Why Are There No Libertarian Countries?

None of these institutions are capable of eliminating your rights as a citizen. They cannot force you to do business with them, to vote in a certain manner, live a particular lifestyle, or intrude upon your life if you choose not to let them. They cannot treat you in the manner of a baron, bishop, count, duke, or king. What they can do is fail, or propagate a failed economic vision upon society in the same manner that you, the voter, can propagate a failed political vision upon society. In this sense, we can all impact one another, because we do live within the same society as citizens and neighbours. It is pure demogoguery to run around claiming fowl play or control where one lacks the authority, titles, writs, and warrants to actually do the things you claim our largest capitalist institutions engage in. From the Jacobins to the Khmer Rouge, this sort of rhetoric has only led to terror of the highest order.
 
Lind's question is ignorant nonsense on several levels.

But who says there are not any? The US is a libertarian nation. There is nothing wrong with the concept of rights for all citizens the flaw was in using limits on citizenship to deny certain classes equality.

Like with Marxism, proponents and opponents often insist on an absolute or pure definition when it suits their purposes. It's dishonest nonsense and one could argue no type of goverment has existed using the fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
None of these institutions are capable of eliminating your rights as a citizen. They cannot force you to do business with them, to vote in a certain manner, live a particular lifestyle, or intrude upon your life if you choose not to let them. They cannot treat you in the manner of a baron, bishop, count, duke, or king. What they can do is fail, or propagate a failed economic vision upon society in the same manner that you, the voter, can propagate a failed political vision upon society. In this sense, we can all impact one another, because we do live within the same society as citizens and neighbours. It is pure demogoguery to run around claiming fowl play or control where one lacks the authority, titles, writs, and warrants to actually do the things you claim our largest capitalist institutions engage in. From the Jacobins to the Khmer Rouge, this sort of rhetoric has only led to terror of the highest order.
Click to expand...

How arrogant. Looking past your rhetoric, corporations and capitalists do, in fact, exert control over government over and above anyone else. They do, in fact, outsource jobs, erode tax bases, and write death and environment destruction as simply a business expense. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what economists and sociologists call need based coercion. They do, in fact, wreak havoc on developing nations. They do, in fact, write legislation. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what Gramsci called cultural hegemony and enforced ideology. They do, in fact, follow conduct their role in a capitalist economy - which as so many have pointed out, is to be the shepherds of civil society. And, in fact, none of these things can be said about the poor or working class individual.

Also, to compare me - someone who only seeks the decentralization of state, religious and corporate authority - to the Khmer Rouge, or Jacobins, is quite frankly, insane.
 
Sierra said:
Maybe it's because most people have empathy. That is something I see lacking in those who think they are libertarians.
Click to expand...
Scratch a Libertarian and you have an anarchist. That's why you don't see any Libertarian Nations. It simply isn't a viable governing philosophy. I doubt any political philosophy that reject utilitarianism could ever be a viable governing philosophy.
 
Threedee said:
Libertarianism begins with the belief that the individual cannot be free without having or being able to acquire property. That belief is also the basis for the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...
Yea well libertarians believe in a lot of things. The problem with libertarians is they never do anything. They just talk.
 
Threedee said:
You are wrong, libertarians do not denounce democracy, they just recognize that the people are mostly ignorant, and thus a threat to liberty. They are not anarchists, anarchists are anarchists.

A free person should have the right to buy a house and land, take out an IRA, start a 401k--with or without his employer's aid-- and enter into contracts without being lied to by people such as you who think he is hurting other people.
Click to expand...
Yea right....and Santa Clause isn't a fat jolly old guy who lives in the North Pole. You're in fantasy land dude.
 
iolo said:
In my dictionary. kid, socialism means political control by the working majority rather than by a few rich pigs. Which states had that characteristic, please?
Click to expand...
Yea well that's not what socialism is because in socialism the working majority is just as exploited (and often far more ruthlessly) as by the capitalist class. I don't know what book you are using but socialism is where the State controls the means to production. Not the workers, not the proletariat, not the oligarchs. The State does.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing in the proper place and time. There are many things that the free market does well economically and I'd far rather live in a market economy than in a command economy. There are times though where the market economy fails to provide the services that are needed by our nation. National Defense, Public Educatin and Health Care are three excellent examples where the market economy fails to provide needed services and thus those services have largely been socialised and rightfully so.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea well that's not what socialism is because in socialism the working majority is just as exploited (and often far more ruthlessly) as by the capitalist class. I don't know what book you are using but socialism is where the State controls the means to production. Not the workers, not the proletariat, not the oligarchs. The State does.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing in the proper place and time. There are many things that the free market does well economically and I'd far rather live in a market economy than in a command economy. There are times though where the market economy fails to provide the services that are needed by our nation. National Defense, Public Educatin and Health Care are three excellent examples where the market economy fails to provide needed services and thus those services have largely been socialised and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

When did the market fail to provide any of those services?
 
