Yes, I'm not saying that Libertarianism can't work. But in it's pure idealistic form, it is worse that what exists in most developed countries now.

It would need a way to enforce rights in a fair, unbiased way.

It would need an effective education system for all and a way of counselling people who've fallen off the path to be productive and effective members of society. A society only lasts if it meets the needs of the majority of its members, which Libertarianism can only do if the majority of people are rational, routinely make good decisions, and capable of making money. Which also means that those with some sort of handicap in those areas might need some sort of aid to equalize the playing field.

If the majority of people in a society think that the Nietzschean "superman" is the ideal, then certainly Libertarianism is the optimal society.

@It would need a way to enforce rights in a fair, unbiased way.
I agree. But I don't think that's what we have now either. Which is why I'm in favour of both people agreeing to an arbiter they think is fair.

"It would need an effective education system for all and a way of counselling people who've fallen off the path to be productive and effective members of society. A society only lasts if it meets the needs of the majority of its members, which Libertarianism can only do if the majority of people are rational, routinely make good decisions, and capable of making money. Which also means that those with some sort of handicap in those areas might need some sort of aid to equalize the playing field."
If the society needs this, because otherwise the needs of the majority won't be met, don't you think people would create these structures voluntarily, without being forced into paying for them?

People tend to look after themselves first, which is the whole point of Libertarianism.

So, the structures will exist, but I think that only those with enough social responsibility would contribute, which would be a minority of people in a society set up to glorify individual rights over society needs.

I think that in such a society, there is a fair to good chance that there would be a lot of social pressure against providing aid for "freeloaders".

damian:
". . . don't you think people would create these structures voluntarily, without being forced into paying for them?"
You mean like in Europe where the political right doesn't question the need for these structures?

ITT a bunch of people clutch pearls about bad things that could happen while ignoring worse things that do happen

ITT libertarians act as if their views are facts, making them no fun to have discussions with.

(Damian's actually been a cut above the usual.)

where is that actually happening in here?

"but libertarianism doesn't tolerate its opponents. "

This is the funniest shit I've read in a while. Yeah....because if you disagree with Liberal Democrats,you get skewered in the media and loose your fucking JOB. You aren't allowed to be employed in Liberal Democrat America if you don't exactly, 100% tow the Liberal line.

Liberals = the New Totalitarian State.

"ITT a bunch of people clutch pearls about bad things that could happen while ignoring worse things that do happen"

You provide no evidence that bad things do happen or that they're worse than the alternative, nor do you acknowledge that we can't really know either way. I see this argumentative style quite often with Libertarians, which makes me not really ever want to talk to them about politics. This thread was actually different from the usual until you came in and said that.

@ghug. Exactly.

There's a serious argument in here that libertarianism is bad because it MIGHT lead to a private police force where white elitists MIGHT trample on the rights of the poor and/or ethnic minorities and MIGHT lead to them being killed for sport. This ignores the fact that we currently DO have a police force where the rights of not only the poor and ethnic minorities but essentially everyone but the rich and powerful are routinely trampled on, and where individuals already are killed by police completely unnecessarily. These are, in fact, all easily validated facts from any cursory Google search.

So... yes, that was exactly true in this thread -- people are too busy hemming and hawing about the possibility of a private police force (which most libertarians don't even support) leading to abuses to acknowledge that the public police force in the US is already responsible for worse abuses than those named in the thread.

"You provide no evidence that bad things do happen or that they're worse than the alternative, nor do you acknowledge that we can't really know either way. I see this argumentative style quite often with..."

You *meant* to say Liberal Demcrats here, did you not? Who insist constantly that not only bad things will happen, but that **doom** will happen...people starving on the streets, world's exploding, etc. Fucking-a, man, the god dmaned Liberal Democrats in the US are the fucking *masters* of Fear-Mongering!!!! Good lord...disagree with Obama and you are *instantly* the worst kind of racist. Disagree with a change in law on marriage (even when the majority of your state agrees with you) and you are driven from your job. Fucking Liberal Democrats are the worst kind of evil...not a suggestion...a DEMONSTRATED fact...thriving on fear, thriving on the idea that they, and only they, are right and to disagree with them makes you a "hater" and "denier" a bigot or whatever other awful, negative descriptor they want to use...and you fucking sheep eat that shit up and are so god-damned blind you can't even see it. And yet you are the same ass-following clown sheep that wonder how the fuck Krystalnacht happened...

