CDZ Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws

[grbb]

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

 

[grbb]

Libertarianism, at least the extreme version, is not used in most part of the world. In fact, with the exception with fail republic of minerva and Roger's Ver's future libertarian countries, libertarianism isn't really used.

You can have the best ideology in the world, if people don't use it what for? You can have the best widget in the world, if no body buys, who cares?

Privatizing states will promote libertarianism for the one most important person in the world. You. You need only one libertarian state, and you move there. If that state is prosperous, everyone will be libertarian.

The same goes for other ideologies. Minarchies, ancap, georgism, syariah, communism, socialism.

Reasoning goes only so far. Just fucking try it. See if it works. No excuse. But my government don't let me start my own country? That's not an excuse. As politicans you should be able to lobby people around and get that permitted. Show them the benefits.

 

[Picaro]

'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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

'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?

 

[Picaro]

'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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

Why, Picaro, I don't believe I've ever even had a discussion with you about anything. Nor do I recall ever once posting a meme of any kind any place on the Internet. I don't even know what your views are about things, aside from your thought here with regard to free-markets being a fantasy.

If you'd like to discuss economic theory and monetary policy, I could probably follow along. What's your problem with free-markets?

 

[Oddball]

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

Perfection cannot ever be an option.

Socialism "wins" at the point of a gun, just like all other flavors of statism do.

The State cannot be run like a business, because it is an agent of aggressive force, not volitional trade.

Taxation is theft. The State is organized crime made legal.

 

[grbb]

Actually that's one of my point.

There is no such thing as perfect ideology. Good ideology? Good for who?

What's awesome for some people is bad for another.

And that is precisely why we need experimental local governments. Try something locally and let only people that like it to go there.

Want a libertarian city? Pick a city filled with libertarian and live there.

This is can be done in states already. Want weed? Go to Colorado.

I just want the idea to be more comprehensive.

Want weed and xtc? Go to some city in colorado.

But what about if some city in colorado becomes prosperous due to capitalism? Then people from other city will come to that place and then vote differently destroying freedom.

It's like europes are more prosperous than middle east. Yet middle eastern refugees come to europe and vote for syariah, the very thing that make middle eastern, well, middle eastern.

That's the problem of democracy.

Hence, I propose that local governments should have "owners". If you own a house, and accept 10 refugees, the refugees can't kick you out of your own house. If your house is democracy, and you accept 10 refugees you might as well give your house.

 

[Oddball]

Actually that's one of my point.

There is no such thing as perfect ideology. Good ideology? Good for who?

What's awesome for some people is bad for another.

And that is precisely why we need experimental local governments. Try something locally and let only people that like it to go there.

Want a libertarian city? Pick a city filled with libertarian and live there.

This is can be done in states already. Want weed? Go to Colorado.

I just want the idea to be more comprehensive.

Want weed and xtc? Go to some city in colorado.

But what about if some city in colorado becomes prosperous due to capitalism? Then people from other city will come to that place and then vote differently destroying freedom.

It's like europes are more prosperous than middle east. Yet middle eastern refugees come to europe and vote for syariah, the very thing that make middle eastern, well, middle eastern.

That's the problem of democracy.

Hence, I propose that local governments should have "owners". If you own a house, and accept 10 refugees, the refugees can't kick you out of your own house. If your house is democracy, and you accept 10 refugees you might as well give your house.

"Love it or leave it" isn't an argument...It's the slogan of an authoritarian thug.

Beside that, there's no modern place I can live completely free from the iron fist of gubmint....The apologists for subservience to the mob that they like over the subservience to the mob that they don't like are positively sickening, to go with intellectually vapid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarians see others as parasites (I used to be libertarians).

Really?? This is a news flash.. There's no such attitude. The way that govt TRIES to help those in need often has side effects and tends to perpetuate poverty and malaise.. You should probably figure out you've NEVER been a "libertarian"...

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.

Without a strong regard for the 10th amendment, that option of "moving" dies quickly.. And it depends HOW the taxation occurs. Right NOW you have threat of "pink progressives" bringing back WEALTH taxes, taxing financial transactions, bringing back the DEATH tax... And when the system EXCUSES nearly half of tax filers from paying ANYTHING to support federal activities -- That's not a "protection fee" of any kind.. It's a redistribution of risk and responsibility to about the top 20% of "earners"...

Look at the fuss about the last bill.. The section that stopped subsidizing rich people for PAYING enormous state and local taxes should have been a no-brainer.. But instead, the states that have punitive and overly progressive tax systems squealed about it...

Don't even KNOW what you mean by a "protection tax".. That's a term the MAFIA USES to exhort protection from business owners in their turf neighborhoods... Not a very good connotation to that phrase...

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.

