CDZ Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws

Why US become statist?

Because it's successful. If you own a shop and so many wants to come to your shop, you raise price.

US is like china. For thousands of years, the Chinese are the richest most civilized people in the region.

Then what? Then we got big government, high tax. Ming emperors live in palace prohibiting foreign trade. What can typical chinese do? Where can they escape? Another state? With barbarians?

The same with US. It used to be libertarian. Then it's prosperous. Then? Then it raises taxes. Where would american go? To some communist countries?

Then other countries see US is rich. They copy your ideology. China embrace capitalism. Other countries embrace secularism and capitalism.

Now, the oppressed have many ways to live. Donald Trump lower corporate tax rate low. Why? Otherwise those corporations will go to China.

Now. Ask yourself. Why don't you just leave like those corporations? Because you enjoy higher salary in US than in some "shit hole" right?

Imagine if I own a place. People earn more money opening shops in my place than in other place. Say my place is cleaner, safer, bla bla.... Should I raise rent?

That rent is called tax. US is still a free powerful country. You don't go to jail for expressing your opinion. You are free to be atheists. I wouldn't want to live there because the tax is high. But for most workers? They would love to go to US.

I used to want to live in US. 20 years ago. Now I realized, if I want to be free, I shouldn't blame government. I should produce something the WORLD want. Not what a local economy want. Local economy is heavily regulated by local government. I should produce something the world want and then I can shop for countries.

Those producing what the world want is the one truly productive. Someone working in McDonald doesn't worth $10 an hour. There are Mexicans that are willing to do so for $2 an hour. His job worth $10 an hour. Now that they have a government protecting them from competing with Mexican, is it fair if he pays 15% income tax out of his job?

Complicated. But both have a case right?

What we need is a poor country that need your money. It's easier to persuade people on those countries to be libertarian.
 
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.
I won't feel too bad for the japanese interned. Is this some white people guilt or what?

The japs are way more cruel than whites.

You think you were racists? Yes. Everyone was. Everyone is still is.

Those japs your ancestors interned? They got paid higher salary than normal americans.

Singapore don't accept muslims soldiers easily. Jews don't accept muslims easily. The muslims? They don't accept infidels easily in their soldiers. The arrangements was infidels pay protection fee called jizya and the muslims can be conscripted.

So if your ancestors during world war 2 think, let's intern this japs less they backstab us, I wouldn't sweat over it. Those japanese live.

Don't expect perfectness. Don't demand perfectness.

Yes. There is no such thing as good government. There are things called better governments. My government is MUCH better than Suharto era now.

Jokowi (current president) and Ahok made a lot of improvement. Yes, Ahok were sent to jail due to religious issues. For a long time I have negative feeling about muslims. But then I saw western world have problems too. Something like Christchurch mosques shooting: 49 killed in New Zealand attacks - CNN

Actually much of my idea comes from Ahok. I was just bloody impressed that Jakarta can be governed so well. Within 2 years, floods are gone, there are more busses, roads are fixed, we got an app called qlue where we can report every problem.

And guess what? All those are done and the city have 20% left over budget left. Ahok eliminate corruption by e-budgeting. People can't steal money anymore. Now all projects for government must be under fair price or lower. Anyone selling the same service or stuff at higher price to private sectors than to government is banned and fined.

Yea, Ahok was convicted by blasphemy charge. I was very sad. However, Jokowi, his running mate is president now.

One day, who knows. That christian chinese guy can be an Indonesian presiden one day in a muslim majority country. The main reason why he can't is because he was an ex convict and not because of his lack of popularity. He is popular even among muslims. Democracy actually works.

That was around some time when lawyers I hired and some insurance I bought scammed me. My friend mock me. You always said government is bad yet here you are scammed by people you pick under free market mechanism.

When I saw guys like Ahok work, I do not know how it can be done better even by free market.
 
Last edited:
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.
I won't feel too bad for the japanese interned. Is this some white people guilt or what?

The japs are way more cruel than whites.

You think you were racists? Yes. Everyone was. Everyone is still is.

Those japs your ancestors interned? They got paid higher salary than normal americans.

