Ahahaha. You win this time ILN. You win this time. :P That was a hilarious bit of satire.

The number of people who "just don't get it" in the comments is low for youtube, but still kinda depressing though.

Haven't watched it yet but over the last year I've found many flaws with libertarianism and have thus when people ask me my political beliefs I now say conservative not libertarian.

Watch it fasces, you won't regret it.

Pretty good. Exposes a lot of BS. And I'm not even close to being a Libertarian.

Actually, I consider it pretty good if one person in the comments section in a youtube video gets it. Which is why I'm not a Libertarian. Government is stupid, but people is more stupid.

I'm not sure I understand Theo. If you think the majority of people people are stupid, why would you want to give a collection of other people the ability to control parts of your life by voting in a government that they think sounds good?

(If you don't want to discuss it feel free to ignore my question. I won't be offended at all.) :)

I think hilarious is a bit far, damian. It's just one point made really slowly, and it's never going to convince anyone who doesn't agree of anything.

Because a collection of people beats a bunch of individuals.

Generally speaking, a group of people together make better decisions than individuals do. Overall, science shows that cooperation and collaboration beats individual decision-making most of the time. Not all the time and not in all circumstances, but more often than not. Which is why governments, while heavily flawed, are much less flawed than the alternative.

Just look at places around the world without much, or any, government. How many are more utopian than the country you live in? None?

Iceland is pretty damn utopian and they have a very minimal government.

Libertarians are not conservative, pretty much the opposite in fact in any sense of the word. The only position Libertarians and Conservatives share is opposition to taxation.

@ghug: Oh definitely. I don't expect it to convince anyone. I just found it really funny, because I was anticipating the ending the entire thing.

@Theodosius: While I agree that collective decision making can be beneficial. I'm not sure if I would apply that description to the government of my country. I would say Democracy isn't a collaborative dialog, but instead a bunch of individuals voting for whatever happens to suit their self interest.

I'm drawing up blank of good examples from our modern world with minimal government. Most of the places that typically get dragged out as examples aren't so much lacking in government, but in the midst of a regime change.

Some of the more Utopian places can also be found in socialistic countries like Sweden. I just don't believe in a one-size-fits-all solution.

I do know that if the economy tanks, like it did in Russia, people are pretty quick to pick any solution, including one that takes away rights (Putin), if it means food on the table. Most people want convenience and cheap entertainment. Government provides that. I'm not saying that's what's best for people, but it's what they want.

Libertarianism also ignores the value of collective societies. Lots of studies have been done on individualistic vs. collective societies. Both have major flaws, but in general, collective societies are happier, especially in smaller groups.

I haven't watched this video yet, but here are some much shorter parodies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ2aJm1gxCw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE

(The first one used to be at this URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCRymrsFnPM. I'm not sure if they made any changes to the video.

)

@ BabylonHoruv: "Iceland is pretty damn utopian and they have a very minimal government."

This is a joke, yes? I think Iceland has a very positive society and, especially following the banking crisis, a well-engaged and politically literate populace. But they hardly have a "minimal government".

Consider just these two points:

Iceland has universal healthcare, most of which is free at the point of use, largely funded through taxation. All of Iceland's hospitals and healtcare institutions are directly run by the state. There are no private hospitals and almost no-one has private health insurance.

Iceland has a comprehensive welfare state, again paid for through taxation. Iceland's health and welfare spending amounts to around 30% of GDP. Unemployed Icelanders recieve a relatively generous unemployment benefit (70% of average wages, which is FAR higher than here in the UK for example). On retirement Icelanders also recieve a guaranteed state pension.


Given that libertarians are generally opposed to the concept of a welfare state, and Iceland has a very comprehensive one, I don't see how you can present Iceland as some kind of libertarian "minimal government" society. That's clearly not the case.

It is possible that my views are non-standard. But personally I believe that a libertarian society will naturally develop collective solutions to their problems. The primary difference being these collective solutions will be non-coercive. As an example, I would happily pay into a system of collective health care if I felt it was well run. But I am a libertarian primarily because I believe everyone should have the choice to voluntarily choose to participate in these structures.

