Why hasn't Libertarianism ever been attempted on a large scale?

Why hasn't Libertarianism ever been attempted on a large scale?

Other urls found in this thread:

alternet.org/news-amp-politics/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare
dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/chiles-plantation-economy/
mises.ca/since-when-is-honduras-a-libertarian-paradise/
playbuzz.com/joycemartin10/can-you-pass-the-sociopath-test
heritage.org/index/ranking
nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/29/will-latin-american-leaders-give-obama-an-earful-on-cuba-at-americas-summit/
youtube.com/watch?v=jUx6VCvnJBk
cato.org/human-freedom-index
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Modern age libertarianism?

There have been per-cursor large scale examples

>Early US
>Medieval Iceland
>Gaelic Ireland

It was. It was called "America". By 1860-ish the experiment failed.

Because it's only a practical way of governance for autistic teenagers that think their smarter than everyone .

>implying anything can be attempted on a large scale without roads

>what is the gilded age

>what is corporatism

Early USA

> Africa

>what is jeffersonian republicanism

The United States was not Libertarian up to 1860 and it wasn't classically liberal either. Economic policy was still mercantalist and protectionistic. The closest we've come to Libertarianism is probably the early 1900s.

>what is 1790-1861 United States

>what is agrarian utopianism.
>Libertarians trying to appeal to authority by reenvisioning the founders and early us history

You have studied Jefferson, haven't you user?

It has been. Classical liberalism was a main stay of the enlightenment.

>Why aren't there any minarchist/libertarian/classical liberal nations of a large scale today?

Because the cold war effectively pushed any economically conservative state to defensive measures which increased government intervention.

The bigger issue becomes that once a government is allowed a stronger role, it rarely surrenders that role peacefully. Why? Because power structures are made of individuals. You would be asking individuals whether or not they would prefer to be unemployed and for others to relinquish substantial amounts of influence.

Libertarianism isn't classical liberalism. Libertarianism is a consistent economic and social philosophy. Classical liberalism is not consistent in economic policy.

Fiercely protectionist

Trade protectionism is an anti-libertarian stance

Classical liberalism is Smithian economically but many people don't actually know Smith's ideas because they never read him and only got the information through some other source

Hamilton pls go

No mate, Early to even Pre-Union North America was Libertarian, The Republic of Vermont was a textbook example of a functioning Socialist Libertarian Republic.

Maybe I should say that Liberals, including many whom we consider as contributing to classical liberalism, weren't consistent on economic policy up to 1860 and that classical liberalism wasn't adopted and consistent among politicians in force until late 1800s-early 1900s.

>socialist libertarian
But that's literally impossible
It's like communist capitalism or zionist nazism.

Ancom Spain was arguably a Socialist Libertarian system.

The problem with Libertarianism is that free market libertarianism falls prey to AnCaps and would arguably become a AnCap system inevitably (basically placing the rights of corporations above individuals).
And Socialist Libertarianism is not profitable from a corporate POV, meaning that there could be no peaceful transition, on top of the fact that corporate interests would not wish to exist in such a system.

In theory, great, but there's no way to get there and once you're there, it's not going to stay that way for long.

Trade-protectionist is not incompatible with Libertarianism, it is incompatible with Free Market Libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism.

It's called Africa

Kek, no it is entirely possible.
Classical Liberalism and Libertarian ideals are about individual liberty.

Modern interpretations of libertarianism is heavily based on corporate rights, and less so with individual rights.

It's not a large scale ideology, or at least not if it intends to work properly.

It involves lots of decentralization of power, so you're not going to see it in any collected powerful nation, because that's not what it intends to achieve.

No, Africa is what happens when you forgo a transition of power and let warlords take power, because of "MUH FEELS".

The UK is entirely responsible for the current situation in Sub-Saharan Africa and should accept all refugees from Sub-Saharan Africa as punishment.

Roads are needed to attempt anything large scale.

But you don't have individual liberty of you don't have economic liberty. And with any form of socialism, you don't have economic liberty.

>Roads meme.
Only applicable under AnCap systems.

First of all, the thread is about right-libertarianism as in the political philosophy adopted by Ron Paul and not "Socialist Libertarianism" you Garden Noam. Second, what are you talking about with the Republic of Vermont being a Socialist Libertarian Republic? Feel free to cite some sources, because I didn't know Bernie Sanders was a time traveler.

because it's can't work in a multicultural society but lolbertrians run away from this truth because it makes them uncomfortable

Individual liberty is total, including economic liberty.
The only difference is you pay taxes, receive welfare and there are standard protections in place to protect working conditions.