Singapore don't accept muslims soldiers easily. Jews don't accept muslims easily. The muslims? They don't accept infidels easily in their soldiers. The arrangements was infidels pay protection fee called jizya and the muslims can be conscripted.

So if your ancestors during world war 2 think, let's intern this japs less they backstab us, I wouldn't sweat over it. Those japanese live.

Don't expect perfectness. Don't demand perfectness.

Yes. There is no such thing as good government. There are things called better governments. My government is MUCH better than Suharto era now.

Jokowi (current president) and Ahok made a lot of improvement. Yes, Ahok were sent to jail due to religious issues. For a long time I have negative feeling about muslims. But then I saw western world have problems too. Something like Christchurch mosques shooting: 49 killed in New Zealand attacks - CNN

Actually much of my idea comes from Ahok. I was just bloody impressed that Jakarta can be governed so well. Within 2 years, floods are gone, there are more busses, roads are fixed, we got an app called qlue where we can report every problem.

Yea, Ahok was convicted by blasphemy charge. I was very sad. However, Jokowi, his running mate is president now.

One day, who knows. That christian chinese guy can be an Indonesian presiden one day in a muslim majority country. The main reason why he can't is because he was an ex convict and not because of his lack of popularity. He is popular even among muslims. Democracy actually works.

That was around some time when lawyers I hired and some insurance I bought scammed me. My friend mock me. You always said government is bad yet here you are scammed by people you pick under free market mechanism.

When I saw guys like Ahok work, I do not know how it can be done better even by free market.

Sorry, but this post is repulsive and racist.

You should only hold people accountable for what they do and think, not what their ancestors have done.

Unless you want to take responsibility for the Indian genocide in the US.
 
What do you mean?

Yes japanese forced internment is regretable. So what? US government apologized. The japanese were treated well.

And I am not blaming anyone alive here now. It's in the past.

What I am trying to say is that american people shouldn't feel too guilty about things like japanese internship. I read about it. Americans are relatively fair and humane compared with all the other party during the world war.

That's bad. But at that time everyone else did it. It's the norm. If you don't, you'll be in trouble because others won't be so forgiving.

A good world is where those things don't happen anymore. Our current world is fine.

Am I being misunderstood here? I don't mean to be racist to anyone. However, we shouldn't judge government by any absolute standard. We should judge governments by relative standard compared to other government. Is A libertarian? No country is fully libertarian. If A better than B? Well, B is good.

It's like comparing products in the shop. Is A cheaper than B? If you expect price to be 0 you're crazy. But if A is cheaper than B and quality is the same, pick A. That means A is a good deal and B is probably a "fair price".

Is tax robbery? How much tax? Is tax in your country higher than in other? If so, leave. If not, well, it's already a good deal. Now think about how to lower it.

I think that's what I am trying to say.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but this post is repulsive and racist.

You should only hold people accountable for what they do and think, not what their ancestors have done.

Unless you want to take responsibility for the Indian genocide in the US.
What do you mean? I am not trying to be racist. Did I say something wrong?

I read around and I think US government has been reasonably fair.
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $42,000 in 2018) to each camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."[26] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion (equivalent to $3,390,000,000 in 2018) in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[25][27]

Also look here Niihau incident - Wikipedia . So some people with japanese descent help japanese war effort. American generals have reasonable risk they have to take into account.

Or look here Nidal Hasan - Wikipedia

Those are reasonable risks. Every party during world war 2 uses racism one way or another. The japs collected chinese in Singapore and demand money. If you're a war general, you got to see reality the way it is, not clouded by politically correctness.

To think that the chinese have as much money as malays because thinking otherwise is racist will lead to big problems. You need to persuade people to join you and should you fail make sure they don't cause too much damage.

Is it "wrong" to intern japanese? I would say it's about as wrong as attacking one island instead of the other. It's war. It's military. The generals wanna win. They made some decisions. It could be morally wrong. But the government compensate for that and apologize and pay restitution. I see that as fair.

I would wait until US government compensate weed users. The government was WRONG. Weed is not dangerous. We're not at war. We know it all along. Due to irrationality, they prohibit it and jail tons of people for it. Now that's something I would be more concerned with. Simple racism is regrettable but not as wrong as prohibiting vice.
 