You've got some kind of special distortion of this whole "baby mama" picture.. Like the wrong-headed assertion that welfare women will not pick poor fathers... Don't know what country or planet you live on -- but LEGAL prostitution is NOT a campaign to end welfare... You need to unpack a whole lot of assumptions you've been pushing in multiple discussions because you're fixated on moving women out of poverty thru the use of their bodies for sex... This IS NOT a winning political platform plank...

And you need to STOP speaking for Libertarians that would "let people starve"... The issue is to PROMOTE participation in providing goods and services to others so that you are rewarded for those contributions. Not a DEPENDENCY on free stuff provided by other people's money as a permanent state..

You do not promote personal independence by building massive Fed Housing ghettoes that PERPETUATE crime, racial bias and poverty as this country did in the 50s and 60s... You do not promote personal independence by claiming a "living wage" or a "guaranteed income" that will make HSchool graduation rates WORSE.. You do not HELP the poor by "promoting the job" and not the PERSON... You trap them in dead end, endangered jobs that about to vanish with automation and the changing nature of "a job"....

I hereby revoke your "libertarian card" as a vehicle for pushing what is essentially an anarcho-capitalist agenda. Libertarians are the ONLY HOPE for removing the Government Corporate collusion that NEITHER existing party will address.. We don't want the govt to subsidize or offer tax breaks for ANYTHING that already exists in the marketplace.. Neither do we want the vast common law that makes "free market" possible to be usurped. And we don't want government by corporations either. There's a misconception that Fed agencies are ONLY there to punish and prosecute market abuses... But if you look at the CHARTERS of Fed agencies like the Commerce Dept, the Agriculture Dept, the FAA or FDA --- they have a conflict of interest.. Because their charter is to BOTH PROMOTE and assist big business at the same time they are the watchdogs for those market segments. Corporations that "pay no taxes" DO SO because of a corrupt ability to grant special favors to SOME companies and not to other competitors..

Reading your OP -- I'm pretty much convinced you've never Reason Magazine or any of the Libertarian think tank materials.. And it's MORE than annoying for ANY political movement to have "endorsements" from folks that are actually misinformed or contrary to their basic principles...

 

[flacaltenn]

'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 can "out-choice" ANY progressive or conservative on ANY issue.. That's not "Marxism" man.. Your evidence is weak ad homs.

 

[Picaro]

'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.

No 'Liberarian' of course goes near answering the criticisms in the article I linked to, which is only par for the course; 'Liberetarains' much prefer making it up as they go along. As for 'ad homs', I didn't make, any, that's just a knee jerk reaction typical from ideologues who think they can't be criticized; after all 'Libertarianism' has never failed; that's because it never actually existed and therefore can't be criticized.

As for ''social liberties', not many 'Libertarians' think otherwise than this:

.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."

Stirling S. Newberry


... as opposed to Jefferson's opinion; you remember Jefferson; the 'Libertarians' use his big giant government statue as a Party symbol:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

Jefferson's primary beliefs are based in 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke or any other grandiose name dropping fantasies. His views on suffrage and individual freedoms are very different than the ''Libertarian Party's or the Democratic Party's current fashionable memes.

 

[Picaro]

"Love it or leave it" isn't an argument...It's the slogan of an authoritarian thug..

Actually it is very much an excellent argument, and one Thomas Jefferson made quite often. It fits quite well with American freedoms to choose; you can leave whenever you want. Yet, almost nobody does, for some odd reason, despite all the evul Xians, 'evul statist robbery', 'racism', ad nauseam.True, his second term was essentially a military dictatorship, but he was also right in resorting to using Federal troops to enforce the embargo.

 

[flacaltenn]

No 'Liberarian' of course goes near answering the criticisms in the article I linked to, which is only par for the course; 'Liberetarains' much prefer making it up as they go along. As for 'ad homs', I didn't make, any, that's just a knee jerk reaction typical from ideologues who think they can't be criticized; after all 'Libertarianism' has never failed; that's because it never actually existed and therefore can't be criticized.

And yet, here you are demagoguing a single stupid and patently FALSE article about libertarians. I addressed SPECIFICALLY the charges that idiot author made by name-calling.. You just have no refutation of the concrete examples I gave you...

We ARE the party of Civil (social) liberties... Without the slicing and dicing of constituencies for political advantage. Our conviction to social and economic freedom being intimately coupled is absolute and never changes...

If you REALLY WANTED to stop corporate/govt collusion, lobbying, foreign nation building, abusive criminal systems, poverty and government meddling in markets they know nothing about -- you need to stop[ voting for "winners" and start paying attention to the PRINCIPLES and opportunity represented by our "true liberal" founders.. And looking for 3rd party and Independent choices on the ballot..

Modern POLITICAL libertarianism STARTS with a full acceptance of our Constitution and ALL of the Bill of Rights. But more important is the backbone of COMMON LAW which is a greater tool against corporate abuse and piracy than most any "regulation regime" that the govt can claim and then NOT manage or administer...

