>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.


Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.

Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement

Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?
You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

8====D~

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.


Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?

You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

>> ^NetRunner:

Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?


Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.

There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.
It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.


Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.


There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.

It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.

>> ^blankfist:

But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.


But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.

Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.

You don't understand logic either, it seems.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.
I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.
More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.
Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.


But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.

He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."

Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.

But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.

It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.

Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.

>> ^blankfist:

Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.

I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.

More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.

Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?

Sure. I'm on vicodin at the moment, so maybe I should clear my head first?


Take your time. : )

>> ^Ti_Moth:

Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?


Sure. I'm on vicodin at the moment, so maybe I should clear my head first?

>> ^blankfist:

Well, history has shown that more individual freedom (less collectivist government) leads to enrichment of lives, protection of the poor, etc. The US government early on was built on some basic and fundamental Libertarian ideas, though back then they were called liberal.
Prior to that, no other human government ever allowed such individual freedom. Not to say the US wasn't plagued with its problems, but it was a step in the right direction. Why go backwards?


I would say Rome did, and Greece. But that was more because of certain circumstances than how a government ran. I.e., we were a land of plenty, slaughtered the Indians, kept slaves to work, and then after those, indentured servants, and then illegal aliens and prisoners. However, those have dried up...

Greece was crap until conquest. Macedonia-what? Oh yeah, that poor state that Alexander came from...

Don't get me wrong, we love our Freedoms Blankfist, but history bodes for the circumstances of a nation--not the people themselves or how it is run. (I wouldn't say that Greece and Rome were particularly generous or freedom oriented, just like I wouldn't say America is.)

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Ok, I don't see how libertarianism could be feasible. Too utopian for my taste.
http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/


Don't be too hasty. It's a strawman attack piece. A couple responses:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/robert-nozick-and-the-value-of-liberty/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/capitalist-acts-between-consenting-adults/

There seems to be a lot of attacks on Libertarianism these days. Just goes to show you that the idea is gaining popularity.