CDZ What would Libertarians Vote for in this Hypothetical Referendum?

[Onyx]

To clarify what I believe @Gr88 is saying, is that it is better for states to determine everything and you can just choose which state you want to live in.

 

[Onyx]

And what about racism? Racism is stupid. But if some people want to live only with their own kind, so what?

You know, anarchism actually has a large sub ideology known as National Anarchism, which argues that all human beings should live in peaceful coexistence within different communities which share a single racial background.

Not very intimidating. They get a D- for anarchist militant chic.

 

[grbb]

And what about racism? Racism is stupid. But if some people want to live only with their own kind, so what?

You know, anarchism actually has a large sub ideology known as National Anarchism which argues that all human beings should live in peaceful coexistence within different communities which share a single racial background.

Would I live in that kind of country? No. Will I be comfortable living among fellow chinese?

Hmmm.... Most chinese are meritocratic, hard working, and like less government. Some of my chinese friends, however, praise western socialism. Also chinese tend to value conformity too much.

I don't know. I probably prefer to hang out in more diverse people, or in a jungle given that I make money online anyway.

But that shows another sample of moving out to society we like solves problems.

Rather than complaining about choices we don't have, why not see choices we DO have, and make the most of it.

Choices we don't have will then open up.

It's like a store.

I can't change the price of store A, but I can go to store B, and if too many people go to store B, then store A will lower it's price.

You can't change your country to be libertarian. But you can move to more libertarian countries.

If too many productive people move to more libertarian countries and contribute economically there, other countries will be forced to be more libertarians.

What about if you are not economically productive?

Well, then we have another issue altogether aren't we?

 

[Onyx]

Rather than complaining about choices we don't have, why not see choices we DO have, and make the most of it.

It isn't about what liberties you do or do not have.

It is the idealistic belief that mankind should be free, rather than subjected to state slavery.

I can't change the price of store A, but I can go to store B, and if too many people go to store B, then store A will lower it's price.

I am not a fan of this equivalency. Countries are not mere stores.

Humans have their land, livelihood, family, friends, and culture tied up into their country.

If too many productive people move to more libertarian countries and contribute economically there, other countries will be forced to be more libertarians.

More likely that libertarian state (which would never exist btw) would be subjected to neocolonialism.

It should also be noted that no state can sustain a limited government for very long, since like capitalism, all power starts to consolidate in favor of a powerful concentrated minority.

 

[PK1]

Do you want to live in a state where people eat cats? What about freedom to torture cat.

That's a gray area, and an interesting example. Federal laws protect basic human rights, but other animals?
Libertarianism typically refers to human rights.
However, i can see it extended to animals ... within a defined group of "protected species".

No, I would not want to live in a state that tortures cats or other animals

 

[grbb]

Rather than complaining about choices we don't have, why not see choices we DO have, and make the most of it.

It isn't about what liberties you do or do not have.

It is the idealistic belief that mankind should be free, rather than subjected to state slavery.

I can't change the price of store A, but I can go to store B, and if too many people go to store B, then store A will lower it's price.

I am not a fan of this equivalency. Countries are not mere stores.

Humans have their land, livelihood, family, friends, and culture tied up into their country.

If too many productive people move to more libertarian countries and contribute economically there, other countries will be forced to be more libertarians.

More likely that libertarian state (which would never exist btw) would be subjected to neocolonialism.

It should also be noted that no state can sustain a limited government for very long, since like capitalism, all power starts to consolidate in favor of a powerful concentrated minority.

Onyx got a point. Power starts to consolidate in favor of a powerful concentrated minority.

Fortunately for libertarians, those power are now consolidated in IT start up founder.

Uber, facebook, and google, can pretty much operate anywhere in the world without permission from any political leaders.

You can put ads in google adwords without paying tax!!!!!!!!!!

Technically a country can tax all ads. A country can require all online ads that display ads on their country to pay tax or observe anti porn regulation.

Do they?

Tough. If they did some will just break the law openly and nothing they can do about it.

If some people can break the law openly with impunity the rest won't follow the law.

 

[grbb]

The point of this post is the following.

Choice 1 is ideal. But not practical.

Choice 2 is just as good, AND practical. In fact, we are close to choice 2 right now, if not already there.

 

[PK1]

The point of this post is the following.

Choice 1 is ideal. But not practical.

Choice 2 is just as good, AND practical. In fact, we are close to choice 2 right now, if not already there.

I don't see Choice 1 as impractical. The US Bill of Rights crosses state boundaries and protects basic liberties of ALL citizens ... nowadays.

 

[grbb]

And where is your so called US Bill of Rights when government prohibit men from smoking joint, draft your sons to war, tax you for your earning, and tell you to worry about some handsome billionaire possibly grabbing your daughter's pussy.

I am a practical man. Any "right" is just theoretical unless it's actually enforced.

