libertarian paradise

Post Reply New Topic

...where everything is for sale, and everyone looks out for him- or herself:
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/08/146575908 ... umbai-slum

There is a difference between a minimal government and just plain social chaos. Libertarian means society under a minimal government who function is to protect lives, protect property, secure rights and provide a peaceful means of settling disputes. It does NOT mean gang rule.

ruveyn

I don't see how the poverty of a third world nation proves anything about an economic policy taken in a first world nation. The GDP per capita in India is also pretty small as well with lots of nations having similarly small GDPs per capita having some similar problems, has libertarianism been refuted by that too?

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Exactly. This has to do with it being a third world s**thole. What does the fact that there's no infrastructure or enough permanent jobs have to do with libertarianism? The infrastructure thing would say something about libertarianism if lets say they built private roads which are worse than Government funded roads, but there are no roads so there are no comparisons to make really.

I can't stand libertarians, but even I have to admit that that's a stretch.

Are you annoyed with people who do not want every minute detail of their lives subject to scrutiny and regulation?

ruveyn

I know a funny joke about libertarians.

Q: How can you tell if a person at a party is a libertarian?

A: Don't worry, he'll tell you.

You did not answer the question I put.

And I know several libertarians who keep their political views private.

There are at least two views about governance: One assumes that most people are like sheep have need shepherds. Another view is the most grown up people can regulate their own affairs privately and very few aspects of their lives have to be in the public domain. I subscribe to the latter.

The only thing I want to see from government is a police force, an army and courts of law. Anything else can be managed privately or voluntarily. Mankind has been on this planet about 200,000 years and we did not start to have governments until about 10,000 years ago. How did we ever manage to survive the first 190,000 years?

ruveyn

I'm going to try to explain to you why I don't like libertarians. This isn't supposed to be an "argument" against libertarianism, it's just why I don't like them.

Imagine that a bunch of people are playing a game of monopoly. After a while, a couple of players have outplayed the others, and have gotten most of the money in the game. Then, the players have to leave and go do something, so they abandon the game with the board still set up.

Now, a new group of people stumbles on the board. One of them, Jeff, sits himself at the place which has the most money. He says, "hey, let's play a nice, fair game of monopoly!" Jeff is a libertarian.

EDIT: Actually, it's even worse than that! You see, in the original game of monopoly, the rules were completely different. In the original game, players frequently just stole money from each other, and killed each other to take their money. But in the new, "fair" game that Jeff is proposing, these things are completely illegal! Otherwise it wouldn't be fair, you see.

We survived within tribes that operated in a socialist manner before we came up with having a Government, so what's your point again?

Libertarian means 'just enough government to protect the wealth of those who already have wealth, and enough self-righteousness that the wealthy feel like they earned every red cent by their own hard work and nothing else.' A pure libertarian utopia will always devolve into Dickensian poverty for the majority.

Y'all do realize Libertarian is a very broad scope, right? It encompasses everything from near Anarchism to what's essentially a Republican that's socially liberal.

There's no such thing as a "Libertarian Utopia".

-it doesn't matter what the form of government is, when that is the case, the result is a s**thole.

Can you explain how Libertarianism is responsible for the plight of the poor in India or how India is supposed to be an example of a libertopia?

Really, all it shows is that in some places (actually a lot of places) there are huge social problems that can't be fixed with "more freedom". Freedom is quite the meaningless concept when you have to live in a slum scavenging through garbage and selling scrap metal for food. But at least they aren't being forced by evil government to buy into socialized medicine. Well, in the US you might get beaten up and arrested by the cops for dumpster diving or erecting a shanty on public or private property. So I guess they're more free in that regard.