Last edited:
What ever label you put on your self is limiting, no human is perfect so no group will come near perfection.
 
Let's move on.

We have market failure. We obviously do.

The solution, according to statists, are government actions.

And statists are not completely wrong. I think about 40% of the time they're about right. On 60% of the time, we have government failure.

So, how can we minimize both government failure and market failure?

Libertarianism?

Libertarianism don't fix market failure. Even if it is a solution, how do we "force" states to be libertarian? States also have rulers and voters (voters are a kind of rulers) and those rulers are often benefited by non libertarian aspect.

War on drugs benefit lobbyists. Welfare programs benefit welfare parasites voters.

So how do we pressure states to purse minarchists and libertarian policies?

One way is to have an even bigger government on top of those states. It's federal government and world government. This is a bad idea. How do we pressure those bigger governments or world government to be libertarian? God?

Something need to be "on top" of us so we don't kill each other. This is usually government.

Then? Something need to be on top of those governments, namely what?

Simple. Government is not the only thing that prevent us from killing each other. What prevents a shop owner from raising price unfairly? What prevent online markets to judge customers dispute fairly?

The market. Those who are not prudent in their dealing will be out of the market soon. In fact, governments action are like war. It's there for the worse of the worse issue, like robbery. For most things we have free market pretty much self running.

What about if we let the market govern the states. You may think it's ridiculous. However, it's already happening.

Look at the globe. You see any global government? No. Well, UN. But UN is very "thin" right. How much tax US pay to alleviate poverty in Africa? Less than 1% I bet. How much of your GDP goes to war expenditure go to UN dues? Less than 1% I bet.

Hell, if wealth redistribution is less than 5% of my income I'll just pay.

What makes government libertarian? What makes communists in China embrace free market? What makes the muslim stop charging jizya? We are looking at the world where more and more people becoming "good guys" here.

The market. Norms like Wesphalian sovereignity and nukes ensure that any war leads to total annihilation means states just compete instead of fight.

When states compete with one another. Once states compete with one another, it doesn't matter how they are governed. We just go to the one with the best deals. I am just speeding up what's already going well.

Here, democracy, that used to be "force of good" becomes force of evil. Democracy tend to make states too similar to one another and undermine our capability to pick a state we like.

We act as if there is one right way to govern everyone for all people. We act like pizza is the best food for all.

Why should we?

States are not the only one competing with one another. Many stuff that used to be governed by the states are now governed by the market too. Uber is an example. States used to govern taxi. Now, we get private companies for that.

One day, your president, governor, and representatives will be corporations. It's much harder to bribe corporations than bribing individuals. Imagine if microsoft have a seat in the senate, you think Bill Gates will kow tow to $2 million bribe from Pharmacy lobbyists? If there are conflict of interests it's more explicit and can be part of the campaign promise.

Now, if that works so well for nation states, why don't we do it for provinces, and cities, and villages?
 
Last edited:
My point is, full libertarianism isn't use by any states now. Nothing "pure" is used. Politic is about compromising, appeasing, threatening, and war. None of which are ideals.

To me if no state uses libertarianism we need to think how can we make that happen. If we have problems we can change it. For example, the idea that tax is robbery makes libertarianism very unpractical. We should aim for low easy to compute tax, not for no tax.

Saying that drug usage is absolute people's right is also too extreme. If we think that drugs should be taxed, we would go longer miles.

Too little states' right, which is libertarianism, can lead to statism. Some statism can lead to more libertarianism.

What I would advocate is rather than aiming to libertarianism straight, we look at aspects of life that tend to create libertarianism.

Competition among states is one of them. Bitcoin and start up is another. Now, how do we make that happens even more.
 
Let's move on.

We have market failure. We obviously do.

The solution, according to statists, are government actions.

And statists are not completely wrong. I think about 40% of the time they're about right. On 60% of the time, we have government failure.

So, how can we minimize both government failure and market failure?

Libertarianism?

Libertarianism don't fix market failure. Even if it is a solution, how do we "force" states to be libertarian? States also have rulers and voters (voters are a kind of rulers) and those rulers are often benefited by non libertarian aspect.