Sorry: Kristallnacht

we should all agree that the current system sucks, as does a libertarian dystopia. we need a completely socialist system so it is impossible to have white elitists rule the world :P

That's it, almost three years on the site and I've finally muted krellin. You should really try actually adding to discussions instead of constantly spewing your bullshit. I'm sure you'll call me a coward for not responding to your points, but you add literally nothing to discussions and are no longer worth my time. Good riddance.

PE, the solution to police corruption is reform, not removal of the government entirely. A private security force that is expressly purposed to only protect the group of people able to pay for it is, by definition, going to do nothing to protect the less fortunate. As it is, they are at least supposed to protect people equally. Some do exactly that, and others would too if they were held more accountable. Explain how having a private police force could inherently fix the problems of the current system.

@Krellin:

1) Bush was the master of fear mongering and he wasn't a Liberal Democrat, so that's not an exclusive club. Are police raiding critics of Obama's regime? No? Well Bush had police raiding critics of his. Fear mongering isn't restricted to one political philosophy.

I remember when Bush was in power and some Liberal Democrat friends of mine in the states were being pushed around and harassed, just walking down the street. Now it is the other way? When's the last time a group of people started shoving you around when you weren't looking for trouble?

So the political pendulum has gone back the other way a bit. It will go back and forth. Live with it.

2) Humans are flawed, so any system we still in place will suck. Some will suck less, but will still suck.

3) Look at places that don't have a government, or are in transition between governments. Likely all of them are at the top 5% of crime and murder rates, including hate crime, and the policing is by armed squads of goons, whether the population wants it or not is irrelevant. Life there gets worse over time, not better. The ones that have improved have done so by putting strong, responsible governments in place. Can you think of any exceptions? No?

4) Look at the countries that are consistently highly rated, with low crime rates, etc. Socialist democracies. Any exceptions? No?

5) I think that what you are referring to political correctness, not Liberal Democrats. That sickness will be there in some degree regardless of who is in power. Even universities have been stifling free debate in the name of political correctness for some time.

@PE.
Of course there are serious issues that will required a lot of hard work to fix. There is also the matter of prevalence. What % of police beat up minorities for fun and how many are just trying to do their job the best they can? Places with less effectual governments have a much, much higher rate of police brutality and corruption than the States does.

But to suggest that the pros and cons of alternative solutions can't be reasonably discussed as damian and I were, is a bit off. Especially when discussions of Libertarianism have to be largely theoretical. It's easy to say "Libertarianism will fix everything" if it hasn't been tried and you attack people that criticize it. I'm bringing up what I think are legitimate concerns and seeing what a Libertarian can do to to either prove me wrong or tweak Libertarianism to address those concerns. Any political or economic theory has to go through the same process.

Sure it has been tried: you get nightmares like the VOC reaping human labor without compensation.

storm ate my post

No one said you can't talk about it, but you're not discussing an issue most libertarians even support, so equating it with mainstream libertarian thought is faulty. That's my main point -- in response to the real and prevalent problems of non-libertarian societies, like that of present-day America, y'all are talking about relatively extreme positions that wouldn't realistically be enacted in a libertarian society, and then acting like because that's too extreme, libertarianism is a non-starter. It's bogus.

There is a difference between the ideal of what Libertarians want their society to look like and what it would actually look like, just like there is a difference between what communists want their society to look like and what it ends up as.

I think that, because there is nothing to stand in the way of it, given human nature's tendency to take advantage of whatever system is put in front of their inventive minds, that it would end up horribly corrupt and with the extremes of wealth and poverty that are found in developing nations.

But enough about me. What are your thoughts on what a Libertarian society would look like?

First off, whats up with this self loathing attitude by white people? Why do you have to hate yourself for being a white male?

