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

[kbate]

It falls into "the path not taken".

It has never been taken because it was never taken.

The thing is that the libertarian path isn't one way - you can always add social programs, but the welfare state path does not allow a reset without a revolution.

 

[richard_daily]

It falls into "the path not taken".

It has never been taken because it was never taken.

The thing is that the libertarian path isn't one way - you can always add social programs, but the welfare state path does not allow a reset without a revolution.

So why aren't you revolting?

Oh wait...

 

[kbate]

So why aren't you revolting?

Oh wait...

Oh, a play on words.

How cute.

 

[kbate]

So why aren't you revolting?

Oh wait...

But the answer is, because I do not wish to see the hundred fifty million people who would suffer if we cancelled the Welfare State go through unnecessary suffering. The same as everyone else, I go along because the road has no exits except death and leaving for the jungles of South America to live off the land.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, but generally not because of the expense of bloated bureaucracy. Not even the USSR went that way -- look again. It's an occasionally-contributing factor at worst, never the root of whatever problem it is that makes a power decline.

Keep telling yourself that.

For perspective see

"Liberalism

The chief objective for liberalism is human freedom. In liberalism, freedom means the ability to do what one wills with one's own life and property. Liberals stand in opposition to government restrictions on private actions, and tend to be skeptical of authority. "

BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA have you informed US liberals of this? B/c they don't know it.

 

[richard_daily]

But the answer is, because I do not wish to see the hundred fifty million people who would suffer if we cancelled the Welfare State go through unnecessary suffering. The same as everyone else, I go along because the road has no exits except death and leaving for the jungles of South America to live off the land.

Oh, it's not because you're a coward?

I didn't know that you realized that other people existed, much less cared about them so deeply.

 

[about_average]

But the answer is, because I do not wish to see the hundred fifty million people who would suffer if we cancelled the Welfare State go through unnecessary suffering. The same as everyone else, I go along because the road has no exits except death and leaving for the jungles of South America to live off the land.

That's one big issue with the Libertarian party from what I can tell. They want to instantly abolish such things (along with various subsidies, tax breaks etc.) and let the free market decide what's viable. They ignore the practical and historical aspect of such things and how an overnight elimination would devastate many people and businesses. And so they refuse to seriously look at a phased approach. Something that could actually work.

 

[about_average]

Like, that aspect where you think my car is yours, to start with. But, beyond controlling that -- which even most libertarians would cede to the state as a legitimate function -- I think it's more important that events of past decades have shown the vast majority of people want at least some positive services from government. Obviously not all the same, but some services nonetheless.

Being a libertarian doesn't mean being categorically opposed to any and all government services.

 

[richard_daily]

Being a libertarian doesn't mean being categorically opposed to any and all government services.

Of course not... they are all for the government services that they personally use.

That's the inherent hypocrisy of libertarianism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's one big issue with the Libertarian party from what I can tell. They want to instantly abolish such things (along with various subsidies, tax breaks etc.) and let the free market decide what's viable. They ignore the practical and historical aspect of such things and how an overnight elimination would devastate many people and businesses. And so they refuse to seriously look at a phased approach. Something that could actually work.

Even if they did, the current system would never allow it. Like others they are not a party that supports big money....so big money doesn't give them any.

And without the support of big money, you will not get into any offices no matter how much public support you get big money will squash your bitch ass.

It will always come down to DNC v GOP....every time, parties work for big money and there are MAYBE a hand full of active politicians who don't put party before country. Unfortunately they are the most un popular people up in DC doing the damn thing.

Look at mexico folks....that's where the US is heading...a couple cartel mobsters running shit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Then how come that has never happened before?

It happens all the time.

In every age the folks at the top absorb every resource until there are no more resources left to feed all the parasites, then the parasites bring down the government. I'm not speaking of the peasants, I'm speaking of the sons and daughters of government officials who want a tit to suckle, too.

You see it in family bizness; momma and daddy grow the bizness, then make jobs for sis and junior, and the wives and husbands, and the grandkids. And the family sux all the money outta the bizness, and the fighting starts.