Under an AnCap style Libertarian system you have no protections as an individual and are basically a serf for corporate entities.

I'm still waiting for you to cite how the US was left-libertarian up to 1860 and what this Socialist Libertarian Revolutionary Republic of Vermont that lasted for 13 years is all about.

If you and your friend agree on him doing something for you in exchange for an amount of money, and the state interferes (for example because muh minimum wage), there is no personal liberty.
And of you're forced under threat of imprisonment to pay taxes towards things you don't benefit from at all (for example welfare of you're not poor), then there is no personal liberty, either.

Cause it's a meme ideology that only rewards those who produce and create value instead of the ruling class.

It's about Libertarianism, the only functioning examples of such in history being Socialist variations.

As to the Vermont Republic's socialist leanings, they had public welfare/pension, a basic form of healthcare, a basic form of public education and they abolished slavery.
These ideals are a definite part of socialism, but they were not in conflict with Libertarianism.
Anyone had the right to refuse public welfare, healthcare and education and have no government intervention in their lives.

If you want genuine free markets then you must have interest rates that accurately reflect inflation.

At the moment, we have ridiculous devaluation and gov't spending but no inflation. It's so unsustainable.

We should have let interest rates rise during the tech boom of the '90s. Inflation isn't even that bad for debtors but I dread what would happen if we actually had a genuinely free market today.

Also, libertarians are for open borders and the demographics of that suggest opening your borders will result in an influx of Mexicans who vote for big government. Unsustainable.

At least you don't have as many Muslims.

Because if you tried NO GOVERNMENT on a large scale, you wouldn't be able to see it.

>3 minutes.
>I'M STILL WAITING
Calm down there son.
Individual contracts can exist, but corporations abusing their power to force down wages can not.
Look up Fordlandia, that's an example of what Libertarianism degrades to when corporations are not restricted.

And in regards to taxes, I don't agree with imprisonment for not paying fines, just you should be left out of the system.
If I don't pay taxes for my car, then it can't travel on the road.
If you don't pay taxes then you and your family will not be supported by the welfare system it provides.

Opt-in is the best model.

Were they also free to not pay taxes towards welfare, healthcare and education?

It's hard to find information on that, there's plenty of documentation on it existing, but I don't know if it was an opt system.

The fundamental idea is still the same, individual social rights were paramount, but a social net ensured quality of life for citizens.

Because governments aren't retarded enough to experiment with whatever meme ideology autists come up with and the autists are too lazy/scared to fuck off and build their own nation.

alternet.org/news-amp-politics/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare

>Because governments aren't retarded enough to experiment with whatever meme ideology autists come up with
The NSDAP wasn't scared.

Because it's fucking retarded.

Did it actually fail, or did the government just expand due to cold war or whatever pretext they had? I'm not really knowledgeable about american history, they don't teach that at all here.

dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/chiles-plantation-economy/

It has been , it was done in 1776

Kowloon Walled City. Tried it for about 40 years, wound up being a spectacularly overcrowded, subhuman, dilapidated shithole largely controlled by the mob and rife with drug addiction, gambling, and sweatshops. They eventually bulldozed it and evicted everyone and built a park.

They were absorbed into the the Union post revolution and bit by bit it was dismantled.

No. No. No. Don't think I'm going to let you come in here and derail a ron paul libertarian thread with your left-libertarian and anarcho syndacalist memes.

Also, I notice you've downgraded your statement of the Republic of Vermont being Socialist Libertarian to being kinda sorta SL. Neverminding your comments about the rest of North America.

As far as abolishing slavery, instituting public education, basic forms of healthcare, public welfare, many states had this up to 1860 and they weren't necessarily socialist libertarian or even socialist for that matter. Hell, even the arab world had a 'basic form of healthcare.' whatever that is precisely.

Also, please cite your sources for Republic of Vermont's left libertarian leanings. I can't even find an example of where they provided this pension you're referring to.

Federal, State, and local taxes combined back then were only 6% - 8% of GDP, and Federal taxes were about one third of that (2% - 3% of GDP.) So, even though import and excise taxes were high, they were the ONLY federal taxes and the overall tax burden was quite low.

As I understand it, there were no enforced federal taxes under the Articles of Confederation.

>You will never play a game about being a debt collector inside a Cyberpunk Kowloon.

>Socialist welfare policies combined with Libertarian individual rights does not make a Socialist Libertarian Republic.
Wew lad.

kangaroo fucker has a point

Sad!