War on drugs benefit lobbyists. Welfare programs benefit welfare parasites voters.

So how do we pressure states to purse minarchists and libertarian policies?

One way is to have an even bigger government on top of those states. It's federal government and world government. This is a bad idea. How do we pressure those bigger governments or world government to be libertarian? God?

Something need to be "on top" of us so we don't kill each other. This is usually government.

Then? Something need to be on top of those governments, namely what?

Simple. Government is not the only thing that prevent us from killing each other. What prevents a shop owner from raising price unfairly? What prevent online markets to judge customers dispute fairly?

The market. Those who are not prudent in their dealing will be out of the market soon. In fact, governments action are like war. It's there for the worse of the worse issue, like robbery. For most things we have free market pretty much self running.

What about if we let the market govern the states. You may think it's ridiculous. However, it's already happening.

Look at the globe. You see any global government? No. Well, UN. But UN is very "thin" right. How much tax US pay to alleviate poverty in Africa? Less than 1% I bet. How much of your GDP goes to war expenditure go to UN dues? Less than 1% I bet.

Hell, if wealth redistribution is less than 5% of my income I'll just pay.

What makes government libertarian? What makes communists in China embrace free market? What makes the muslim stop charging jizya? We are looking at the world where more and more people becoming "good guys" here.

The market. Norms like Wesphalian sovereignity and nukes ensure that any war leads to total annihilation means states just compete instead of fight.

When states compete with one another. Once states compete with one another, it doesn't matter how they are governed. We just go to the one with the best deals. I am just speeding up what's already going well.

Here, democracy, that used to be "force of good" becomes force of evil. Democracy tend to make states too similar to one another and undermine our capability to pick a state we like.

We act as if there is one right way to govern everyone for all people. We act like pizza is the best food for all.

Why should we?

States are not the only one competing with one another. Many stuff that used to be governed by the states are now governed by the market too. Uber is an example. States used to govern taxi. Now, we get private companies for that.

One day, your president, governor, and representatives will be corporations. It's much harder to bribe corporations than bribing individuals. Imagine if microsoft have a seat in the senate, you think Bill Gates will kow tow to $2 million bribe from Pharmacy lobbyists? If there are conflict of interests it's more explicit and can be part of the campaign promise.

Now, if that works so well for nation states, why don't we do it for provinces, and cities, and villages?
Markets don't fail...They only convey information that you don't like.
 
Markets don't fail...They only convey information that you don't like.

I used to think that way.

One day a friend of mind hire a lawyer. The lawyer lied to him. Basically inflating the cost. The case is actually very small. Because my friend don't know the law, the lawyers can say anything making the case look bigger. Basically the lawyer manage to get success fee based on cases that's not even heard and persuade the friend to buy scam insurance (something similar with sim lim scam).

Also, in my country many insurance companies are fraudulent. Basically their fees can vary by hundreds of time. They sell it by obfuscating the fee in their contract. The fee is mentioned uncleanly in 1 out of 28 pages contract.

All those are market failure.

Should governments' fix it? Well, government didn't fix it. No.

However, a government that have to compete with other governments may have some incentive to fix it.
 
Let's put it this way.

Regulations.

Someone is probably correct that I may have misunderstood libertarianism.

As a libertarian, I used to think that all regulation is bad.

Businesses shouldn't be regulated.

This is problematic.

The prohibition against the force of fraud is regulation. And I like that.

So I got to modify my opinion. One way is not to count prohibition against force or fraud as regulation. So don't regulate, but anything has to be "consensual."

This leads to another problem. That means splitting hair. Why doesn't the prohibition against force or fraud count as regulation? I mean, like all regulations, it's pretty much the law.

Another problem is what counts as consensual is often grey. What about misleading contracts? What about the unfair deal? What about common consent like voting?

So I change my mind.

Things should be regulated to be fair and consensual.

The problem is, governments are evil at doing so.

When governments regulate, their concern is not fairness and consent. For example, when the government prohibits prostitution, their issue is not consent or justice. Their problem is to prevent rich guys from getting women too quickly.