 

[CandiCame]

Well, we're really talking about modern movement Libertarianism, which is a bit more radical than what is usually thought of as "Classical Liberal," e.g. John Stuart Mill. Here's a summary of the Libertarian Party's platform.



For perspective see the TVTropes UsefulNotes page on Political Ideologies:

That sounds very much like the "selfish dicks" of the political world. Kind of like satanists are to religion.

Based on that description I'm going to say that we did try that, that was the part of human history before we formed governments. Then we realized that that was stupid and in order to have any kind of society you had to put the group before the individual or we lost the physically weak but intelligent people that we needed to advance to the strong but incapable, and the strong but incapable were in turn murdered by the inventions of the intelligent but weak who utilized tools faster, and that shit just kinda... sucked. It was horrible, shitty chaos in which you may be murdered at any second and there was no 'collective' to protect you. No taxes collected to fund a police force that you could call if you were about to be stabbed, no funding for a public education system for your children so that they were easily led and deceived by anyone more intelligent than them, because they never had a chance to reach their intellectual potential. No one to watch the bad guys to make sure they were rehabilitated and didn't just commit the same fucking crimes over and over.

So yeah... not a fan of the 'everybody out there take care of yours and I'll take care of mine' philosophy, because no man is an island. Even under that system, do you know what happens? You wind up finding people that you trust and linking up with them, because you know they won't stab you. And then if someone does try to stab you, you run to your friends, scream, "That dude tried to stab me, we have deemed that unacceptable behavior" and BOOM, just like that the era of libertarianism is over because you have created a group who works for the greater good, who is going to keep an eye on that guy, invade his privacy, fuck him up, based on the good of the group.

Humans are social animals, if you try the 'fuck everybody but me' system, you will die faster than humans who have an active social life. Even if you have the means to physically survive, your amydala starts to fuck up and make imaginary friends for you- like the soccer ball in Castaway. That's a real thing that happens because that mindset will literally drive you mad.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The thing is that the libertarian path isn't one way - you can always add social programs, but the welfare state path does not allow a reset without a revolution.

^ What she said.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Of course not... they are all for the government services that they personally use.

That's the inherent hypocrisy of libertarianism.

No, because then they'd be Democrats.

 

[Byron In Exile]

That's one big issue with the Libertarian party from what I can tell. They want to instantly abolish such things (along with various subsidies, tax breaks etc.) and let the free market decide what's viable. They ignore the practical and historical aspect of such things and how an overnight elimination would devastate many people and businesses. And so they refuse to seriously look at a phased approach. Something that could actually work.

If a Libertarian President were elected, do you suppose he could wave his hand and make the IRS disappear?

Congress makes the laws.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That sounds very much like the "selfish dicks" of the political world. Kind of like satanists are to religion.

Based on that description I'm going to say that we did try that, that was the part of human history before we formed governments. Then we realized that that was stupid and in order to have any kind of society you had to put the group before the individual or we lost the physically weak but intelligent people that we needed to advance to the strong but incapable, and the strong but incapable were in turn murdered by the inventions of the intelligent but weak who utilized tools faster, and that shit just kinda... sucked. It was horrible, shitty chaos in which you may be murdered at any second and there was no 'collective' to protect you. No taxes collected to fund a police force that you could call if you were about to be stabbed, no funding for a public education system for your children so that they were easily led and deceived by anyone more intelligent than them, because they never had a chance to reach their intellectual potential. No one to watch the bad guys to make sure they were rehabilitated and didn't just commit the same fucking crimes over and over.

So yeah... not a fan of the 'everybody out there take care of yours and I'll take care of mine' philosophy, because no man is an island. Even under that system, do you know what happens? You wind up finding people that you trust and linking up with them, because you know they won't stab you. And then if someone does try to stab you, you run to your friends, scream, "That dude tried to stab me, we have deemed that unacceptable behavior" and BOOM, just like that the era of libertarianism is over because you have created a group who works for the greater good, who is going to keep an eye on that guy, invade his privacy, fuck him up, based on the good of the group.

Humans are social animals, if you try the 'fuck everybody but me' system, you will die faster than humans who have an active social life. Even if you have the means to physically survive, your amydala starts to fuck up and make imaginary friends for you- like the soccer ball in Castaway. That's a real thing that happens because that mindset will literally drive you mad.