 

[flacaltenn]

'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.

No 'Liberarian' of course goes near answering the criticisms in the article I linked to, which is only par for the course; 'Liberetarains' much prefer making it up as they go along. As for 'ad homs', I didn't make, any, that's just a knee jerk reaction typical from ideologues who think they can't be criticized; after all 'Libertarianism' has never failed; that's because it never actually existed and therefore can't be criticized.

As for ''social liberties', not many 'Libertarians' think otherwise than this:

.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."

Stirling S. Newberry


... as opposed to Jefferson's opinion; you remember Jefferson; the 'Libertarians' use his big giant government statue as a Party symbol:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

Jefferson's primary beliefs are based in 'Bolingbrokism', not Locke or any other grandiose name dropping fantasies. His views on suffrage and individual freedoms are very different than the ''Libertarian Party's or the Democratic Party's current fashionable memes.

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...

 

[flacaltenn]

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

Perfect. There is no more fundamental principle in Libertarian belief than those words of Jefferson.. It's a FUNDAMENTAL of libertarianism... Compare those words to for instance ---

All Libertarians say no to sexual assault
by Staff on September 28, 2018 in Features

Whenever somebody joins the Libertarian Party, they first thing they are asked to do is to check the box next to these words: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” This is often called the non-aggression principle. Libertarians are unalterably opposed to using force or fraud in personal relationships, or to prevail in disputes. Sexual assault is near the top of anyone’s list of prohibited initiations of force. Unlike Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians take it a step further. We oppose electing or appointing politicians, bureaucrats, or judges whose policies and decisions will hurt people or take from them through war, government-run welfare, crony capitalism, and consensual crime laws.

All Libertarians say no to sexual assault | Libertarian Party

You have us confused with anarchists.. Anarchists do not embrace law and Constitution and the principles of the Founding fathers of America...

 

[Oddball]

"Love it or leave it" isn't an argument...It's the slogan of an authoritarian thug..

Actually it is very much an excellent argument, and one Thomas Jefferson made quite often. It fits quite well with American freedoms to choose; you can leave whenever you want. Yet, almost nobody does, for some odd reason, despite all the evul Xians, 'evul statist robbery', 'racism', ad nauseam.True, his second term was essentially a military dictatorship, but he was also right in resorting to using Federal troops to enforce the embargo.

Actually, it's a shit argument....It's as though The State is your parent and telling you "it's my way or the highway".

Contrary to the attitude of the statist, gubmint isn't my mommy & daddy.

 

[grbb]

Libertarians see others as parasites (I used to be libertarians).

Really?? This is a news flash.. There's no such attitude. The way that govt TRIES to help those in need often has side effects and tends to perpetuate poverty and malaise.. You should probably figure out you've NEVER been a "libertarian"...

I always thought that welfare parasites as parasites. They are responsible for welfare. First for being poor and worthless. Second by obviously voting for bigger and bigger welfare checks.

May I am never a libertarian. I like some aspects of libertarians. I like free market. I like shopping for best deals instead of arguing what's right.

It doesn't have to be libertarianism. Basically what I want is proper alignment between individuals' interests and productivity as a whole or the groups' interests.

Take a look at drug prohibition. What incentive do voters have to ensure that truly dangerous drugs are prohibited?

Imagine a drug that will make you smart with no negative effect. However, the drug works only for 10% of the population. I bet 90% of the population would criminalize the drug so you don't have an edge.

With competition among states, the 10% will simply move to another state that allow it. Eventually all states will allow such drugs.

Some of those drugs are LSD, DMT, Psychobilin, and XTC. It can make some people (autistic but high IQ people) smarter.

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.

Without a strong regard for the 10th amendment, that option of "moving" dies quickly.. And it depends HOW the taxation occurs. Right NOW you have threat of "pink progressives" bringing back WEALTH taxes, taxing financial transactions, bringing back the DEATH tax... And when the system EXCUSES nearly half of tax filers from paying ANYTHING to support federal activities -- That's not a "protection fee" of any kind.. It's a redistribution of risk and responsibility to about the top 20% of "earners"...

And that's precisely what I am advocating. A much stronger 10th amendment, not just for states but for cities and provinces all over the world.

Every city can experiment and people move to where they like.

Look at the fuss about the last bill.. The section that stopped subsidizing rich people for PAYING enormous state and local taxes should have been a no-brainer.. But instead, the states that have punitive and overly progressive tax systems squealed about it...

Don't even KNOW what you mean by a "protection tax".. That's a term the MAFIA USES to exhort protection from business owners in their turf neighborhoods... Not a very good connotation to that phrase...

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.