When governments regulate drugs, their concern is not reducing harm or making sure that the drugs are consensual. Governments' true motive is to profit cartel.
Also, there is research that the kind of voters that want drugs prohibited are the kind of voters that want sex outside marriage prohibited. Those are oppressors kind of voters.

So regulations can be reasonable but the current political system don't cause good regulations.

We need a free market on top of those governments.
 
'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?
What is your intent to validate Picaro's assertion that the free market is a myth?

You did.
 
What is your intent to validate Picaro's assertion that the free market is a myth?

You did.

The full free market is impossible. Full libertarianism is impossible.

But if we have a free market on top of things, that's good enough.

Find a cinema governed by the free market. In a sense, none are. In a sense, all are.

Each cinema has owners that govern the cinema. That owner can decide what movie to show and that you can't bring your popcorn to the cinema.

However, the cinema themselves are governed by the market. If the owner decides to raise the ticket price you go to another cinema. If the owners murder customers, government get involved.

Murdering customers are "wrong." That's why even a libertarian like me will want somebody, either government or protectors or protectorate sponsors to interfere and punish murder.

Raising ticket price unfairly is also wrong. However, I do not consider that as too crazy because it's something that can be corrected automatically by the free market anyway.

Things go wrong if I do not know the price before I get into the cinema and then once I am in they charged me a million dollar saying that there is a price increase.

The same with the state.

The free market does not govern the states. Not directly. We have voters; we have dictators, we have kings.

However, the states are governed by free market indirectly. As states compete with one another, countries become more and more minarchists.

States with high tax will have their taxpayers move to another country. A nation with minimum wage will have their jobs move to China.

So raising tax too high is "wrong" in my opinion. However, we don't need to worry about that too much. Even if states have the right to raise tax too much, their rulers will, often have the incentive not to.

High taxes drive taxpayers away, like top ticket price drive customers away.

All we need to do is to speed that up.

States that are ruled by Luddites like the Qing dynasty will be forced to sign bad deals by more advanced states.

Countries already compete with one another. Let's make provinces do that too.

I like libertarianism. I think the primary purpose of a state should be enforcing contracts and protecting people from force or fraud.

But how do we achieve that? How do we "force" a state to be libertarian?
We can't. Even if we can, I am not sure about how right it is.

Is it okay to force China to import opium? What about forcing Europe to allow more immigrants? Or what about forcing Saudi Arabia to be secular? Or what about forcing Qatar to be democratic?

Is it right to do so?

Many people have this mindset that my ideology is the best, the only right one, and everyone must use this same ideology.

The communist, the capitalist, the democratist, the theocratist think that their idea is so great everyone should do it. They all think that the whole world should use their ideology. Often, libertarians are like that too.

I disagree. I like libertarianism. However, I do not consider those not libertarians as wrong. Like I love cheese, but it doesn't mean that those who like chocolate is wrong.

I think rules from each state should be minimal just like rules for corporations.

Those should be things like
1. Don't attack other states
2. Don't prevent citizens from going out (unless probably jailed criminals)
3. Don't change laws too abruptly so those who don't like it can go
4. Don't crucify cats (optional)
5. Do whatever you want. Just get rich.

That's pretty much it. I think the market will take care of the rest.

States with too much tax will have taxpayers go to other countries.

I am not even sure rule #4 is essential. I mean, yet if a state can crucify cats, those states will have all tourists go. Also, other countries won't join in the alliance of protecting such lands.

States that violate #4 will justly and karmically be invaded and conquered by other countries.
 
Last edited:
All governments have flaws, the goal should be to serve as much of the population as possible, we have an over abundance of political & money persons more interested in promoting their own wants at the expense of the majority of Americans
 
There is no system that is without flaws. Capitalism is a flawed system that has PROVEN to be successful in providing the best quality of living to the largest number of people. Socialism and Communism can make no such claim. It would be interesting to see a country adopt Libertarianism, I just don't think it's happened yet, but I'm not sure about that.
 
Pure libertarianism is tough. But we can get something close.


1. Pick a fuck up country. Why? If I change the US, or Europe, or China, or Japan. Well, they may agree with my idea. Who knows, my opinion sucks. I will make a lot of people better off. Pick a region in Syria, Afganistan, Iraq, or Venezuela. Things can't go worse there right.

