If Libertarianism is so great, why has no country tried it?

[LJ_Reloaded]

We get it KO...you love uber gubbmint micromanaging every second of everyone's life with an iron fucking fist.

Congratulations...you're a fucking prick.

So when are you moving to a place where uber gubbmint doesn't micromanage your life?

Admit it, you like being micromanaged. Otherwise renounce your citizenship. You can't both hate being micromanaged and stay here.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Okay. . .does anybody know what Vette is on about this time cus I'm genuinely confused here.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Precisely! It was put down with an iron fist. They knew the difference between a peaceful demonstration and lawless violence.

And how does that compare with the 1992 riots?

 

[CHNOPS]

Okay. . .does anybody know what Vette is on about this time cus I'm genuinely confused here.

It was his posts in this thread that led me to go onto the Twatter and say that I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a bot.

I think he's saying that because the blacks only rioted for 6 days, instead of continuously for the last 48 years, that...something something something about Obama. I get lost in the middle part.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Okay. . .does anybody know what Vette is on about this time cus I'm genuinely confused here.

Meth.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No seriously guys, I don't know what Vette's point is. Usually I might disagree but I can at least see that he's claiming that Obama has signed a pact with the devil so he can rule over Valhalla after he frees Vishnu from the after life. This time. . .I'm completely confused.

It was his posts in this thread that led me to go onto the Twatter and say that I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a bot.

I think he's saying that because the blacks only rioted for 6 days, instead of continuously for the last 48 years, that...something something something about Obama. I get lost in the middle part.

That got you a little farther than me. I saw something about how the government stamping things out with an iron fist was a good thing.

Meth.

I asked what he was on about not on.

 

[unregistered]

 

[about_average]

Libertarians talk a good game, but never actually do anything.

What would you suggest libertarians do, other than run for office, vote and try to educate?

 

[dan_c00000]

What would you suggest libertarians do, other than run for office, vote and try to educate?

Actually, if they run for office and get elected they would then have to abolish whatever office they were just elected for. See the beauty of being a libertarian is not having to make a damn bit of sense.

Remember how Ron Paul wanted us out of Iraq and shit? Well here's a list of his largest campaign donors. Kind of freaky right?

US Army: $113,933
US Navy: $91,100
US Air Force: $88,102

 

[about_average]

Actually, if they run for office and get elected they would then have to abolish whatever office they were just elected for.

WTF?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Actually, if they run for office and get elected they would then have to abolish whatever office they were just elected for. See the beauty of being a libertarian is not having to make a damn bit of sense.

Remember how Ron Paul wanted us out of Iraq and shit? Well here's a list of his largest campaign donors. Kind of freaky right?

US Army: $113,933
US Navy: $91,100
US Air Force: $88,102

What makes you think the military wants to be in Iraq? Just because they follow orders and do what they're told doesn't mean they have any particular desire to fight in any given war.

 

[dan_c00000]

What makes you think the military wants to be in Iraq? Just because they follow orders and do what they're told doesn't mean they have any particular desire to fight in any given war.

My point is that clueless libertarians don't know shit about shit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

‘Why are there no libertarian countries?”

In a much-discussed essay for Salon, Michael Lind asks: “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?”

Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.

Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign; he is the captain of himself.

It’s true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America’s great, but it ain’t perfect. Sweden’s social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.

Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They’re ideals. They’re goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.

In the old Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and today’s North Korea, they tried to move toward the ideal Communist system. Combined, they killed about 100 million of their own people. That’s a hefty moral distinction right there: When freedom-lovers move society toward their ideal, mistakes may be made, but people tend to flourish. When the hard Left is given free rein, millions are murdered and enslaved. Which ideal would you like to move toward?

Lind sees it differently. “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.”

What an odd standard. You know what else is a complete failure? Time travel. After all, it’s never succeeded anywhere!

What’s so striking about the Lind standard is how thoroughly conservative it is.

Pick a date in the past, and you can imagine someone asking similar questions. “Why should women have equal rights?” some court intellectual surely asked. “Show me anywhere in the world where that has been tried.” Before that, “Give the peasants the right to vote? Unheard of!”

In other words, there’s a first time for everything.

It’s a little bizarre how the Left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress. The idea that rulers — be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos, or wonkish bureaucrats — are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man’s discovery of fire by millennia. And yet, we’re always told that the latest rationalization for increased state power is the “wave of the future.”

That phrase, “the wave of the future,” became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another — fascism, Communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn’t progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These “waves of the future” were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.

