Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Then get on with the revolution land commie becuase georgism is annoying.

 

I'm a communist. Yes, you heard me - I think a communist economic system would be the fairest system.
Naturally this means I agree with libertarians on the personal freedom stuff but I'm at complete odds with them in believing in economic policies that help people unlucky enough to lose their jobs and become homeless. Personally I just don't think that you can believe in individual rights for all people and at the same time say "Stuff them, I don't want my tax money going towards helping homeless people!" without being a hypocrite.

 

I agree with you somewhat, although I'm curious...

Are you a Communist in the Lenin/Stalin sense or the Trotsky sense?

Leninism/Stalinism was totalitarian, whereas Trotsky stayed truer to Marx's abolition of the state concept.

 

I could agree with that. It would certainly be preferable to the current system.

 

They're in conflict temporarily to get votes. Obviously that conflict doesn't prevent them from bailing out banks, however.

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see any arrangement better than the current one when it comes to most regulation unless we had a very intelligent and vigilant public to guide policies.

Granted, that's a pipe dream.

Anyway, I'll probably be voting for Gary Johnson too.

 

Trotskyist. But I don't really think Lenin was bad, he didn't want Stalin in power but his notes about this were repressed by guess who.

My opinion is that the only realistic chance a country has for true communism is through maintaining the democratic process and holding politicians accountable for their actions.

 

EXCELLENT reply. And how true. To say that there was libertarian "freedom" for slaves, the poor, for Native Americans or anybody other than wealthy elites shows what lunacy these delusionals believe in.

 

While I don't agree with alot of libertarianism, to imply that libertarianism means automatic regression to the gilded age or to pre-civil war America is ridiculous on its face and a complete and utter fabrication.

 

Socialism worked in China, as well. China was by itself and growing at 10% per year with socialism. Since China went to more capitalism, other countries opened up their trade restrictions and it is still growing at about 10%. That capitalism has worked in China recently has more to do with open trade than anything.

 

It wouldn't have been bad for me. I'm not endorsing sending people to labor camps, but those were for enemies of communism. I would have gladly given up my farm if it was for the benefit of the people in the nation.

 

Yes, why wouldn't it be a positive example? They were doing something that hadn't been tried before, and they made some major mistakes. However, we should learn from those mistakes instead of just saying communism doesn't work. They had a ton of things stacked against them. They were rebuilding from 2 or 3devastating wars. They weren't given near as much aid as western Europe. The U.S. wouldn't allow western Europe to trade many things with the Soviet Union. What if the South won the Civil war? Wouldn't that be a failure of capitalism? If the South won the war, the 2 nations probably would have ended up like a lot of Latin American nations. The U.S. could have easily dissolved before then.

 

Pretty high, actually.

 

Smaller government works great? Maybe you should look up the first 10 years or so of the U.S.

 

Where do you work? Many people work hard and are dirt poor.

 

Couldn't you say the same about any other system that has supposedly "failed" in the past?

 

The Soviet Union didn't dissolve because they weren't given enough aid after WW2, they fell apart because eventually, the regime lost it's legitimacy because everyone realized that their system kept their lives crappy compared to the West for no good reason other than in service to an ideology that had no successful track record. The people people endured a lot of suffering for no good reason.

As far as the Civil War goes, if the US had divided the United States would have continued as a capitalist nation-state. I don't think it would have made much difference over the long run economically other than the obvious loss of resources and population. The Confederacy would have continued as a feudal agricultural system until they eventually would have had to face their slavery system.

 

I would rather have more totalitarian communism. I think many of Marx's views are unrealistic, so I prefer socialism to communism.

 

I was there back in the day. I also lived in The Ukraine. The problem with Communism is the same as it is with Libertarianism. Both make the assumption that people (or companies) will act fairly and equitibly. While most people do exactly that, the people who rise to power in governments or global corporations, tend to be those who will do anything to rise to power in governments or global corporations.
In the Soviet Union, you would give up your farm thinking it was for the good of the people. What it was actually good for, was the 1% who had high positions in the politburo, military etc...
Any time a country exist, power is created. That power will be filled. Is this even disputable?
Whether by government, corporations or less desirable elements, it will happen. Is this even disputable?
Unfortunately, there will always be at least some people who abuse the power they obtain. Is this even disputable?