I know. It's "wrong" for government to prohibit ganja. Guess what? Right and wrong is always theoretical. Did government do it? Yes. Did they successfully do it? Yes. They can't do that! Well.... They did.

 

[grbb]

Let's imagine a very simple right. Right to be rich, and then inherit all your wealth to your biological children.

Can billionaires like Donald Trump have 100 such children in US?

Think about it.

He can't.

Child support law will bankcrupt him.

But a welfare parasite can have 30 children with governments money. Yet when some billionaire that can afford large number of children wants to have 30 children, he got slapped with alimony and huge child support payment

Western civilization is dying literally. They don't have enough birth rate.

Birth rate among their best and brightest is low. Think about it.

You will inherit all your wealth and technology to some arab immigrants till you learn to have testosterone again.

If you are poor, then yea, go to western civilization. They have welfare. They have minimum wage. They have stuffs to help the poor and parasitic.

Once you're rich. Man.... Go to thailand and have some concubines. Yea you don't have right to criticize the king. So what?

Or what about right to walk naked on the street? You want that to be universal? I think the fact that in some states it's okay and in other it's not is ideal.

Would you rather a state that protect your daughter from having her pussy gropped by a handsome billionaire, or would you rather a state that protect your daughter from drafts. I would jump to second state right away. Pussy groping should be a crime. It should be at most misdemeanor.

 

[grbb]

Or what about polygamy, contract marriage, and burning flag. Do you think all country should allow that? Or should it be on state to state basis.

By the way, getting gf will be much tougher if polygamy were legal.

 

[PK1]

And where is your so called US Bill of Rights when government prohibit men from smoking joint, draft your sons to war, tax you for your earning, and ...
I am a practical man. Any "right" is just theoretical unless it's actually enforced.

I agree; the US Bill of Rights needs to evolve more fully to support individual liberties for ALL citizens across states.
Flag burning is currently protected. However, ALL adult rights should be extended to protect public nudity, safe drug use, polygamy (both polygyny & polyandry), right to die, etc.

Taxes are necessary in a civil society. As i mentioned previously, individual liberty has to be balanced with social services/obligations, such as public safety (military, police), legal system, infrastructure, and public services (schools, hospitals/ERs, parks, etc).

A major foundation of ethical society in ALL states should be CHILD SUPPORT (beyond 1 week of age).
Regardless of an individual's preference for a marriage arrangement, if one agrees to have a child, responsibility for the child's healthy development should follow.

 

[grbb]

And how would government enforce child support?

Tell that every child need $10k a year and prohibit all parents that earn less from having children?

Make sure the child support is proportional with man's wealth so guys like Bill Gates can only afford 10 children at most? (American way is the latter).

Polygamy could lead to constant wars by the way. Just look at arab. not that I think it should be illegal. You can do it anyway in US informally.

But just saying. With polygamy, some guys get many the rest don't get any.

When too many males don't get laid they tend to rebel. In democratic countries, including Turkey, this is very frowned upon. Not that it's wrong. But we can agree it's not popular.

Or what about sex with 17 years old? What would libertarian principles do that? Should all states in our planet have same age of consent? Should it be state by state?

 

[grbb]

Okay here is another question.

What about if a group of people, say 1 million, say we want to make our own country and makes our own rule. And say the rules are not libertarians.

Can they have that? Say they have their own land and stuff.

Actually that's kind of problematic here. You can't just buy land and declare your own country. But say you can. Is it wrong for them to do so?

 

[PK1]

What about if a group of people, say 1 million, say we want to make our own country and makes our own rule. And say the rules are not libertarians.
Can they have that? Say they have their own land and stuff.

Since the Trump POTUS election victory, i've heard about "CALexit", the initiative to have the state of California separate from USA to be its own nation.
With a pop of nearly 40 million & lots of resources/technology, the nation of California would be formidable.

 

[grbb]

Yea but libertarians would complain. Not all of California wants to secede. And that would be another collective decision, with collective result.

United States is actually closer to libertarianism. If you don't like it in one state you just move to another. If no state fit your ideal, perhaps it's impossible.

The problem is federal government requiring high income tax and huge minimum wage.

 

[PK1]

Yea but libertarians would complain. Not all of California wants to secede. And that would be another collective decision, with collective result.

There is no pure "Libertarianism", unless it exists on its own isolated property like an island, with few people.

 

[grbb]

That is correct. And that's precisely the point. #2 is the way to go. Can't go with one anyway.

To be frank, I can stomach a bit of socialism or even citizenship dividend as long as it's done in ways that do not encourage poor men to have more children.

I really can't stand anti drug laws. The sole purpose of government is security and yet half of the prison is filled with someone con sensually selling normal harmless goods.

Imagine if government criminalize spices? Imagine if government criminalize alcohol? It's done. We don't even have to imagine. We just have very corrupt government.