Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Yeah champ, that's the ticket....Turn the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into one huge slave labor plantation....Great idea, why didn't I think of that...LOL

 

No you're not. If you were, you would not be so mystified by post #178 as to be unable to offer anything even remotely resembling a substantive objection.

You have made it perfectly clear that you won't know a reasonable answer when you see one, so it's a complete waste of time.

 

Nice dodge. Care to try again? Very simple point: If Libertarianism was the best or even a great form of government, it would be tried and then prosper. So where are all the Libertarian countries?

 

NA: USA was generally a Libertarian Country up until the early 20th and of course everyone has their own History as to whether or not the future decisions were good or not...
SA: Absolutely hellish internal conflicts and currently being run by Authoritarian Governments.
Africa: .... Colonies and instability up the ***.
Europe: Monarchs.. Monarchs and more Monarchs... Oh Did I forget about the Dictators and bloody wars?
Asian: Monarchs... Chiefs... Conflicts!
Australia: "Convict Isle"
Antarctica: What?

Just in general... Humans aren't advanced enough it seems to adapt to such a Philosophy of Libertarianism because it requires self control, tolerance and open mindedness.

 

Dodge? What dodge? You completely misrepresented what I said and I corrected you. You didn't make any point or pose a question to dodge in the first place.

That's a fallacious argument. Is clean energy a good idea? What country relies entirely on green energy? None, you say? Oh, then it must not be a good idea, right?

Nonetheless, when you look at nations throughout history using a scale with authoritarianism on one end and libertarianism on the other, on which end would you classify the nations that you would categorize as the most just and/or successful? Has there ever been a "purely" libertarian nation? No, but there has also never been a purely democratic, or purely communistic, or purely socialistic, or purely anything nation for that matter.

Why has nobody made any arguments against the actual principles of libertarianism? Instead we get silly assertions that "If it were any good then everybody would be doing it, herp derp..." Tell me, what is it about libertarianism that you don't like? Is it the non-aggression principle that you find to be offensive? That is usually the main objection that people have though they usually don't realize it.

 

Well you've addressed the point. That's a start. Although the non-aggression is the "usual" objection, it's one I probably like most in Libertarianism - which btw, I think has many fine principles.
However there is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians: The Market will correct itself. It doesn't. Without government regulation, companies hurt people, make harmful products, treat employees horribly etc... and no those companies don't disappear. Okay some do but big ones? Rarely. So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

 

Thanks for providing further evidence to my "needless use of rare words/phrases = poster has no reasonable position" theory. You're trying to state that you have some sort of intellectual superiority that I cannot match thus I would not understand the answer you would give, and thus you won't give it. It's a cop out and an insult rolled into one.

 

There's nothing about libertarianism that lets companies hurt people. As for "harmful products", companies can produce harmful products right now (ie. cigarettes, alcohol, chocolate chip cookies, etc.) so that isn't a peculiarity of libertarianism. If by "harmful" you meant putting sulfuric acid in a bottle and labeling it as milk then libertarianism doesn't even imply that is okay either. However, libertarianism does say it is okay for someone to buy or sell raw milk as raw milk and not be met with violence for such.

BTW, you seem to have dodged my question. "[W]ould you mind answering this for me? When you look at nations throughout history using a scale with authoritarianism on one end and libertarianism on the other, on which end would you classify the nations that you would categorize as the most just and/or successful?"

 

LOL. This thinking leads to fascism. It is the typical nonsense that believe the fascists.

 

He is just a fascist. Don't feed him.

 

To add:

For me libertarianism isn't even about a specific type or form of government but it is a philosophy of how a just society/community that respects the rights of all human beings should operate and the limits that any authority can wield over other human beings. Many times when faced with the question of whether something, we'll call it 'action X', should be legal or illegal I step back and ask myself the following:

In the absence of any type of government or police apparatus would I feel justified in personally walking over to my neighbors house and meeting him with violence to stop him from doing action X?​

If the answer is no then I would be a hypocrite for then turning around and demanding that a proxy meet my neighbor with violence in my stead.

 

The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't work when adopted by humans.
It all sounds great on paper, but the reality of human nature means that it doesn't work in practice.
That's why none of the isms work as planned, from capitalism to communism.
People are selfish, fearful and often ignorant, and this gets in the way of the philosophical ideals behind each ism.

 

For that I think that the -ism that fights better the selfish and fearful behaviours of the people is the anarchism. Mainly because it is a system that makes you participative and in equality of conditions, where no one is over you.

However obviously anarchism has its defects any human thing, but I think that is the best in the end.

 

No one is professing that the "Market" is the end all of everything imaginable... Leave it up to the whole population to decide as to what they'll do during an Economic crisis rather than giving the reins of Power to that of a arrogant Government. Was it right to bail out the Corporations/Banks that could have just been easily gobbled up by their lesser competitors? In my opinion no it wasn't. The Market in which most people define it to be is simply the man wearing the Business suit and running companies but, in my view the Market is every person deciding for their own future. Also to claim Government is the sole reason for the protection of its Citizens is off considering the Government doesn't care until the people themselves want change. Do you believe Government was the first to come out with the idea that children shouldn't work in at a certain age? This link here shows a gap of an entire decade or quite possibly a century from when the People were voicing their thoughts to that of the Government finally acting.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

Also to say Companies under a Libertarian Government are self regulating... They are to a point but, a Libertarian Government deals a lot with Individual Rights & Property Rights. A Corporation that spills toxic waste onto your lawn isn't going to get away with it... they violated your property and a Court System will handle it. To see Libertarianism as Anarchism is ridiculous.

