businesses, it'll work out.

There was a largely libertarian country in Murica, until the end of the industrial revolution....Wasn't anywhere near perfect, though gubmint did, to a large degree, stay in its box.

The very existence of corporate entities -which is The State extending certain privileges and protections not afforded to the regular Joe- is anti-libertarian.

James Madison quote on the General Welfare clause he wrote.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

James Madison
~ James Madison

 

[grbb]

Think about it.

Are libertarians happy now that uber now handles taxi instead of governments?

Or what about bitcoin handling our financial transaction instead of governments' fiat?

What about if some private companies handle municipal government.

Okay, you don't like to live near rednecks or muslims, fine. No rednecks in this area. You like legalization of drugs? Fine. Drugs are legal on this area.

That sort of thing.

Me. I don't mind living among anyone.

However, if some radicals cannot avoid living near me, this shit happens

Christchurch mosque shooting: what we know so far

What's the solution?

Libertarians will just say it's wrong to murder people we condemn it bla bla

The democratic country will simply say we need moderation.

This is what I said. You don't like some people, privatize a city where most people think like you, those who don't like can go and those who like can get in. That's it. no need to shoot those you don't like. Just stay away.

 

[grbb]

There was a largely libertarian country in Murica, until the end of the industrial revolution....Wasn't anywhere near perfect, though gubmint did, to a large degree, stay in its box.

The very existence of corporate entities -which is The State extending certain privileges and protections not afforded to the regular Joe- is anti-libertarian.

US used to be libertarian. It's so libertarian it doesn't even have an army. 20% of US GDP is gone to pay berbery pirates. Then someone build a navy and beat up tripoli.

Good government is better than libertarian ism
Good dictators are better than democracy

The problem is, how do we get a good government? The same way we get a good product at affordable price. Make those governments compete.

You complain about US being no longer libertarians. I understand.

But the rest of the world are becoming more libertarians you know.

Why?

Competition. Any countries that don't embrace free market will not go far from stone edge.

I think a mod mention about 10 amendment.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

I totally agree. I love federal form of governments. I wish my country is like that. Actually my country have province autonomy which is just as good.

The problem is voters are not owners. Those who disagree can't just sell citizenship. Also the central governments have too much power.

I think if we want a good government, the first thing we need to do is to make regional autonomy bigger.

 

[Oddball]

There was a largely libertarian country in Murica, until the end of the industrial revolution....Wasn't anywhere near perfect, though gubmint did, to a large degree, stay in its box.

The very existence of corporate entities -which is The State extending certain privileges and protections not afforded to the regular Joe- is anti-libertarian.

US used to be libertarian. It's so libertarian it doesn't even have an army. 20% of US GDP is gone to pay berbery pirates. Then someone build a navy and beat up tripoli.

Good government is better than libertarian ism
Good dictators are better than democracy

The problem is, how do we get a good government? The same way we get a good product at affordable price. Make those governments compete.

You complain about US being no longer libertarians. I understand.

But the rest of the world are becoming more libertarians you know.

Why?

Competition. Any countries that don't embrace free market will not go far from stone edge.

I think a mod mention about 10 amendment.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

I totally agree. I love federal form of governments. I wish my country is like that. Actually my country have province autonomy which is just as good.

The problem is voters are not owners. Those who disagree can't just sell citizenship. Also the central governments have too much power.

I think if we want a good government, the first thing we need to do is to make regional autonomy bigger.

I used to believe most of that...But the more I looked into the matter and considered all the facts, I came to realize that there's no such thing as "good government".

Notwithstanding my previous comment about Murica being a mostly libertarian nation for its first 150 years, we didn't even make it past our first president before he exceeded his authority.

In short, there's no gubmint like no gubmint at all.

 

[Votto]

What is sobering, however, is that this group of Founding Fathers who had just fought a bloody war to be free from tyranny turned right around and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which forbade people from speaking out against the government. Luckily Jefferson was around and was sickened by them and had most of them removed, but not before using some of them for his own agenda. Then FDR used what was left to lock up innocent Japanese Americans cuz they have slanted eyes.

This shows the corrosive nature of politics which trends towards despotism.