Why aren't more countries libertarian?

[grbb]

Why does the libertarian party keep failing to gain much approval in US?

I think libertarianism is fine. I like libertarianism. However, it's too unnatural.

Imagine if your country is like a shop. Imagine if the citizens are stockholders.

We can see a country as a big corporation selling "protection service". That country is controlled by stockholders of the big corporations, namely the citizens.

Libertarians are like people saying shops should sell their products at cost and citizens shouldn't have power to profit from their shops. It doesn't make sense. It won't happens.

And those are pretty inconsistent. Under libertarianism, only government shops cannot profit from their shops. All other shops are fine. That's pretty strange right?

I'll give an example.

What to do with drugs?

Libertarians would say legalize it.

I saw a problem there.

Imagine if someone wants something no other shops sell. You are the only shops selling those. Of course you charge high.

Most other countries prohibit that. Why are you legalizing it for free? A moderate solution would be to tax that like hell and pay dividend to all citizens.

So basically, libertarians, are people that think governments should run like a free non profit shops. That the citizens, kings, or whoever have power, do not have right to take advantage of their power.

Libertarian are based on NAP. Why shouldn't more powerful people charge "protection money" from those they protect? Why should they protect for free or at costs? Of course powerful people would use their power to max out their profit.

Is it wrong? There is no one right answer. One thing for sure is, saying that it's wrong won't do much. Nature don't have right and wrong. Nature is just is.

Large number of citizens in any country can be more profited if their country is not fully libertarians. Or at least they think they do. Quite often they're correct. So of course they prefer more moderate solutions than libertarianism.

Welfare parasites won't get welfare if libertarian wins. Many americans won't get job if they have to compete with immigrants. Big companies will face lower margin if the world is libertarians. Currently many big companies are profited by government regulatory cartel. Most poor men won't be able to afford a hot babe if polygamy and prostitution were legal. Women would simply sell themselves to highest bidders. Ugly women will be relatively less happy than beautiful women if feminazism is gone.

The way humans' happiness works is relative happiness is more important than absolute happiness. Many people, out of envy, will vote out anything that give their co species competitors more than advantage than them.

Libertarians approach is all those are wrong/parasites/etc.

In democracy or any system, you need more than just saying wrong. You need to show them more profitable alternatives. Those more profitable alternatives may be closer to libertarianism but still more profitable to people.

For example, a political party, may, for example, promise cash dividend instead of welfare to welfare parasites with no kids. Most welfare parasites would be happy and vote for those and make less kids.

But libertarians can't see that those welfare parasites can vote. They would just say, ah, welfare is wrong, you should starve. So hordes of welfare parasites and those that fear to be on welfare too would not vote libertarians.

 

[gipper]

Libertarianism is the most natural form of organization. Humans want freedom rather than serfdom.

It isn't utilized because the ruling elite hates not being able to enrich and empower themselves, at the expense of society.

 

[Onyx]

The only libertarian states are unrecognized rebel groups. The EZLN Councils of Good Government in Chiapas and the Syrian Kurdish state of Rojava. They are also very left-wing and socialistic.

 

[midcan5]

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke

Marxism of the Right

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson

"Libertarianism and the workplace"? - Marginal REVOLUTION

"Libertarian solutions favored by the political right have contributed even more directly to the erosion of social responsibilities and valued forms of communal life, particularly in the UK and the US. Far from producing beneficial communal consequences, the invisible hand of unregulated free-market capitalism undermines the family (e.g., few corporations provide enough leave to parents of newborn children), disrupts local communities (e.g., following plant closings or the shifting of corporate headquarters), and corrupts the political process (e.g., US politicians are often dependent on economic interest groups for their political survival, with the consequence that they no longer represent the community at large). Moreover, the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era justified the extension of instrumental considerations governing relationships in the marketplace into spheres previously informed by a sense of uncalculated reciprocity and civil obligation. This trend has been reinforced by increasing globalization, which pressures states into conforming to the dictates of the international marketplace." Daniel Bell in Communitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey.. A govt that MAKES A PROFIT??? What a great idea. But first you have to get rid of the $20Trill debt that govt has run up here. Go for it..

