Quote:

---

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.


While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, libertarians are so wrapped up in doing ONLY what benefits them directly and immediately, that they are incapable of banding together long-term for the greater good of all.

Got it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

---

Probably for the same reason the people in a lot of countries haven't tried an actual democratic republic form of government. The folks in power have the money, guns, military and law enforcement to stay in power. Can you imagine anything more frightening to a politician, of any stripe, than the idea that people don't need them, and their government?

---

Quote:

---

I sent an email to the local elections commission last year asking what would happen if I wrote in "none of the above" instead of voting for a candidate. I was told it wouldn't count. If you're stuck with pretty much the same choices, from a Libertarian view, and there's no Libertarian running to protest vote for, what you gonna do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

As a side note/interesting thought. Is having a government the same thing as believing there is a government?

In other words does government really exists, and if it didn't, would we know?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?

---

Learn to do for themselves ?

Crazy idea, huh ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Or become war lords. Or bully people weaker than themselves? Or behave in non altruistic manner that doesn't seem to feature on the libertarian radars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
very noble.

what about everyone else? how are they going to function?

---

Learn to do for themselves ?

Crazy idea, huh ?

---

Or become war lords. Or bully people weaker than themselves? Or behave in non altruistic manner that doesn't seem to feature on the libertarian radars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This is what results when everyone places success above fairness or any other ethical objective. Some people call this “state of nature” “libertarianism,” or “anarchy,” and they think that this might-makes-right society is the ideal form of “government” (no government at all), towards which the world should strive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In a Libertarian society, not everyone will automatically follow libertarian philosophy. There will still be people who want power, but not the checks and balances to contain them.

---

Quote:

---

I note that there are different philosophical strains of libertarianism which range from small government - let private enterpise do its magic, to no government and no laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.

---

Propaganda? Really? What you're talking about has been tried, over and over, and only really works in theory.

---

Quote:

---

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar.

---

So who gets to decide the "provided that" part? What if you and I disagree as to whether you crossed that "provided that" line? How do we come to terms?

---

Quote:

---

This plan includes handing such power off to dark people and people of other religions, another complication many of the frightened white USA libertarian faction would certainly change their song about if it ever came to pass.

---

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any real plan as to how to deal with the inevitable disagreements of a libertarian utopia. Oh, the family will back their side up. Oh, if there's injustice it will be remembered and the do-bad-ers will pay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The process generally described to resolve such differences is for both parties to hire a disinterested arbiter to make such a decision, one that they both agree to abide by.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*dull face*

Anarchy has laws. And organization. I thought we were past the propaganda of the turn of last century.

---

Propaganda? Really? What you're talking about has been tried, over and over, and only really works in theory.

---

Except certain businesses and areas in Catalonia/Barcelona, which I note wants to break away from the Madrid government again and Madrid will probably let them.

Seriously I feel like a broken record here. The stuff works fine so long as you can defend it from the powerhungry conqueror types.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Mal4Prez - the rule of law, not some dictatorial 'decider'. Big difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Should I be pushed out an airlock for making a pass at a woman simply because women are scarce and must not be offended? (Yes, I've read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Super fun book but NOT reality in any way. Funny that the only examples of "successful" libertarian states you can find are in works of fiction... You do know what fiction means, right?)

---

Quote:

---

With the exception of Cuba, and possibly Venezuela.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You mean like with what we're seeing now, with the IRS and the Democrats ? Oh, wait..., that's not a Libertarian philosophy in action, now is it ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

See, reality is complicated. Dealing with those complications leads to something a lot like the systems that actually exists in reality. We have laws. We have people who spend their lives pondering the fairness and applicability of these laws. We have lawyers and DAs. Sure, it's not perfect, but you are blind as a dead bat to think that your dream system wouldn't lead right back to what actually exists.

I would guess that a large portion of libertarians have never tried to make their system work on real people in the real world. Which is kind of the point of the thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
So where exactly did you dream up that third party that's so ideally perfectly neutral and fair and balanced? Is it whatever random passer by happens along? What if you discover after the fact that they are someone connected to the other party and that may have influenced the decision against you? What redress do you have, if you agreed beforehand to abide by the decision of the brother-in-law of the party you offended? Are you just up shit creek?

---

Quote:

---

And what exactly is the definition of "legally allowed" and "provided that...". How fair is it that someone in the next town got punished for doing something that I got away with, simply because the "third party" that I found to decide my case was in a better mood. (Or I offered to buy them lots of free beers.) Shouldn't there be standards?

---

Quote:

---

And what is the "punishment" exactly? Should I lose a hand for stealing, or wash dishes for a week to make up the cost of what I stole? How fair is it to allow punishment one for one person, punishment two for another?

---

Quote:

---

Should I be pushed out an airlock for making a pass at a woman simply because women are scarce and must not be offended?

---

Quote:

---

See, reality is complicated. Dealing with those complications leads to something a lot like the systems that actually exists in reality. We have laws. We have people who spend their lives pondering the fairness and applicability of these laws. We have lawyers and DAs. Sure, it's not perfect, but you are blind as a dead bat to think that your dream system wouldn't lead right back to what actually exists.

