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

Well, that's pretty much any society, isn't it? It's true of primitive hunger-gatherers, and it's true of civilized people in every civilization in history, and it would still be true in a Libertopian society, only difference being government does not do quite so much of the telling-what-to-do -- but that still gets done and just as much, it's merely changed to a privatized function, as it were.

It's true of any group of people period. If you have two people one is a leader and one is a follower. That's just how it works.
 
Another fish-bait thread I can't find the motivation to scrol through, but I hope/assume that someone has pointed out that a country that "tried" it, wouldn't be Libertarian.

What would it be, then? And what would a Libertarian country be?
 
It's true of any group of people period. If you have two people one is a leader and one is a follower. That's just how it works.

I would question that it's possible to have a partnership. You don't have to be Megatron and Starscream, you can be Dr. Mrs. and the Monarch.
 
No, that would be this, which ain't what we've got now.

Bullshit...that's exactly what we have now, and you advocate it repeatedly.

You don't want others to achieve and become....you want to take from those that do and give to those that do not. Face the reality son....you're a Robin Hood fan...a fuckin' thief.
 
Jen has folksy charm?

She has the kind of folksy charm found in a roadside diner waitress, who tells you with a missing-toothed smile as she sets down your coffee and sandwich that she's off in an hour, if you're not in a hurry to leave and there's room in your rig's cabin compartment.
 
I would question that it's possible to have a partnership. You don't have to be Megatron and Starscream, you can be Dr. Mrs. and the Monarch.

Dr. Mrs is in charge. It's not that one person is a bully but there will always be the one who takes initiative and there will always be the one who is more likely to submit.
 
Seriously King, why the fuck don't you put Bot on ignore. He's pretty much Jen without the folksy charm. You could at least be kind enough not to quote the son of a bitch.

LOL I only do it to make him dance for me, did you see all the shit he posted??LMAO

....and piss you off of course.
 
What would it be, then? And what would a Libertarian country be?
Your question is flawed. Calling it a country, by almost any definition, means foregoing some elements of Libertarianism--and vice versa. I think that may be your point, I'm not sure. If it is, I'm sure you can make it without the trick construct or C&P. At any rate I'm not invested enough in it to help make it.
 
She has the kind of folksy charm found in a roadside diner waitress, who tells you with a missing-toothed smile as she sets down your coffee and sandwich that she's off in an hour, if you're not in a hurry to leave and there's room in your rig's cabin compartment.

If you change this description to read:

She has the kind of folksy charm found in someone outside a roadside diner, who is reading the "No Shoes, No Service," and wonders if they really mean it,...

You know Jen has never had a job.
 
She has the kind of folksy charm found in a roadside diner waitress, who tells you with a missing-toothed smile as she sets down your coffee and sandwich that she's off in an hour, if you're not in a hurry to leave and there's room in your rig's cabin compartment.

Don't forget the cheap Paul Mall hanging from her lips.

Oh and don't forget that jen is probably a man.
 
What about the Libertarian paradise of Somalia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0


I wondered which moron would bring up that nation as an example of libertarianism; that somebody would was inevitable.

Please explain which libertarian philosophies are being put into works in Somalia.

Please explain how foreign sponsored warlords (terrorists) ruling the country is designed to protect individual liberty.

Please explain why you associate what is essentially a feudal state, without the benefit of a central ruler with libertarian?
 
That makes no sense. You can always add social programs, you can always subtract social programs, and nobody's gonna mount a revolution to achieve the latter.

Predict what happens if the congress and president decide tomorrow to "End Social Security and Cancel Medicare". Add in "Affirmative Action is illegal".

Think we'll have at least riots if not a new government?
 
Bullshit...that's exactly what we have now, and you advocate it repeatedly.

:rolleyes: No, a society of slaves with a military aristocracy of slaveholders is not what we have now.

You don't want others to achieve and become....you want to take from those that do and give to those that do not. Face the reality son....you're a Robin Hood fan...a fuckin' thief.

Find another meme. Robin Hood did nothing but justice. (That is, the Robin Hood you are thinking of, the redistributionist-rebel in a society dominated by a tyrannical hereditary aristocracy, did nothing but justice. The Robin Hood of the original legends was merely an uncommon run of common thief, like Jesse James or John Dillinger, and publicly admired for similar reasons.)
 
Predict what happens if the congress and president decide tomorrow to "End Social Security and Cancel Medicare". Add in "Affirmative Action is illegal".

Think we'll have at least riots if not a new government?

A riot does not a revolution make. Remember LA in 1992.

Although a Social Security/Medicare riot might be . . . fun to watch, in a sick kinda way . . .
 
Last edited:
Predict what happens if the congress and president decide tomorrow to "End Social Security and Cancel Medicare". Add in "Affirmative Action is illegal".

Think we'll have at least riots if not a new government?

That's the exact opposite of what he was saying.
 
Back
Top