Libertarians are NOT against the Govt "profiting". Got no idea where you got that meme. In fact, we ought to have sell off a large of the Western US that they now own and MAKE a profit. Since they "bought it" for peanuts..

Or give most of the BLM land back to Indians in exchange for the money we stole their Indian Trust Fund.

Libertarianism has a LARGE influence on governance in the US. The "Freedom Caucus" is a libertarian group in general. And the "Tea Party" would be Libertarians if they didn't have latent socially Conservative views.

The issue for "gaining power" in the US or any country, is the embedded allegiances to the "brand name" parties that no longer STAND for principles. So -- it's all about winning. Something Libertarians have NEVER been interested in doing if your principles sold out.

Not our fault. We offered 2 TESTED State Governors on the ballot last Nov. Independents who would REJECT the partisan shit slinging and appoint INDEPENDENT voices to leadership.. America wanted to WIN -- and as a result, they LOST...

 

[Onyx]

But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments."

The state degrades those three principal issues whereas freedom secures them. I don't accept the premise that freedom isn't a principal issue. It is in fact the most important principle value. A free man can live a proud life without security, riches, or familial company, whereas it is much more difficult for a slave to live with pride.

"Libertarian solutions favored by the political right have contributed even more directly to the erosion of social responsibilities and valued forms of communal life,

particularly in the UK and the US. Far from producing beneficial communal consequences, the invisible hand of unregulated free-market capitalism undermines the family

I believe in individualist and socialist principles, which makes me a social libertarian. I am also an anarchist, since I do not believe the state should be allowed to exist in any form.

I want members of society to work together and create a prosperous place for the entire community. I do not want my freedom compromised in the process. Statists treat it as an either or dilemma, when it isn't. We can promote personal accountability and social responsibility without increasing the role of authority.

 

[Norman]

Why does the libertarian party keep failing to gain much approval in US?

I think libertarianism is fine. I like libertarianism. However, it's too unnatural.

Imagine if your country is like a shop. Imagine if the citizens are stockholders.

We can see a country as a big corporation selling "protection service". That country is controlled by stockholders of the big corporations, namely the citizens.

Libertarians are like people saying shops should sell their products at cost and citizens shouldn't have power to profit from their shops. It doesn't make sense. It won't happens.

And those are pretty inconsistent. Under libertarianism, only government shops cannot profit from their shops. All other shops are fine. That's pretty strange right?

I'll give an example.

What to do with drugs?

Libertarians would say legalize it.

I saw a problem there.

Imagine if someone wants something no other shops sell. You are the only shops selling those. Of course you charge high.

Most other countries prohibit that. Why are you legalizing it for free? A moderate solution would be to tax that like hell and pay dividend to all citizens.

So basically, libertarians, are people that think governments should run like a free non profit shops. That the citizens, kings, or whoever have power, do not have right to take advantage of their power.

Libertarian are based on NAP. Why shouldn't more powerful people charge "protection money" from those they protect? Why should they protect for free or at costs? Of course powerful people would use their power to max out their profit.

Is it wrong? There is no one right answer. One thing for sure is, saying that it's wrong won't do much. Nature don't have right and wrong. Nature is just is.

Large number of citizens in any country can be more profited if their country is not fully libertarians. Or at least they think they do. Quite often they're correct. So of course they prefer more moderate solutions than libertarianism.

Welfare parasites won't get welfare if libertarian wins. Many americans won't get job if they have to compete with immigrants. Big companies will face lower margin if the world is libertarians. Currently many big companies are profited by government regulatory cartel. Most poor men won't be able to afford a hot babe if polygamy and prostitution were legal. Women would simply sell themselves to highest bidders. Ugly women will be relatively less happy than beautiful women if feminazism is gone.

The way humans' happiness works is relative happiness is more important than absolute happiness. Many people, out of envy, will vote out anything that give their co species competitors more than advantage than them.

Libertarians approach is all those are wrong/parasites/etc.