The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it’s still unfolding.

Indeed, what’s remarkable about all of the states Lind identifies as proof that libertarianism doesn’t work is that they are in fact proof that it does. What made the American experiment new were its libertarian innovations, broadly speaking. Moreover, those innovations made us prosper. Even Sweden — the liberal Best in Show — owes its successes to its libertarian concessions.

I’m actually not a full-blown libertarian myself, but it’s an ideal I’d like America to move closer to, not further away from as we’ve been doing of late — bizarrely in the name of “progress,” of all things.

Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Where's East Germany (DDR) now?

 

[CandiCame]

Okay. . .does anybody know what Vette is on about this time cus I'm genuinely confused here.

I totally thought you knew and I was just kind of lurking to learn more about this "Atlas" dude that I heard preaching this thread on the radio.

...Maybe I shouldn't blindly do whatever he tells me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is what King O's and Lind's ideas lead to:

In their book Generations of Exclusion sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that Mexican-Americans have accomplished "little assimilation" with regard to education and socio-economic status. Even by the fourth generation, they do not have the same educational progress as those of European descent.

That would explain why 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over 20 years are on some form of government benefits, which is actually a higher percentage than immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years, according to a Center for Immigration Studies analysis. Their report found that 57% of Mexican immigrants are on some form of welfare, compared with only 6% of UK immigrants.

We've found the one area where pro-amnesty Republicans are accidently correct when they say Hispanics are joining the mainstream: "Assimilating into the welfare system," according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is a strong trend.

Of course, everyone knows of exceptions -- but those exceptions don't stop the welfare state from crushing the economy and generating mass dependency.

The conservative Hudson Institute put out an important but little-known report in April detailing the total collapse of assimilation as a social trend. Samuel Huntington's essay "The Hispanic Challenge" should have buried any Republican belief that assimilation would ever occur given the historical and geographical tensions between the U.S. and Mexico. Tragically, the GOP appears to be listening to its own propaganda, and placing its faith in bone-rattling political witch doctors like Karl Rove.

America is rapidly losing its identity as a nation and instead becoming an administrative entity for welfare provision. This awful process is sped along by the balkanization incited by Sen. Kaine, and every similar act of pandering, great and small.

It took intense patriotism, cultural pride, and widely shared norms to tie ethnicities together in the past.

Those unifying forces have been demolished by multiculturalism, and the only question now is how to minimize the damage. That starts with preventing amnesty.

John T. Bennett, Esq. (MA, University of Chicago, Master of Arts Program in the SocialSciences '07; J.D., Emory University School of Law '12) is a former Army officer with tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Djibouti.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013..._hispanics_wont_assimilate.html#ixzz2WBjC8RA6

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Where's East Germany (DDR) now?

No! Clown! The problem is you don't care enough, and aren't generous enough to our sodamigos from Mexico. I suggest you care or else! Would it hurt you to sleep in the truck so some poor family can have a brief respite from their misery!

 

[RobDownSouth]

It’s true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either.

Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Where's East Germany (DDR) now?

We're not talking about an "IDEAL" Libertarian state, AJ. We're talking about "ANY" Libertarian state.

#GoalpostMoving

 

[about_average]

My point is that clueless libertarians don't know shit about shit.

Yup, just like clueless republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, independents, etc.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Liberals recognize the need for an infrastructure and are willing to pay to support one.
Conservatives recognize the need for an infrastructure but try to get out of paying to support one.
Libertarians refuse to acknowledge the need for an infrastructure and refuse to pay for something they do not recognize, but they'll use the available infrastructure nonetheless.

 

[about_average]

Speaking of clueless people, it's interesting to see how many don't know the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Speaking of clueless people, it's interesting to see how many don't know the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

It's very simple, actually:

"An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican." - Andre Marrou

 

[BotanyBoy]

So when are you moving to a place where uber gubbmint doesn't micromanage your life?

Admit it, you like being micromanaged. Otherwise renounce your citizenship. You can't both hate being micromanaged and stay here.

So when are you moving to a place without women??

Admit it, you love all women. Otherwise renounce your citizenship. You can't both hate women and stay here living among them.

 

[richard_daily]

It's very simple, actually:

"An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican." - Andre Marrou

Nope. Try again.

Anarchists are not related to socialists, but there's some of overlap, with one of the main differences being a interest in an weak or no central government.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You didn't see the military opening up with .50 cal machine guns and spraying cars running road blocks with automatic weapons fire.

Did that happen in the Watts riot?!