Why aren't more countries libertarian?

[ScienceRocks]

Because it doesn't work. period...

Government does need to regulate and invest in order for the society to function....The closes we've ever came to such on this planet is tribal societies in africa or hunter gathering groups.

Liberterianism is as extreme as communism but on the opposite side...Both don't work.

 

[Onyx]

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.

I'm not in any libertarian party, but community organizations and volunteer groups have been the only ones maintaining the roads in my community for over a decade. You neglect infrastructure long enough and every individual that is economically reliant on it will chip in.

Social anarchists believe in transitioning from state control to voluntary platforms in a participatory society. Works for me.

 

[Onyx]

Liberterianism is as extreme as communism but on the opposite side...Both don't work.

What if I told you there are libertarian communists?

 

[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.,

Another ignoramus who thinks he knows what libertarianism is.

We have thousands of years of history demonstrating exactly what it is, and it's crap as an ideology; it didn't work in the decade after our Revolution, either, which is why another Convention was held, and it never existed afterwards again. I've read all the assorted magical ad hoc hand waves and fantasies, so yes, I know what it is, and it's obvious 'libertarians' themselves can't even agree on what it is; that's because it's fantasy fiction and libertarians can all make up whatever they want to claim it is.

 

[Onyx]

We have thousands of years of history demonstrating exactly what it is

Or something else. It has been conclusively proven that you do have a fucking clue what libertarianism is.

 

[westwall]

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.

Exactly. The reality is if you have a country that has things that people want, and you don't have a centralized military, somebody is going to take it away from you.

 

[Picaro]

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.

no, it's just a cognitively dissonant collection of slogans and political fiction, made up as it goes along, with no practical sense that can be found in reality.

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

That's funny, since that's all 'libertarianism' is.

 

[Picaro]

We have thousands of years of history demonstrating exactly what it is

Or something else. It has been conclusively proven that you do have a fucking clue what libertarianism is.

Neither do 'libertarians', speaking of clueless.

 

[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.

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.

Only people weak minded want government. Thousands of years of failure, you'd think they would learn by now.

There is no force that has caused more death and suffering, than government. Because after all, government is just another word for rule by criminal.

 

[westwall]

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.

I think you need to hit the history books there. First off there have been very few true Republics, and those that have been around have lasted for many more than 40 years. In fact, the worlds first Republic, San Marino (founded in 300 something or other) is still extant! Hows that for longevity!

 

[boedicca]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who crave power (and are somewhat organized) and those who wish to be left alone (and are not organized).

Most countries are ruled by the former.

 

[Onyx]

Exactly. The reality is if you have a country that has things that people want, and you don't have a centralized military, somebody is going to take it away from you.

That's a dipshit argument. The RIAU was 100,000 strong. The CNT alone formed a professional European army with 35,000 troops.

You can have a military without a state, if it exists to protect a free society and not secure the power of its rulers.

 

[Onyx]

I think you need to hit the history books there. First off there have been very few true Republics, and those that have been around have lasted for many more than 40 years.

Define a true republic. My definition is a state with its own elected leaders.

 

[Onyx]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who crave power (and are somewhat organized) and those who wish to be left alone (and are not organized)

Another dipshit argument. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have freedom and individual liberty without sacrificing organization.

Whoever came up with the absurd notion that maximum liberty means no organization needs to be bitch slapped.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Name one successful first world nation that don't use regulations to enjoy the high quality of air, water and food that they enjoy. Never has the private sector respected the other man across the street or the environment that we depend on.

Show me one that doesn't use tax dollars to fund education, science, and infrastructure...I can tell you right now that the Greeks, Romans and Chinese ancient civilizations did exactly that....Ancient Egypt all the way back to the dawn of civilization played taxes for these things.

I bet you can't name one...

Why? Because Liberterianism is the system of the hunter gathering man.

 

[Onyx]

no, it's just a cognitively dissonant collection of slogans and political fiction, made up as it goes along, with no practical sense that can be found in reality.

That would go against your 'matter of fact' definition from not long ago.

 

[Rustic]

Socialism/progressivism has never worked in the history of the planet… But the control freaks keep on trying.
You know what Einstein about that? Lol
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results....

 

[Onyx]

Name one successful first world nation that don't use regulations to enjoy the high quality of air, water and food that they enjoy.

Regulation is important. The question is whether state regulation is more important than self regulation. Communities are dependent on their state to do what's right, when more often than not the state acts in the interests of the aristocracy. Did you know that nearly every regulation has a corporate lobby behind it? Why? Barriers of entry and cost of doing business.

If we lived in a world where society self regulated itself against obvious wrongdoing, such as dumping toxic waste into rivers, making employees work in unsafe conditions, and hunting endangered species, it would be a much better place. Due to the state body and its monopoly on force, socially responsible individuals are rendered immobile until the use of force is officially sanctioned under law.

I'll take collective responsibility to a monopoly of force any day of the week.

 

[gipper]

Name one successful first world nation that don't use regulations to enjoy the high quality of air, water and food that they enjoy. Never has the private sector respected the other man across the street or the environment that we depend on.

Show me one that doesn't use tax dollars to fund education, science, and infrastructure...I can tell you right now that the Greeks, Romans and Chinese ancient civilizations did exactly that....Ancient Egypt all the way back to the dawn of civilization played taxes for these things.

I bet you can't name one...

Why? Because Liberterianism is the system of the hunter gathering man.

You admire death and suffering. Why?

 

[westwall]

Exactly. The reality is if you have a country that has things that people want, and you don't have a centralized military, somebody is going to take it away from you.

That's a dipshit argument. The RIAU was 100,000 strong. The CNT alone formed a professional European army with 35,000 troops.

You can have a military without a state, if it exists to protect a free society and not secure the power of its rulers.

Not really. You can have an insurgency, but not a real army. To have an army you need support. That's why Sparta was able to build such a strong army, they had 10,000 hoplites who did nothing but train for war. Everybody else had to farm most of the time. The CNT was a mobilized group of union thugs. When they ran into a real army they had their collective asses handed to them.