@Theo

"Libertarianism very quickly degenerating into corruption, nepotism, and thuggery, like most places do without a government."
Erm, are there actual examples of anarchist states where such things actually happened? Or is that Hollywood's representation of anarchy?
Here's an actual example of an anarchist state, that functioned well (definitely not filled with 'corruption, nepotism and thuggery') until the Bolsheviks came in and destroyed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

"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?"
Lol, First off, please don't try to get everyone emotionally roused with bear bating. We live in the 21st century.
If you as a person consider your protection priority, you will have enough money no matter what (unless you're a lazy bum). Even the poorest people in the US will be able to afford it. Take away taxation and those poor people with their increased money will be paying less money for protection than they would be paying taxes to fund the police. Also, people don't necessarily have to be protected by such an agency to be safe. Communities could form their own service, the neighbours of a flat or street could form their own such service where all could come to the aid of another. And finally, unlike unrealistic emotion filled hypotheses that anarchy would bring massive amounts of violence. People will be the same good productive people they are now with the occasional criminal here and there. In such a society, the chance of getting attacked is so low, that you may not even need such protection. Not to mention most people will assume you have it anyways. Besides, we are capable of defending ourselves.

"People tend to look after themselves first, which is the whole point of Libertarianism. "
I would argue the whole point of libertarianism is not about looking out for yourself first, but instead about not forcing anyone to look out for anyone else. Admittedly a subtle difference, but an important one I think. I mean, obviously I'm dissatisfied with the present system, but I'm not fundamentally against the idea of government, like some libertarians. In fact if I was drawing up a voluntary contract for a society, I'd probably keep a lot of things from a social democracy. Because I'm not overly upset about paying for public health care, etc. My primary reason for supporting libertarianism, over a competing political ideal, is fundamentally out of respect of the self determination of all other people.

"So, the structures will exist, but I think that only those with enough social responsibility would contribute, which would be a minority of people in a society set up to glorify individual rights over society needs. I think that in such a society, there is a fair to good chance that there would be a lot of social pressure against providing aid for "freeloaders"."
I realize this reply is one of many "classic" right wing arguments. But I would argue taxes for social programs discourage private donation. The logic being that you've already paid for social programs to help the down trodden, why should you donate on top of that. For that reason I suspect the rate and size of donations would go up. However, it is likely not everyone will donate, meaning the absolute value will go down. My sincere hope is that private institutions and not for profits can provide the same service for less cost by making more use of volunteers, and reducing bureaucratic overhead. Possibly overly optimistic but I suspect achievable for most social programs. Especially considering the amount of money the government pisses away on other non-useful things. (ie. ads for programs that don't exist. (this has actually been a major problem in Canada.))

"You mean like in Europe where the political right doesn't question the need for these structures?"
I think the political right is by and large challenging the role of the government in those structures. But I will grant you some people just don't like the idea of their money going to help other people. I suspect the majority of people on the political right are reacting to being forced to pay for social programs, rather than the existence of the social programs themselves. Though I could be wrong about this.

"(Damian's actually been a cut above the usual.)"
Thank you.


"2) Humans are flawed, so any system we still in place will suck. Some will suck less, but will still suck."
For sure. So why do you want to give flawed people, who are put in charge by a flawed system the power to control you, with no way to opt out short of violent revolution?

"3) Look at places that don't have a government, or are in transition between governments. Likely all of them are at the top 5% of crime and murder rates, including hate crime, and the policing is by armed squads of goons, whether the population wants it or not is irrelevant. Life there gets worse over time, not better. The ones that have improved have done so by putting strong, responsible governments in place. Can you think of any exceptions? No?

"4) Look at the countries that are consistently highly rated, with low crime rates, etc. Socialist democracies. Any exceptions? No?"
This is true, of course the social democracies of the north west have been more stable countries for a long time which comes with lower crime rates and so forth. Consider the socialist states of south america, a great deal of crime and violence occurs in them. I would also like to argue once again, that the states we refer to as not having a government, and the states in transition between governments are typically failed states. Which is to say usually they were oppressing the populace, or a group of people to the point of rebellion. Or in the cases where governments are transitioning often violence occurs between supporters of the past and present regime. Are social democracies more stable? Sure. I would argue this is not because they have a government, but because the government they do have is less oppressive than the states that are experiencing political upheaval.

So yes. Life gets worse there while the government isn't present, because people are fighting over who will get to be the next government. If the expectation of their being a next government didn't exist, perhaps they wouldn't be fighting to rule the country, and the situation would improve. For this to occur there would have to be a change in the expectations of the citizens of these countries.

What would a libertarian society look like you ask?