2. Turn all adult age people on those regions into "owners." Owners are like voters. So it's like turning a country "democracy." However, this is a slightly different form of democracy. It's democracy as practiced in corporations. Offer protection to the regions. Of course, for a fee. Notice that the result of the experiment will benefit the whole world. So I would be pretty generous with this.

3. Like in democracy, all adult age people vote. Similar here. All owners vote. Because all adult age people own the city, all adult age people vote. Not much different right?

4. Those who don't like the arrangments are welcome to sell their share. Those on other regions that like the arrangements are welcome to buy shares of the region. This individualized karma. Individuals are free to agree or disagree.

5. Replace welfare with citizen dividend/shareholders dividend. Poor shareholders don't get a welfare check. We give a bonus based on how well the company is run irrelevant to the wealth of a particular shareholder.

This is just common sense. Even in a normal democracy, we have Andrew Young wanting to do this. Welfare encourages people to be poor. Dividend motivates owners to run the country well. BIG DIFFERENCE.

6. Soon, the owners will realize that they will get more dividend if the state is run more efficiently. There goes the common problem of democracy, namely government inefficiency.

Many people blame lobbyist and corrupt politicians for corruption in their country. They never realized that often, the voters themselves, do not want their country to be run well. They have no incentives to do so.

Politicians do not lie to the people as much as we think. They give the people what the people want. Often, it's the people that want the wrong things.

Income taxes, for example, is there because the people do not want others to get rich. It's not efficient. But it's what the people want.

7. Owners will get more dividend if productive taxpayers breed more children than welfare parasites. Taxpayers breed taxpayers. Welfare parasites produce welfare parasites.

8. Soon owners will realize that if the city is safe, investors will come in bringing more to the economy. That leads to more revenue and a higher dividend. This is a libertarian value. The primary purpose of government is security.

9. Owners will realize that legalizing the harmless drug and taxing them would produce more dividend than jailing non-victimless crime.

So I am not saying it's libertarian. It's a democracy with a slight change. Let's see how politic evolves around the idea.
 
Think of it as uber for cities. The government used to govern taxis right? Well, the private sector then rules taxi, and they do it better.

May be we need something like uber but for governing cities.

How it's arranged to differ. In the case of uber, the taxi is still owned by car owners.

I proposed that the voters are declared "owners" of their cities. However, any alternative arrangements would work.

For example, governorship itself can be done by a corporation specializing in "governing" cities, like corporations hiring CEO.
 
Okay fine. I may be wrong. So what's your solution? How exactly we persuade countries to be libertarians?

Countries are more libertarian now than before thanks to competition. What should we do to speed that up?
 
Someone in reddit says this better

The NAP is also central to why ancaps are so maligned. It basically relies on people not pursuing the best course of action for themselves if it violates the rights of another person without a framework to enforce that upon that non-optimal course if action.

It's actually weirdly similar to the altruism requirement for full blown communism we make fun of all the time.

And the solution is simple. Get allies. Pay people to be allies if necessary. I wrote a thread about combining democracy with capitalism and the thread got deleted.

Democracy is war in easy mode really. Thanks to democracy we don't need to deal with Mongol horde or nazi. Persuading people is well within capitalism skill tree. Also we're already more libertarian than our parents. Shouldn't be tough.

Of course once you get allies, why stop at promoting capitalism? Why not go all the way embrace crony capitalism and exploit the people?

If I fail to change the world, I'll go that route.
 
Last edited:
This guy writes the weakness better than I am

  1. It’s unrealistic, by which I mean that it doesn’t map to the way people actually work. It shares this trait with communism. Either could be a fine philosophy for a society where human nature was something significantly different from what it actually is. In practice, my opinion is that a libertarian society would lack sufficient social cohesion to prevent it from either a) being conquered easily from outside, or b) slipping into an essentially feudal society where the less well off would not be able to afford the kind of private services — like a justice system — that the wealthy would, and would become a permanent underclass as a result.
  2. It tends to be an “all or nothing” approach. Libertarians seem to be singularly uninterested in doing things like getting people elected and policies enacted at the local or state level so they could demonstrate how well they work. In discussions with libertarians, I’ve often been told that this simply isn’t possible because of interference from the larger government and that we’ve just got to change the whole system and simply believe them that it will be muuuuuuch better.