@ damian: In your libertarian utopia, where instead of having general taxation, paying for every public service would be on an opt-in basis, tell me how you would deal with free riders who didn't want to pay a personal subscription for services such as:

- The police
- The fire brigade
- Highways
- Refuse collection

yes - and this is what we see in the rest of the world:
http://s3.postimg.org/ldhz4vuib/123.jpg

I see Libertarianism very quickly degenerating into corruption, nepotism, and thuggery, like most places do without a government. The problem with Libertarianism, like all "-ism's, is that at some point it has to deal with real people, not with yet another random ideal that's been placed on a pedestal.

And what happens when all of the people that can't afford a police service and so get routinely screwed over by everyone else decide to hold a revolution? There would be less freedom, rather than more, for people on the bottom in a Libertarian society. They would be coerced by anyone with more money and power.

I've only read a bit of Libertarian literature, and stopped when I realized how white and elitist it was. Is that offensive?

It's not offensive to say a group of people who are quite often white and elite are white and elitist.

- The police - I'm personally a fan of multiple private security forces. If you call in a crime and you have no service you'll be charged for the service. If you opt in you never have to pay for police services.
- The fire brigade - Similar to the police.
- Highways - Tolls. People who pay will be give a card that lets them skip the toll.
- Refuse collection - People who refuse to opt in won't have their garbage collected. Meaning it will build up on their property unless they remove it themselves.

What I envision happening is something similar to neighbourhood associations, where when you move in you agree to pay for services in your neighbour hood and every year each neighbourhood allows private companies to bid on contracts for those services. Whereas other neighbourhoods might not require such a contract. Thus people who are more risk tolerant can live their, and only pay for the services when they need them. Ie. large but infrequent expenses. Whereas the people in the neighbourhoods with the contracts would be assured of no-free loaders (because that would be a breach of contract), and can small amounts at regular intervals.

Arguably, one of the benefits of any public service is that it allows a few free loaders...ie people who cannot afford the service.

funny.

The history of civilization. In short. Funny because it's true.

WOW that's white and elitist. Have your gated white privileged community. I want no part in it.

So do the people that can't afford a police service get thrown in front of buses for the amusement of those that can or will amusement be more like bear bating? Pit fighting? Given human nature and privileged gated communities, it will only be a matter of time before discrimination and racism will allow that to happen to poor people that can't enforce their rights. Rights aren't rights if you have to pay to have them, like having to pay the police to get police service if your rights have been violated, rights then become a $ privilege. And that leaves a lot of people with no rights.

In a Libertarian society, I see the rich deliberately keeping the poor from exercising their rights by paying premiums to all of the police services, to keep their privilege to do whatever they want. That pretty much happens in all countries where bribery is common, so it'll happen here too.

No surprising, there aren't a lot of poor Libertarians. They're at the bottom; they know what smells.

That's kind of the point Theo. Everyone can form communities that are suited to their disposition. If you feel a more proscriptive version of services is required you can form a community with mandatory taxes and what have you.

I have no issue with people choosing to live like that. I have an issue with people being forced to live in a particular way.

Which is all well and good, but libertarianism doesn't tolerate its opponents.

For people who don't want to watch, the video is a dumb parody of strawman arguments against libertarianism, not a dumb parody of libertarianism itself.

Everyone talks bad about the things that would happen in a government-free world, without considering all the bad things that the government actually does or encourages right now. It's not like the current corporate capitalist plutocracy just emerged organically, after all. All these problems the government is trying to solve are at least in part problems created by earlier government policies.

But I'm sure all this will be resolved in yet another forum discussion about libertarians.

I will grant you that the concern of private security firms choosing to defend people who have trod on the rights of others is certainly a possible problem. Something to think about. Perhaps, a reason to have a public police service?

That would probably be acceptable. Especially if the number of laws were cut down. And then both parties who are in a legal dispute could collectively agree one a mediator. If the laws are simple there is less need for huge piles of money to defend yourself in court.