Well. Let me paint a picture for you.
Our ideal society would consist of magical unicorn-dragons who fly around enacting great acts of ... oh, a realistic picture? Let me start again.

Personally I think a libertarian society should be implemented gradually. Some folks will disagree, but I think it will allow people to adjust to their increasing freedom. Beginning a western social democracy like Canada. i would begin by simplifying the tax code, probably to a two step income tax system, with a basic income allotment that would go untaxed and others laws, basically reduce the laws until the crimes one could be charged for were: breach of contract, violence against another person, theft or fraud. Next I would transition all federally owned land to the respective provincial governments and from there to the various local communities to administer or sell at the choice of the citizens. With this accomplished I would slowly dismantle the court system and instead set up a system in which an impartial mediator could be agreed upon by both parties. From there I would begin slowly reducing the length of patents and copyright. (a somewhat contentious point about libertarians). From there I would slowly phase out the various departments of the federal government. Until it was responsible only for national defence and foreign policy. All other responsibilities would be the realm of the provincial governments, including making all laws.

Following a similar methodology I would slowly downgrade responsibilities to the local governments. Before they were eventually placed upon the citizens themselves. At which point the citizens would be able to build whatever structure they felt most appropriate for the service. For example highways might be maintained with funds collected from multiple communities which wanted the highways to be maintained.

Within the communities each neighbourhood would collectively own the roads street lights, power lines, etc. And multiple neighbourhoods might collectively own water and waster purification facilities. Neighbourhoods would then open up the maintenance of these utilities to private companies by allowing them to bid for the right to keep them in working condition, keep the roads clear and so forth

What a libertarian state might look like, as I imagine it?

On a federal level, very minimalist. I don't have any nostalgia for the "Old South" or anything like that, nor do I think "states' rights" have any serious practical meaning or significance. But I do think that decentralizing government power as much as possible is the correct way to distribute that power; more decentralization, to state and local communities, is preferable because local communities have a lower ratio of represented:representatives, and so their officials are better able to be held accountable for their decisions.

More generally (local and federal), the role of the government as I envision it is to provide goods which a free market can't. Mostly this includes things which conceptually simply don't function as a market -- for example, a system of law enforcement, which seeks to monopolize violence as a means of reducing it. This would also include a limited degree of public works projects which would pay themselves off in time, but have substantial startup costs that are reduced due to the economies of scale that a governmental structure can provide. Essentially I view the role of government as a "miscellaneous vendor," an entity with which people contract, like a business, to receive certain goods a market struggles to provide.

My primary reason for supporting libertarianism, over a competing political ideal, is fundamentally out of respect of the self determination of all other people.

This. Thank you.
The greatest part of libertarianism is that people can organize themselves into any type of society they want.

Libertarians = secretly plotting to take over the world - so that they can leave you alone

So it sounds like a free-market version of communism with community owned services, but with rights emphasizing freedom instead of distribution of resources.

I do agree that decentralization of power is a good thing, to a point. There are things that centralized powers either do more efficiently or a free market does not provide well, if at all. I would add onto the list things like "standards" so that 1 kilo in Quebec is the same as 1 kilo in Texas, companies get audited and their financial reports are done consistently no matter where they are, etc.

I also agree that the Canadian court system is flawed, although, to be said in its defence, it well regarded as a good model throughout the world with its independence from the politics of state. Mediation; however, is even more flawed than a judicial system. That information was volunteered to me from every mediator I've talked to. Reform is better than revolution, where possible, and there is probably more good there than not.

I don't hate myself for being a white male, I just looked at the description given to me and I was reminded of all of the white gated communities that want to exist by those rules - look after themselves and screw everyone else.

The main objections I raise from your descriptions are then:

1) People want convenience and to be cheaply entertained so they don't have to do anything. Opposing that is that most people in a Libertarian community have to be very community minded and active for the concept to work. It's hard enough to find people to clear a school's ice rink or run a fundraiser. If a community is also looking after contracting out water, lights, roads, insurance, etc., the do-gooders will be burnt out pretty quick. And foisting being the group's accountant on someone who doesn't want the job is just a bad idea.

I see the first generation of Libertarians in a community, since they all want the idea to work, doing well, but the next generation will want the sofa and a remote instead.