Rose said:
How arrogant. Looking past your rhetoric, corporations and capitalists do, in fact, exert control over government over and above anyone else. They do, in fact, outsource jobs, erode tax bases, and write death and environment destruction as simply a business expense. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what economists and sociologists call need based coercion. They do, in fact, wreak havoc on developing nations. They do, in fact, write legislation. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what Gramsci called cultural hegemony and enforced ideology. They do, in fact, follow conduct their role in a capitalist economy - which as so many have pointed out, is to be the shepherds of civil society. And, in fact, none of these things can be said about the poor or working class individual.

Also, to compare me - someone who only seeks the decentralization of state, religious and corporate authority - to the Khmer Rouge, or Jacobins, is quite frankly, insane.
Click to expand...

Same rhetoric, different age. Obviously, leftists are not always successful in dragging civil society down to those levels. The same is true of anarchists and theocrats on the right.

Now, with regard to legislation, you seem to put forward a broad brush for why we need to limit the rights of the capitalist institutions. That they may choose to use their wealth to influence elected legislators into passing laws which favor them. That argument would never be accepted (by reasonable people) for limiting speech, privacy, or any other civil liberties upon the public at large (freedom for security), and should likewise be rejected with regard to limiting our economic freedoms.

Concerns about the environment and other related issues can still be worked on and passed, as they have been for the past several decades.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There are times though where the market economy fails to provide the services that are needed by our nation. National Defense, Public Educatin and Health Care are three excellent examples where the market economy fails to provide needed services and thus those services have largely been socialised and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

America’s national defense was so well serviced and provided for by the free market that our free market industrial might won the great world wars.

Public education was so well provided for by the free market at the local level that it was” among the world’s best until fucking State and Federal government politicians started sticking their ignorant, pathetic “one size fits all” noses into the public education system.

American health care was once the envy of the world because it was inexpensive, the most innovative and technologically advanced in the world and it was supported by the free market. Along came the fucking federal government with its regulations and mountains of paperwork and socialist healthcare programs Medicare/Medicaid and look what we have today and now the Obama-Care abortion.

Socialism never fixed a fucking thing, but it sure as hell destroyed everything and every nation where it’s been implemented. It abolishes free choice, individual incentive, ambition, ingenuity and the rugged individualism that made America great.
 
Threedee said:
You are wrong, libertarians do not denounce democracy, they just recognize that the people are mostly ignorant, and thus a threat to liberty. They are not anarchists, anarchists are anarchists.

A free person should have the right to buy a house and land, take out an IRA, start a 401k--with or without his employer's aid-- and enter into contracts without being lied to by people such as you who think he is hurting other people.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

People are flawed and therefore any government they may come up with will also be flawed. Therefore it is essential to keep government as small and as powerless as possible in order for freedom to prevail and flourish.

Fascists / socialists / progressives / communists believe that government can become perfected and produce more perfect people through it.
 
Threedee said:
Same rhetoric, different age. Obviously, leftists are not always successful in dragging civil society down to those levels. The same is true of anarchists and theocrats on the right.

Now, with regard to legislation, you seem to put forward a broad brush for why we need to limit the rights of the capitalist institutions. That they may choose to use their wealth to influence elected legislators into passing laws which favor them. That argument would never be accepted (by reasonable people) for limiting speech, privacy, or any other civil liberties upon the public at large (freedom for security), and should likewise be rejected with regard to limiting our economic freedoms.

Concerns about the environment and other related issues can still be worked on and passed, as they have been for the past several decades.
Click to expand...

I purposefully gave you a post that used a lot of specifics - I hoped you would have branched off on one, or two. As you didn't, and you're one of the few people on this site who it's genuinely rewarding to debate, I'll provide another avenue for you to do so:

I do not want to limit economic freedoms, merely spread them out. Sure, taking away the ability for a capitalist to take surplus value is arguably limiting - but so is leaving that, and the exclusivity of education / economic control, in place. I don't seek a future where liberties are limited, but rather one where the freedom to exploit is limited. "Economic freedoms" is a broad term in itself, so its hard to really address that. But I can say that I'd be more than willing to trade the status of some few people, for opportunity for a vast majority of the people.

Now let's get to the point, oh aristocratic trademark: Please try your best to, while recognizing the existence of this quote (below) and being as specific as possible, justify the keeping of our capitalist institutions. ;)

Rose said:
How arrogant. Looking past your rhetoric, corporations and capitalists do, in fact, exert control over government over and above anyone else. They do, in fact, outsource jobs, erode tax bases, and write death and environment destruction as simply a business expense. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what economists and sociologists call need based coercion. They do, in fact, wreak havoc on developing nations. They do, in fact, write legislation. They do, in fact, successfully engage in what Gramsci called cultural hegemony and enforced ideology. They do, in fact, follow conduct their role in a capitalist economy - which as so many have pointed out, is to be the shepherds of civil society. And, in fact, none of these things can be said about the poor or working class individual.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top