Why aren't more countries libertarian?

[westwall]

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.

Oh? Saddams elections were valid? Mugabes? Just because they have an election doesn't mean it's a valid one.

 

[Onyx]

Oh? Saddams elections were valid? Mugabes? Just because they have an election doesn't mean it's a valid one.

I commend you for your use of selective anecdotes. Let's not forget that Saddam and Mugabe came out of systems that had legitimate elections. Just like your boy Hitler.

I was thinking more along the lines of France, Mexico, Dominican Republic, South Africa, ect. Some countries seem to get a new constitution every other decade. The average Latin American country has had at least 10 different constitutions during its lifespan.

 

[Onyx]

You can have an insurgency, but not a real army.

Uh... no. There is no reason you cannot form an army without a state. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

The CNT was a mobilized group of union thugs. When they ran into a real army they had their collective asses handed to them.

History revisionism, although I bet you never actually read up on the history of the CNT except on wikipedia several minutes ago. They had a complex command structure modeled after other professional European armies, and used modern weapons and battle tactics. Some brigades under the CNT military structure were highly renowned and respected.

The black army also had an excellent organizational structure that held together a force 100,000 strong, and they were able to fight off several armies significantly larger and better equipped than they were for 3 years. All thanks to brilliant commanders and masterful strategy.

 

[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)

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.

Thank you for completely missing the point.

I'll simplify it for you: People Who Crave Power Spend Much More Time & Effort (including organizing) In Order To Gain And Hold Onto Power Than Do People Who Are Not Obsessed With Power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism is merely a ruse for powerful people to do as they wish at the expense of less powerful people, and that includes dark, nefarious reasons as well.

 

[Onyx]

I'll simplify it for you: People Who Crave Power Spend Much More Time & Effort (including organizing) In Order To Gain And Hold Onto Power Than Do People Who Are Not Obsessed With Power.

Alright, but would you concede that anti-authority individuals can also spend a lot of time organizing to prevent rulers from taking power?

 

[Onyx]

Libertarianism is merely a ruse for powerful people to do as they wish at the expense of less powerful people, and that includes dark, nefarious reasons as well.

The most powerful in society pull the strings of the state. They would never want a world where the organizing bodies didn't serve their every whim.

 

[Onyx]

You are an idiot.

I know you turtlenecks don't like to admit it, but France has had five constitutions since 1792.

 

[boedicca]

You are an idiot.

I know you turtlenecks don't like to admit it, but France has had five constitutions since 1792.

So? BFD. You clearly don't understand the differences between the political systems in France and Zimbabwe.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Getting freebies from the government is an addiction......and to keep those freebies coming, you have to give government the power to take other people's money.....that is why libertarianism fails....

 

[gipper]

Libertarianism is merely a ruse for powerful people to do as they wish at the expense of less powerful people, and that includes dark, nefarious reasons as well.

You clearly are uninformed as usual, because what you describe is the most common form of government for the past several thousand years the world over.

Why do you want rule by elite? Are you dumb or just feeble minded?

 

[gipper]

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.

Getting freebies from the government is an addiction......and to keep those freebies coming, you have to give government the power to take other people's money.....that is why libertarianism fails....

Yes...because weak minded people like Jake demand others take care of him. So, he petitions government to give him freebies...thus opening the door to tyranny.

Weak minded people like Jake are too stupid to see that what they have wrought, is far worse than liberty. It is slavery. Jake is a slave, but too dumb to know it.

 

[gipper]

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.

You like to cite 'hunter gathers' as a description of libertarianism. In reality, you should be comparing it to government practiced today...since after all, government today is really unchanged from 5,000 years ago.

Government you so admire, is as antiquated and outdated as hunter gathers. Sadly you are duped like so many into believing using something thousands of years old, is the way to go.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Why aren't ANY countries libertarian? Not a one. Nada.

If it worked someone would have tried it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government, unlike the libertarians' silly comment above, has changed mightily in the last 500 years, driven by the centralization of energy, economics, and administration. What gipper and the other uninformed people want here is a government like Somalia.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why?

Because under true libertarianism there is no "country", just groups of people doing their own thing.

 

[grbb]

I have a different opinion on libertarianism in one important point.

Tax.

A libertarian would dream of a secure country that is also free from tax.

I think if a country is secure free in many ways, tax should be high. After all, why should a country so well governed charged so low for it's protection service? If other countries are messed up, you should charge more.

That being said, it doesn't have to be income tax. I think luxury tax, drug taxes and land taxes are more appropriate.

Now if every country is already free and secure and the tax start getting lower and lower, then well yea tax in all over the world will be lower. I mean market price of protection fee will get lower.

 

[LaDexter]

What to do with drugs?

Libertarians would say legalize it.

I saw a problem there.

Yeah, the legal lobby would lose lots of money...