---

Quote:

---

I would guess that a large portion of libertarians have never tried to make their system work on real people in the real world. Which is kind of the point of the thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
So where exactly did you dream up that third party that's so ideally perfectly neutral and fair and balanced? Is it whatever random passer by happens along? What if you discover after the fact that they are someone connected to the other party and that may have influenced the decision against you? What redress do you have, if you agreed beforehand to abide by the decision of the brother-in-law of the party you offended? Are you just up shit creek?

---

Where do you get them now? Judges appointed by a political party or elected in a partisan election? Yeah. That's much better.

---

Quote:

---

But the design generally suggested is that folks take the time to review arbiters for fairness and honesty. In the Information age, it shouldn't be that difficult to find information on the arbiter's past decisions.

---

Quote:

---

You mean like how the county commissioner's daughter gets off a drunk driving charge because he's gonna be important in the judge's upcoming election?

---

Quote:

---

Wouldn't you rather have someone who had a demonstrable record of fairness than someone who'll put an out-of-towner in the tank, but let his buddy's son off with a warning?

---

Quote:

---

Usually the punishment would be to make the person who claims damages whole again. Fix the fence, return the money stolen, pay for the hospital bills and pain and suffering.

---

Quote:

---

ETA: Quite often now, if you are injured physically or monetarily and the person responsible is caught and convicted, you do not get made whole. He or she goes to jail, or pays the State a fine, and you get nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW.

I sent an email to the local elections commission last year asking what would happen if I wrote in "none of the above" instead of voting for a candidate. I was told it wouldn't count. If you're stuck with pretty much the same choices, from a Libertarian view, and there's no Libertarian running to protest vote for, what you gonna do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Let's be a little fair. Chaos and faction warfare is also different from anarchy or libertarianism, despite conflation of anarchy with chaos when the term was coined in an effort to discredit anarchists.

---

Quote:

---

Anarchy and libertarianism are often interchangeable in terms of beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Where do you get them now? Judges appointed by a political party or elected in a partisan election? Yeah. That's much better.

---

Appointed by political parties where the other parties have a say and the voters can see the process and decide if they like it or not and there is a price to be paid for abusing the system.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, it's much better than this magical system you have yet to explain. Apparently you believe that removing any central authority from a legal process somehow makes it 100% fair, and somehow you need not make plans to deal with people who abuse the system, as if the current abusers of the system would magically disappear.

---

Quote:

---

Please, answer these questions:

1. Are you arguing that grabbing passersby to serve as impromptu juries ala tMiaHM would yield dependably impartial results?

---

Quote:

---

2. In your world, do these random passersby have no leanings/beliefs which could unfairly influence their decisions?

---

Quote:

---

3. What would you do in your world if your random jurists did act unfairly? What recourse would the inured party have?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But the design generally suggested is that folks take the time to review arbiters for fairness and honesty. In the Information age, it shouldn't be that difficult to find information on the arbiter's past decisions.

---

That would be called jury selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You mean like how the county commissioner's daughter gets off a drunk driving charge because he's gonna be important in the judge's upcoming election?

---

Are you saying that in your dream system there would be no locally powerful people who could unfairly influence results? Again, could you please explain how your rule-less system guarantees that everyone will behave fairly? Could you explain who gets to decide what "fair" means? What if someone disagrees with what you think is obviously fair. Do you win, or them?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wouldn't you rather have someone who had a demonstrable record of fairness than someone who'll put an out-of-towner in the tank, but let his buddy's son off with a warning?

---

Are you saying that one example of an abuse of the current system means that there are absolutely no instances of fairness in this system?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Usually the punishment would be to make the person who claims damages whole again. Fix the fence, return the money stolen, pay for the hospital bills and pain and suffering.

---

And how do you guarantee this? Would do you do when it's locally powerful guy who demands that your peter get cut off because you and his daughter hit it off too well. Who do you go to to avoid this fate?

Quote:

---

ETA: Quite often now, if you are injured physically or monetarily and the person responsible is caught and convicted, you do not get made whole. He or she goes to jail, or pays the State a fine, and you get nothing.

---

And this would magically be fixed... how?

---

Quote:

---

OK, wait. I get it. The problem here (amongst many others) that you see the "power hungry" in the current system as those who disagree with you. In your dream world, the powerful are you and yours and no one who disagrees with you would have the power to be unfair to you. It really is quite magical.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not surprised. This comes down to a frightened person facing a shift of power away from the old power base hoping to find a way to hold that power. You want your way and your opinions to be the law, and dream that your way is so universally true that it's what everyone would naturally do. I don't think you can imagine that other people have different ideas of rules and powers, and without central authority they still would. Your code of ethics would still not be the rule of the land.

I also get wht you say your fantasy can't come alive: because those Other People who aren't you won't let it. The cries of the poor victimized libertarian! Funny, you claim that everyone is responsible for pulling their own selves up by their bootstraps. But when libertarians can't do that, it's not their fault. They shouldn't be expected to, because that's somehow not fair.

---

Quote:

---

And still you can't give a non-fictional situation where your dream system works/worked.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Anarchy and libertarianism are often interchangeable in terms of beliefs.

---

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I believe there is a disconnect here, in what one person is saying and what another is hearing.

When I use speak of Libertarianism, it has zero to do w/ Anarchy. And yet, that's what YOU are hearing.

Thus I believe we're at the root of the confusion.

---