An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

I don't think I've ever heard it put exactly like this before. It's a great way to succinctly describe libertarianism.

 

Then start a thread on anarchy and stop erroneously presuming libertarianism/classical liberalism as a form of anarchy.

 

The inability of any current modern large scale government to operate on largely libertarian principles is evidence enough for the failure of this political system.

 

It really depends on the punishment for not supporting a public good that the majority wishes to have. That person and their property could be considered neutral territory similar to Native Reserves but, with the added penalty of being taxed via their consumption of goods they trade in.

 

Yes, a large government and libertarian principles are definitely incompatible. A country inhabited by people who support libertarian principles would have a small government.

 

And thus would need to be a very small country. I mean VERY small. It could never happen in the US. Let me reword my post for you

The inability of any current modern large country to have a government to operate on largely libertarian principles is evidence enough for the failure of this political system.

 

Unresponsive. As stated, and as a matter of irrefutable historical fact, the US Constitutional Republic, with practical exceptions, was close enough to classical liberal to be called "libertarian" from ratification to the early mid 20th century. Was -certainly- "libertarian" compared to what we have today.

It was a new type of government experiment, and took some historically minor time for its principles to be extended to all. During the time that was occurring, the poison of Marxist-socialism arose, which contributed to corruption of our libertarian Constitutional Republic into the travesty of mob rule and central theft/nannyism we have today.

 

The number of laws a country has has nothing to do with its geographic size.

 

I am waiting to still here of where this was done successfuly with a large country.

 

You failed to answer the question because you do not like the answer. NO large country currently operates on largely libertarian principles. No one is even willing to try it. ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. It's fails even in the attempt.

 

The basis for something qualifying is that is must have operated in the past? Why advance in any technology if it's never been done before?

 

Unresponsive.

 

The logical consequence of applying the NAP is anarchism. The OP mentions the NAP. Libertarianism includes anarchists. Stupid i know, but it does. Plentt of people on the forum who call themselves libertarians are actually anarchist. Ethereal, bleadingheadken, longshot... iirc

 

As [MENTION=64711]Sanskrit[/MENTION] has pointed out, the United States.

 

You did not read the statement. It says CURRENT. You can ignore it if you like but that does not mean it is not there.

 

Oh, currently? Some more, some less.

More is better than less.

I'm not sure the point of your question. Is it supposed to convince me that hurting people and taking their stuff is just and right? Is it supposed to convince me that violating people's liberty is just and right?

 

Your reasoning is unsound.

I can only imagine there was a person living a few hundred years ago saying the same thing about a constitutional republic.

If the idea was logical, that X is faulty merely because X is not implemented on a wide scale at a particular time and place, it would have us all living in caves and foraging for food never having progressed in any manner whatsoever.

 

Its important to point out that the USA has never followed the NAP. so.. dont refer to the USA if you try to support nap

 

It should connvince you that you advocate for a system that can not operate in a large country. Libertarians are the unicorns of political science. They are a nice fantasy but it never exists in the real world.

 

Perhaps your idea will exist at some point in the future. Perhaps some other countries will try it and other countries will see how successful it is and want to emulate it. I welcome other countries to take on this completely unproven and dangerous experiment. If it succeds then I will see it. Until then....no thanks

 

How cute!!

The OP wants to create another thread in which libertarians can divorce their ideology from the consequences of their beliefs.

Quit with these pathetic attempts at derailing and go address my arguments.

I'm still waiting, and this is an open challenge to any of you who think I'm not making sense or want to prove me wrong.

 

So there's no point in advocating policies that increase liberty over policies that reduce liberty. Ok, got it. Thanks.

 

Perhaps, it's the failure of people, not the political system.

The "problem" with libertarianism is that it demands a lot from people, first and foremost individual/personal responsibility, and a lot of people aren't up to that.

The government we have today reflects this - America is becoming increasingly socialistic, and by necessity statist, because individual/personal responsibility is a dying virtue in this country.

 

Advocate away. I see a place for libertarians in our system of government. I welcome them. But lets not suggest they are going to be running the country.

- - - Updated - - -

You may be right. The same is often said about communism. Maybe in a hundred years things will be different and people will be ready. But not today

 

Conclusory and unconvincing. NAP is an abstraction that can allow threatening Russia, for example, during the Missile Crisis, or even the Bay of Pigs. You are taking it too literally in an effort to shoehorn classical liberalism into your anarchy box. OP has mentioned "minarchism" a term with which I disagree personally, but even so address that.

You are carrying around a hammer in your posts on classical liberalism and only see "anarchy nails."