You don't get it.

See there are two rules: The first rule is, fuck your buddy as much as possible; the 2nd rule is, if you fuck your buddy too much you fuck yourself. The line tween those 2 rules is the edge of the envelope pols try and push with every breath they take. Pols always wanna fuck you outta more but they know there's a line they cant cross or the whole sweet deal goes to hell. And they always cross that line.

 

[about_average]

Of course not... they are all for the government services that they personally use.

That's the inherent hypocrisy of libertarianism.

No, there are government services I don't use that I think are worthwhile. Of course, there are even more that aren't.

Even if they did, the current system would never allow it. Like others they are not a party that supports big money....so big money doesn't give them any.

And without the support of big money, you will not get into any offices no matter how much public support you get big money will squash your bitch ass.

Well, it's not really the money that elects people, it's us. The issue really is that people are dumb enough to believe what the money tells them to believe. Just like advertising money. Some of us are pretty much immune to the billions spent on advertising, and completely ignore political ads, other than to do a bit of research and see, yet again, how they are, at best, utterly distorting the facts, or just out right lying.

If a Libertarian President were elected, do you suppose he could wave his hand and make the IRS disappear?

Of course not. We weren't talking about a single office holder (at least I wasn't). What you say applies to all presidents for whatever issue they take up, regardless of party.

No, because then they'd be Democrats or Republicans, or any other major party.

Fixed it for you.

 

[richard_daily]

No, because then they'd be Democrats.

veteman's a democrat?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, it's not really the money that elects people, it's us. The issue really is that people are dumb enough to believe what the money tells them to believe. Just like advertising money. Some of us are pretty much immune to the billions spent on advertising, and completely ignore political ads, other than to do a bit of research and see, yet again, how they are, at best, utterly distorting the facts, or just out right lying.

We vote how big money tells us too....yes.

But the results are still the same....big money offers us a turd sandwich and a giant douche. And our partisan hacks nation wide lock step it up.

I mean the RW here and across the nation was vehemently defending that fuck wad ROMNEY. Day after he lost? MAN FUCK THAT RINO!!! I never liked him anyhow....


Shit look at Merc...that guy would blow his fucking brains out if the messiah told him to with ZERO hesitation.

"Yes Obama, anything for you!!"
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldjtzxd2f31qzhefco1_500.gif

He will be that hack forever...just like vette will jump behind the dumbest fucking prick in politics as long as they are wearing red.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If a Libertarian President were elected, do you suppose he could wave his hand and make the IRS disappear?

Congress makes the laws.

You need to do a bit more research, old chum.

Teh Libertarian Philosophy is formulated, at least in part, on the idea of making inconvenient facts/realities/history just disappear.

The day after a Libertarian President was elected, the IRS and the Fed would disappear, roads would fix themselves, and the poor would emigrated en masse to, um, Canada or someplace.

Utopia in 24 hours or less.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That sounds very much like the "selfish dicks" of the political world. Kind of like satanists are to religion.

As a matter of fact, Anton Szandor LaVey did once describe his Church of Satan as "Objectivism with mysticism added."

 

[KingOrfeo]

If a Libertarian President were elected, do you suppose he could wave his hand and make the IRS disappear?

Congress makes the laws.

If a Libertarian Congress were elected, what then?

 

[bronzeage]

If a Libertarian Congress were elected, what then?

Nothing happens.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nothing happens.

nonsense! A libertarian congress would debate the quickest and most efficient way to screw the poor.

 

[ivantheterrible]

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.

very true dude.
to comment to the OP:
people have been dominated by society from BIRTH. to think they need to be controlled, dominated, told what to do, how to live, what is acceptable, and what is not.
for a small example, before america took control of territories, ndns, whites, etc., did as they pleased. if they stepped over the line they were taken care of. you know, it's ok for you to wander, live, make a living, but if you take from "me" or try to harm me, you're dead.
then the u.s. comes in, sets up government after stealing, lieing, murdering, and enslaving, and then tells everyone else HOW to live.