So where is the dispute?
Communists believe that if the government controls virtually everything, the type of people who rise to power in governments won't corrupt the system. This has never proven true but in their favor, it has as you pointed out, at least been tried.
Libertarians believe that if the government controls (i.e. regulates) virtually nothing in business (e.g. race discrimination, environmental laws etc...), the type of people who rise to power in major corporations won't corrupt the loal governments and harm the citizenry for profit or gain. This hasn't even been tried. There has never been an example of this working out for the general citizenry.

I had the opportunity to see somthing unique when I lived in The Ukraine. Communism had fallen. The Ukraine was independent for the first time in decades. There was virtually no government regulation because people were extremely suspicious of government. Capitalism was the new game in town! I had bucks so I lived like a king. I also got to know a lot of interesting people. Who ran Odessa and Kiev? The mafia. Two of them actually. The nicer guys were simply those who had been undergound capitalists during the Soviet regime (black marketeers). By "nicer", I mean nice for the Ukrainian mafia. The not so nice guys? The new mafia that had been formed by former vets of the Soviet-Afghan War. Those guys were way off the reservation. Additionally, little things like rape (often by employers), extortion, toxic dumping and such, were handled witha little grease on the palm of an underpaid cop. What could anyone do about it? Nothing, of course. Welcome to Libertaria!
And welcome to what happens every time there is no strong, central government.

The best and most successful countries have always had a strong central government, a reasonable amount of regulation (I feel we are way OVER-Regulated, btw), a set of social programs for those in need, and an environment that was conducive to business opportunity.
Neither end of the spectrum - from Pure Socialism / Communism to Libertarianism - has ever worked.

 

This has been one of the best threads I've read on this forum. Well done!

 

More socialism does not mean more regulation. I, too, think we are way over-regulated. An economically socialist country also doesn't have to have a lot of social programs. You wouldn't need to have an environment for business opportunity because the government runs business. Big businesses are more efficient than small businesses. If you have the right leaders in a socialist country, you will see tremendous growth. I do admit having the right leaders is a major problem. I think some sort of merit based system is best. Democratic voting obviously doesn't work. Royal birth and rising to power through force aren't the best solutions to picking leaders either. I hear the argument from conservatives and libertarians that whoever has power is corrupt. That is a load of BS, we just need to have a better way of picking them.

 

The Soviet Union did make many major mistakes that caused them to fall apart. That doesn't mean the system itself is flawed. Other forms of goverment could have just as easily collapsed. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't prove that socialism or communism doesn't work or that capitalism or libertarianism is better. By the time the Soviet Union turned communist, the U.S. had the biggest economy in the world, while the Soviet Union was agrarian. It is not fair to compare them side by side.

 

Well if not by vote, divine right or whatever, what do you suggest to find hundreds of people who will wield incredible power without ever wanting to abuse that power? Checkers? Ninja Obstacle Course?
Sorry, don't mean to be snarky but you cite the same problem I do, admit you have no idea how to deal with it and claim that the system you favor is best anyway.

Let's try a different direction. One that may allow you to succeed where where Libertarians always fail. What socialist country would like like / have liked to live in?

that's always where the flaws are most easily spotted. I can name LOTS countries that are Democratic Republics with capitalist-based economies that I have been happy in and would be happy in. If it wasn't so danm cold, I might have a chance to get my bride to live in Austria with me but oh well. So where would you live?

 

Does the phrase "denying the antecedent" mean anything to you?

 

Does the phrase "A weak-ass dodge to a simple question" mean anything to you?

I get it. You want people to believe that something that has never worked before and is not working anywhere in the world now - oh and the very precise conditions which must exist, in order for it to work, will also never exist - will magically work if we all just sit in awe of your awesomeness.
I wonder why you guys have a hard time getting people to take you seriously?

 

You make a mistake. Communism or Anarchism, the Marxism is wrong defends the abolition of the government, and the people would own everything. What you described is the Marxist Socialism.