You've got some kind of special distortion of this whole "baby mama" picture.. Like the wrong-headed assertion that welfare women will not pick poor fathers... Don't know what country or planet you live on -- but LEGAL prostitution is NOT a campaign to end welfare... You need to unpack a whole lot of assumptions you've been pushing in multiple discussions because you're fixated on moving women out of poverty thru the use of their bodies for sex... This IS NOT a winning political platform plank...

And you need to STOP speaking for Libertarians that would "let people starve"... The issue is to PROMOTE participation in providing goods and services to others so that you are rewarded for those contributions. Not a DEPENDENCY on free stuff provided by other people's money as a permanent state..

You do not promote personal independence by building massive Fed Housing ghettoes that PERPETUATE crime, racial bias and poverty as this country did in the 50s and 60s... You do not promote personal independence by claiming a "living wage" or a "guaranteed income" that will make HSchool graduation rates WORSE.. You do not HELP the poor by "promoting the job" and not the PERSON... You trap them in dead end, endangered jobs that about to vanish with automation and the changing nature of "a job"....

I hereby revoke your "libertarian card" as a vehicle for pushing what is essentially an anarcho-capitalist agenda. Libertarians are the ONLY HOPE for removing the Government Corporate collusion that NEITHER existing party will address.. We don't want the govt to subsidize or offer tax breaks for ANYTHING that already exists in the marketplace.. Neither do we want the vast common law that makes "free market" possible to be usurped. And we don't want government by corporations either. There's a misconception that Fed agencies are ONLY there to punish and prosecute market abuses... But if you look at the CHARTERS of Fed agencies like the Commerce Dept, the Agriculture Dept, the FAA or FDA --- they have a conflict of interest.. Because their charter is to BOTH PROMOTE and assist big business at the same time they are the watchdogs for those market segments. Corporations that "pay no taxes" DO SO because of a corrupt ability to grant special favors to SOME companies and not to other competitors..

Reading your OP -- I'm pretty much convinced you've never Reason Magazine or any of the Libertarian think tank materials.. And it's MORE than annoying for ANY political movement to have "endorsements" from folks that are actually misinformed or contrary to their basic principles...

I got to go. I'll get back for the rest.

I am familiar with most libertarians and I think I am far more moderate than most of them.

 

[grbb]

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

Perfect. There is no more fundamental principle in Libertarian belief than those words of Jefferson.. It's a FUNDAMENTAL of libertarianism... Compare those words to for instance ---

All Libertarians say no to sexual assault
by Staff on September 28, 2018 in Features

Whenever somebody joins the Libertarian Party, they first thing they are asked to do is to check the box next to these words: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” This is often called the non-aggression principle. Libertarians are unalterably opposed to using force or fraud in personal relationships, or to prevail in disputes. Sexual assault is near the top of anyone’s list of prohibited initiations of force. Unlike Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians take it a step further. We oppose electing or appointing politicians, bureaucrats, or judges whose policies and decisions will hurt people or take from them through war, government-run welfare, crony capitalism, and consensual crime laws.

All Libertarians say no to sexual assault | Libertarian Party

You have us confused with anarchists.. Anarchists do not embrace law and Constitution and the principles of the Founding fathers of America...

Non aggression pact is actually a weakness. Libertarians compete with so many ideologies. Most of which justify violence and initiation of aggression.

The fact that libertarians are too timid to assert their right is one of the reason why they aren't practiced too much.

Imagine a cinema where every movie goers can watch the movie they like. It's impossible. So it's very natural that in a certain region, we have a government that have powah to initiate force.

If forced to compete most governments will be minarchists anyway. Goverments are getting more and more minarchists all over the world anyway.

Robbers don't arrest themselves you know. Also you don't wait till a cloud of mushroom shows up in your town before you initiate forces.

Also what counts as force and fraud are also problematic. What about someone selling investments with 100% fee of money invested? The fee is obfuscated so most customers miss that. Is that fraud?

I think it is. Many don't think so. Well, someone will have to come up and say okay, our rules say it's prohibited. We don't want those sort of things here.

As long as those governments behave like private parties and compete with one another, like our governments are by the way, then it's good enough for me.

Also most libertarians want libertarianism to be practiced everywhere.

Me. I just want libertarians to be practiced "somewhere".

Imagine if 10% of movie goers want to watch Captain Marvel. Do you want every theater to show Captain Marvel?

If 10% of the world wants libertarianism, I want 10 % of the world's region (more or less) to be libertarians. Then I will move there.

To me. That is success. That is all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws”

Actualy not.

Libertarianism is comprehensively flawed – naïve, sophomoric, and reactionary.

Its simplistic, wrongheaded dogma seeks to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with – a past far from ideal for Americans not white, male, and Christian.

There is no ‘going back’; the United States, along with other Western democracies, is a developed, first-world, industrialized nation where necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies are perfectly appropriate and warranted.