2) One of the first things people are willing to give up when threatened (by fear, a bad economy, disease, etc.) is their freedom. The president before Putin was convinced by an American right-wing think tank that they should just start dropping laws and a capitalistic free-market economy would just arise from the ashes like a magical unicorn-dragon. Well, the economy tanked since people weren't ready for that yet, and Putin got voted in on improving the economy. People didn't start complaining about rights until the economy improved.

So why base a society on rights, instead of, for example, a stable economy with food on the table? Or equal opportunity? Generally speaking, that isn't as much a rallying point as some other pressing issues. Giving first nation folks their rights hasn't improved their lot a whole bunch because their issues are lot more complex than just rights.

3) It still sounds like the crime rate will be low because you want it to be, or those pesky unicorn-dragons are on patrol again. You can't look at it from what you want it to be, you have to look at it from the perspective of people who enjoy abusing whatever system is put in front of them.

Because rights such as the right to property would ensure that you can put food on the table. Rights are the framework of a society.

Funny you mention that giving first nation folks rights isn't helping. The problem is their lack of rights. The government has no respect for their property rights. Here in Canada aboriginals have only ever lost rights, not gained them. The right to vote is perhaps the only right they obtained, and utterly useless as no politician gives a damn about such a small minority.

"I do agree that decentralization of power is a good thing, to a point. There are things that centralized powers either do more efficiently or a free market does not provide well, if at all. I would add onto the list things like "standards" so that 1 kilo in Quebec is the same as 1 kilo in Texas, companies get audited and their financial reports are done consistently no matter where they are, etc."
The kilo and other such standardized measurements are presently widely used. Even if the government wasn't enforcing them, between momentum and keeping trade easy to use I suspect the standard would remain constant from country to country.

"I also agree that the Canadian court system is flawed, although, to be said in its defence, it well regarded as a good model throughout the world with its independence from the politics of state. Mediation; however, is even more flawed than a judicial system. That information was volunteered to me from every mediator I've talked to. Reform is better than revolution, where possible, and there is probably more good there than not."
I would love to know why its more flawed rather than just the anecdote.

"1) People want convenience and to be cheaply entertained so they don't have to do anything. Opposing that is that most people in a Libertarian community have to be very community minded and active for the concept to work. It's hard enough to find people to clear a school's ice rink or run a fundraiser. If a community is also looking after contracting out water, lights, roads, insurance, etc., the do-gooders will be burnt out pretty quick. And foisting being the group's accountant on someone who doesn't want the job is just a bad idea."
We already have municipal governments. If individuals in the community didn't want to be responsible for setting up contracts they could hire someone to set up the contracting, and or elect someone. For the vast majority of history people were strongly involved in communities, the disconnect of the modern family from the community is relatively recent phenomenon. In many rural towns, and small countries like the Falkland islands this sense of community still exists. It would take intentional fostering, but it certainly wouldn't be impossible to set up.

"2) One of the first things people are willing to give up when threatened (by fear, a bad economy, disease, etc.) is their freedom. The president before Putin was convinced by an American right-wing think tank that they should just start dropping laws and a capitalistic free-market economy would just arise from the ashes like a magical unicorn-dragon. Well, the economy tanked since people weren't ready for that yet, and Putin got voted in on improving the economy. People didn't start complaining about rights until the economy improved.

So why base a society on rights, instead of, for example, a stable economy with food on the table? Or equal opportunity? Generally speaking, that isn't as much a rallying point as some other pressing issues. Giving first nation folks their rights hasn't improved their lot a whole bunch because their issues are lot more complex than just rights."
Because a stable economy is easier to build when you know the government won't be changing the rules all the time. Low taxes+ Strong property rights + consistent stable regulation = good investment atmosphere.

"3) It still sounds like the crime rate will be low because you want it to be, or those pesky unicorn-dragons are on patrol again. You can't look at it from what you want it to be, you have to look at it from the perspective of people who enjoy abusing whatever system is put in front of them."
Be default the crime rate will be lower-simply because less things will be crimes. But I take your point. Shall we for the present assume that I'll accept a publicly funded police force. In which case, why would crime increase? If the laws are clear and simple, its harder for there to be loopholes, and it means the police can less time worrying about insignificant crime and more time focusing on significant crime.