In democracy or any system, you need more than just saying wrong. You need to show them more profitable alternatives. Those more profitable alternatives may be closer to libertarianism but still more profitable to people.

For example, a political party, may, for example, promise cash dividend instead of welfare to welfare parasites with no kids. Most welfare parasites would be happy and vote for those and make less kids.

But libertarians can't see that those welfare parasites can vote. They would just say, ah, welfare is wrong, you should starve. So hordes of welfare parasites and those that fear to be on welfare too would not vote libertarians.

Because libertarians SUCK at PR.

 

[Picaro]

There are libertarian countries, and have been many in the past. 'Modern 'libertarians' just don't like to admit it, because they are always failed states. Mexico is a fine example, so is Somalia; no real govt., private armies do what they want and pay no taxes, etc., etc. Want a radio station, for instance? Just hire some thugs and go help yourself to one, it's all good there.

 

[Picaro]

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke

Marxism of the Right

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson

"Libertarianism and the workplace"? - Marginal REVOLUTION

"Libertarian solutions favored by the political right have contributed even more directly to the erosion of social responsibilities and valued forms of communal life, particularly in the UK and the US. Far from producing beneficial communal consequences, the invisible hand of unregulated free-market capitalism undermines the family (e.g., few corporations provide enough leave to parents of newborn children), disrupts local communities (e.g., following plant closings or the shifting of corporate headquarters), and corrupts the political process (e.g., US politicians are often dependent on economic interest groups for their political survival, with the consequence that they no longer represent the community at large). Moreover, the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era justified the extension of instrumental considerations governing relationships in the marketplace into spheres previously informed by a sense of uncalculated reciprocity and civil obligation. This trend has been reinforced by increasing globalization, which pressures states into conforming to the dictates of the international marketplace." Daniel Bell in Communitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The first essay you list is a good one. Mike Huber is also good, at least I think one of those links is one of his sites.

 

[Onyx]

Mexico is a fine example, so is Somalia; no real govt., private armies do what they want and pay no taxes, etc., etc.

Mexico isn't even close to libertarian and Somalia is an anocracy. It is a country divided by various governments, warlords, tribal chieftains, and extremist spiritual leaders all at war with each other. It doesn't matter which thug you are living under in Somalia, as you have to follow their rules and pay your dues.

 

[Picaro]

Mexico is a fine example, so is Somalia; no real govt., private armies do what they want and pay no taxes, etc., etc.

Mexico isn't even close to libertarian and Somalia is an anocracy. It is a country divided by various governments, warlords, tribal chieftains, and extremist spiritual leaders all at war with each other. It doesn't matter which thug you are living under in Somalia, as you have to follow their rules and pay your dues.

And of course that what a 'libertarian society' is, those with the largest and/or best led private armies are free to do what they want, so naturally you're wrong. In fact, it was just such a situation with Shay's Rebellion and others going on in other states, that prompted Madison and Pickney to extend military power to the Federal govt. when the 1787 Convention came around; a lot of wealthy people wanted to pass the expense of paying for private armies out of their own pockets to the Feds. Even though Shay's and the other debtor rebellions failed, the political backlash still managed to elect politicians who were favorably disposed to reform the debtor laws that prevailed in many colonies in the depression that had been afflicting the states since the Revolution started and didn't really begin to end until after 1792 it was ratified, to their chagrin, but they still got to shove off their future costs off on the Federal and state govts. via the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Onyx]

And of course that what a 'libertarian society' is, those with the largest and/or best led private armies are free to do what they want, so naturally you're wrong.

Uh... no. Libertarianism is an ideology that revolves around maximizing liberty in society. It's an anti-authority position. Not a 'divide people under small ruthless authoritarian warlords' position.

You can't just invent new meanings to old concepts.

 

[tycho1572]

Because they're seeing what's happening in Sweden.

 

[tycho1572]

Listening to libs is never a smart idea.

 

[tycho1572]

Those crazy dumbasses live in world outside of reality.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Libertarianism is the most natural form of organization. Humans want freedom rather than serfdom.