It’s a shame, really. There are a number of libertarian ideas that could inform our practice of politics and government in a positive way, but most libertarians seem uninterested in compromise to get part of what they want.

I got it from quora. I wonder if I can put the link here. Actually, what's troubles me so much about libertarians, or at least most of them, is that they can actually "win".

In fact, libertarianism is actually winning. We now live in a far more capitalistic society than our ancestors. Do you see Genghis Khan raiding farmers? Do you see Nazi? Are we richer than our ancestors?

Pure libertarianism isn't necessary nor useful. So what if governments build roads and infrastructure? So what if some businesses are run by governments? There is plenty for everyone.

So what if there is some tax? Excessive tax is bad. Some taxes? Lower than competing nations? In a country that protects freedom and security?

Too many libertarians "bitch" about what's wrong. I think libertarians should just embrace what's already working. Rather than aiming for elimination of tax, why not aim to lower tax. How can we persuade voters to lower tax?

Many ways. Just remind them that your countries are in competition with so many other countries. Tax too high and corporations will incorporate in tax haven. Raise minimum wage and jobs will move to Mexico.

We do not need morality to enforce libertarianism. Voters' own greed and self interests can work.

Or why not align those taxes into something libertarians like.

For example, rather than giving welfare, what about giving universal basic income to all adult citizen? That way, the government can no longer "force" people to be poor by welfare. And then, tell voters that they will get more UBI if they legalize drugs.

Tell voters. You see my shop? You see all the jobs I am creating? I will expand on another state or province if you don't legalize drugs.

Don't be hostile toward those in power. Remember, money is the ultimate power. Capitalists have money. Governments need your tax and you are free to leave. That is called bargaining power. We are powerful. We're not weak. Capitalists are not weak.

Don't despise power. Just like the poor will tend to starve so is the weak will tend to be trampled on. It's just how life works. By despising power and be to hostile to power, libertarians are often at the bad end of oppression. Rather, cherish power that libertarians have. Power to leave. Power to avoid tax legally. Powre of speech.

Capitalism works on greed and selfishness. That's why it's awesome.

The same way, libertarians shouldn't count on principles too much. You want libertarianism, appeal to voters' greed. Tell them they get more if the country is more prosperous.

They won't ask too much. If the people ask too much, productive people will flee to other countries. Don't fear tax too much. Just like shops can't sell stuff at higher price, countries can only tax too much on their own peril.

We do not need to "rebuild" society from the ground up. There are many many ways to slowly change societies to what we want. I expect the world to be far more libertarian in the future. Why? World peace. Peace turns war into a peaceful competition.

Every voter in every country has a strong incentive to choose a system that benefits voters. That won't be far from capitalism.

People need to understand that socialism alone doesn't help the poor. Look at Venezuela. Libertarians also need to realize that 0 socialism isn't practical. What incentive do voters have to vote for capitalism if a few get all and the rest starve?

You see Vietnam war? Why did America lose? Why would those poor farmers side with capitalism if they end up having to pay huge land rent? And what about poor Americans that are drafted so they can defend some landlords in South Vietnam. Of course they're unhappy.

Capitalism is not awesome because it's right. Capitalism is awesome because it benefit voters. I think capitalism can do a good job on that area too. So why not go that way?

Some socialism are like dividend for share holders. Unless other countries provide more freedom and more security at less tax, consider tax the voters' fair share. Of course, if other countries provide more freedom, more security and tax less you can just move there.

Think win-win. Think about how voters get more and yet we are freer. Compromise when necessary.

I usually rant about turning voters into shareholders with the right to get a dividend and sell citizenship. People don't like my idea. I think it'll be a reality in the near future.

However, it doesn't have to go that far. Most people are not immigrants, and most don't produce too many kids. Democracy is "almost" like corporation already. Democracy is just a corporation with an excessively complex dividend structure.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top