 

That's just stupid.
The freedom to (*)(*)(*)(*) everything up and screw the lives of millions of people until you get caught and dragged into court where your battery of ambulance chasers can then play the system for years while you keep screwing things up is no way to run a society.
Libertarianism is a con job based on the delusion that humans will act in lawful ways.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history understands that is not true.
We create laws to deal with lawbreakers. If there were no people stealing or murdering or cheating, etc., there would be no laws against stealing, murdering or cheating.

 

This is currently how the American Court Systems work... Unless of course your idea is to implement though control? If someone decides or by accident drives their car into your house and smashes everything inside of it... What is to prevent them from doing so unless of course you're dealing with an Omnipotent Power or simply enslaving the minds of others?

It's a Philosophy based around the concept of Individualism and Tolerance... I totally agree with you in the belief it cannot be applied because of the ideologies of people today who believe they should run other peoples lives or let a Authoritarian Government do so. The Human mind isn't able enough for the majority of the people present to respect the Rights of their Fellow Man and/or be Tolerant of their customs.

Of course but to think that such an ideology cannot be practiced by a group or an Individual or quite possibly a State is pretty ridiculous... The main reasons as to why such a Philosophy isn't in the mind of most is due in large part because of the Governments that try to prevent such a way of thinking to begin with.

You're confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism... Understand your isms before you start to make assumptions on a particular Philosophy and it's Followers.

 

This is exactly what we have now. Not only do the wealthy pay hoards of lawyers to defend them when they are called to task, they pay the one and only legislative body to write law in their favor. Without a government monopoly on law and "justice" we would have many competing legislative bodies, and many competing court systems. There would be court, or arbitration firms which are not owned or governed by the same entity as the legislative bodies or the enforcement agencies. If an arbitration firm gains a reputation for bias in favor of a particular client, people would not want to do business with that firm and they would have the option not to. Competing firms would be more than happy to drive out the biased firm.
This idea that Libertarians think that people and companies will police themselves, or that people would just act right in the absence of huge monopolistic overbearing government does not come from Libertarians. If you want to give a coherent critique of libertarianism you need to first understand what libertarians believe. No one thinks that people are perfect angels who would all do right without law. What people do is hold each other to account. One of the first things people do in a new community is establish a code of ethics, rules or laws. In the absence of government or in the presence of very small government there is still law. If you don't understand this, then you have no understanding of history.
In the absence of all written or spoken law there is still, ingrained in all of us, the concept of reciprocity; if I do right by you, you are likely to respond in kind. If I do you wrong, you are likely to respond in kind. Therefore, the way I treat you will affect how I am treated by you. If you haven't learned this by the age of five, then something is wrong with your brain. The majority with the functioning brains will deal effectively with the scarce psychopathic minority. The best way to give free reign to the psychopathic minority is to ascent to the idea that some man has a right to rule other men.

 

Personally, I perceive "Increased personal liberty" as being another term for moral looseness or moral relativism, as used by Libertarians.

That's why Repubs/Cons don't like it much. And liberals seem to detest anything that doesn't agree with them.

 

If that is how you perceive that phrase, then you are reading meaning into those words that they don't imply, especially if you infer moral relativism from it. Think about it; does the concept of an increase in personal liberty, on its own, imply a supposition of moral relativism, or would you need to add another concept to the mix in order to infer it?
It seems like, when people holding different ideologies try to communicate, we end up talking cross purposes. We have different vocabularies. We fail to define our terms. We fail to require the other party to define terms and, instead, make assumptions about intended meanings. We have different priorities; even though we seem to agree, for the most part, about what is right and wrong, we hold values in differing degrees of esteem.

 

I haven't dodged it. It's simply pre-framed like those wonderful polls on Newsmax that ask "Which do you think is better, less taxes and less spending or more tax and more spending?" There are myriad options not offered.
Which form of government do I think is best? Well I've lived all over the world and I'll take a country with a capitalist economy, democratic republic and strong centralized government 100% of the time. Just think of countries with a weak, centralized government and little regulation? Columbia, The Ukraine, Rwanda, Sri Lanka. No thanks.

 

I can agree to an extent, but by that definition, there are very few "true" libertarians.

Everyone has their limits. Personally, I typically find myself on the line between liberalism and libertarianism.

 

Okay two things:
1. Your signature is the single coolest signatur I've ever seen.
2. You didn't directly answer any of my questions.

 

Exactly. That is why it is a terrible form of government.

 

You do understand that the US once had very little government, let alone federal government and it did not result in a mess like those countries have. And you are ignoring a very important fact, the only developed country with a large population is the US, and it is the one that has less government (decentralization of everything except force is good). If you analyse those countries you mention, there are/ were people fighting over the monopoly of the use of force to impose things upon others. Libertarianism never defended that, you are mistaking it for anarchism.

 

Green energy, as most people currently think of it, is not a good idea. Wind and solar are not reliable or cheap. They will need backup power plants that will produce even more pollution. Nuclear energy is a good idea, but it hasn't been put into more use because of stupid people that are afraid of it.

There's no way other countries are just going to get rid of war. There have been many attempts to limit war and it usually just leads to more war. You said that a libertarian government hasn't been properly implemented yet. Neither has the type of government I advocate for.