It isn't utilized because the ruling elite hates not being able to enrich and empower themselves, at the expense of society.

And at the end of the day, freedom isn't always easy. People want the government out of the way when things are going good for them, but the moment they step in dog shit they want the nanny to come in and wipe off their shoe.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There are libertarian countries, and have been many in the past. 'Modern 'libertarians' just don't like to admit it, because they are always failed states. Mexico is a fine example, so is Somalia; no real govt.,

Another ignoramus who thinks he knows what libertarianism is.

 

[westwall]

Why does the libertarian party keep failing to gain much approval in US?

I think libertarianism is fine. I like libertarianism. However, it's too unnatural.

Imagine if your country is like a shop. Imagine if the citizens are stockholders.

We can see a country as a big corporation selling "protection service". That country is controlled by stockholders of the big corporations, namely the citizens.

Libertarians are like people saying shops should sell their products at cost and citizens shouldn't have power to profit from their shops. It doesn't make sense. It won't happens.

And those are pretty inconsistent. Under libertarianism, only government shops cannot profit from their shops. All other shops are fine. That's pretty strange right?

I'll give an example.

What to do with drugs?

Libertarians would say legalize it.

I saw a problem there.

Imagine if someone wants something no other shops sell. You are the only shops selling those. Of course you charge high.

Most other countries prohibit that. Why are you legalizing it for free? A moderate solution would be to tax that like hell and pay dividend to all citizens.

So basically, libertarians, are people that think governments should run like a free non profit shops. That the citizens, kings, or whoever have power, do not have right to take advantage of their power.

Libertarian are based on NAP. Why shouldn't more powerful people charge "protection money" from those they protect? Why should they protect for free or at costs? Of course powerful people would use their power to max out their profit.

Is it wrong? There is no one right answer. One thing for sure is, saying that it's wrong won't do much. Nature don't have right and wrong. Nature is just is.

Large number of citizens in any country can be more profited if their country is not fully libertarians. Or at least they think they do. Quite often they're correct. So of course they prefer more moderate solutions than libertarianism.

Welfare parasites won't get welfare if libertarian wins. Many americans won't get job if they have to compete with immigrants. Big companies will face lower margin if the world is libertarians. Currently many big companies are profited by government regulatory cartel. Most poor men won't be able to afford a hot babe if polygamy and prostitution were legal. Women would simply sell themselves to highest bidders. Ugly women will be relatively less happy than beautiful women if feminazism is gone.

The way humans' happiness works is relative happiness is more important than absolute happiness. Many people, out of envy, will vote out anything that give their co species competitors more than advantage than them.

Libertarians approach is all those are wrong/parasites/etc.

In democracy or any system, you need more than just saying wrong. You need to show them more profitable alternatives. Those more profitable alternatives may be closer to libertarianism but still more profitable to people.

For example, a political party, may, for example, promise cash dividend instead of welfare to welfare parasites with no kids. Most welfare parasites would be happy and vote for those and make less kids.

But libertarians can't see that those welfare parasites can vote. They would just say, ah, welfare is wrong, you should starve. So hordes of welfare parasites and those that fear to be on welfare too would not vote libertarians.

True libertarianism is ultimately a self destructive government. There has to be a modicum of centralized control in this day and age. Back in the 1930's and earlier it took so long to get anything done that a country could survive with that sort of political system. No longer.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

True libertarianism is ultimately a self destructive government. There has to be a modicum of centralized control in this day and age. Back in the 1930's and earlier it took so long to get anything done that a country could survive with that sort of political system. No longer.

Agreed. Pure Libertarianism would never work, just as pure, unbridled Capitalism or pure Communism would never work. There needs to be some central control, but as minimal as needed. I've never been on board with some of these screwballs in the Libertarian Party who think private citizens will build all the roads for us, for example.

 

[Onyx]

True libertarianism is ultimately a self destructive government. There has to be a modicum of centralized control in this day and age.

The average lifespan of a republic is less than 40 years. That's a real case of a self destructive government.