Corporations are just groups of individual people. They have the same rights as individuals.

cite sources. you are not an historical authority onto yourself. claiming the Republic of Vermont was Socialist Libertarian and then citing only vague similarities like basic healthcare/pensions, public education, abolition of slavery , etc. is meaningless. Did you know that Germany under Bismark had these things. Was it Left-Libertarian? Absolutely not.

I remember a story from years ago about chile
there was a road where kids were being hit and killed by speeding cars.
they asked the ppl in the area to come to a meeting and discus signs to tell drivers there was a school and to slow down and watch for kids. but nobody came, most of the ppl there didn't have kids or they were already grown up and didn't care about someone elses kids and didn't wanna pay for signs

Corporations are OWNED by groups of people, mostly Jews and can not be afforded rights that would allow them to suppress the rights of the individual.

Because it didn't have a philosophical emphasis of social welfare and individual liberty.
I'm on my phone, but have a look at the Vermont Republic's Constitution and there a few historical documents on the website of the Second Vermont Republic's secessionist website.

>Corporations are OWNED by groups of people, mostly Jews and can not be afforded rights that would allow them to suppress the rights of the individual.

I can be part of a corporation without owning it.

Of course corporations cannot be allowed to suppress the rights of the individual. No one has said that they could. But it would be equally wrong to treat corporations as if they were anything but groups of people coming together to help each other economically.

Yes and there should be rules that restrict corporations to prevent them from affecting individual life and liberty.

It would be fine for a person to sign an individual contract with you to work per diem.
It would not be fine for a corporation to force a person into a position where they HAVE to work per diem.

That is a Socialist idea.

mises.ca/since-when-is-honduras-a-libertarian-paradise/

>the Fraser Institute’s most recent Freedom index ranks Honduras as the 55th freest country in the world, right behind Botswana and just ahead of Uganda.

libertarianism, the perfect ideology for a sociopathic society

playbuzz.com/joycemartin10/can-you-pass-the-sociopath-test

.mises.ca/
lol I saw that when I looked up one of the links
who says it not?

>It would not be fine for a corporation to force a person into a position where they HAVE to work per diem.

Are you talking about slavery? "Have to work"?

Or do just mean, as part of a voluntary agreement, they are employed at will (meaning, they can be fired for any reason at any time.)

>i-it's not real libertarianism

>Individual contracts can exist, but corporations abusing their power to force down wages can not.

monopolies of any significance are impossible without the government 's use of force.

>Fordlandia

Where the Brazilian government sold land to Henry Ford. There was no competition to make sure Ford treated his workers with competitive pay and working conditions because the government was co-opting his state sponsored monopoly in the area by being the only seller of the land, as opposed to a competitive land exchange between private owners. This is not Libertarianism, it's international corporatism, a form of socialism for the rich.

>And in regards to taxes, I don't agree with imprisonment for not paying fines, just you should be left out of the system.

A government is only defined by it's use of force, if they have the right to tax and fine, they will seize the power to enforce it, if not with the current governing powers, then with the next or the next, it is inevitable that someone exploitive of state power will take office and abuse said power.

>Opt-in is the best model.

If someone wants a safety net, nothing is stopping them from investing their money in insurance, the supplier of which, must give the absolutely best rates and services possible, under threat of being out-competed, something a government has zero incentive to do, and will use it's power to inflate the mandated fiat currency to bribe electorates now so another administration has to deal with the economic fallout later. There is no benefit to an "opt-in" government that a competitive private market can't supply more efficiently based on simple natural economic incentives indicative of supply and demand principles.

for once a leaf is right

libertarianism is incompatible with christianity

You posted a link claiming Honduras was some kind of libertarian paradise. What evidence is there that it actually is? It's not at the top of any country freedom ranking.

The person you're talking to is a socialist. He believes that allowing a person to starve when you could help them is exactly the same as killing them yourself.

1 Samuel 8 and 1 Samuel 12

God declares himself to be a libertarian.

and you point to mises?

>Socialist Libertarian
kill yourself.

You have no idea what you're talking about. As I suspected by pressing you, you're spouting Second Vermont Republic propaganda.

Socialist Libertarianism is not simply Libertarianism plus socialism. Where does the state Republic of Vermont's constitution say anything about the worker's control over the means of production, wage slavery, collective ownership of non-personal property etc.

The only vague hint of collective ownership has to do with private property being taken for public use. This is not left libertarian because it allows a central governmental authority to take property for the good of the 'public.'(eminent domain)

Public education is also not libertarian socialist, because it is an institution regulated, and administered by a central authority who also collects the taxes for it. Same with the healthcare you were referring to, so much for libertarian with 'socialist leanings' in that respect.

We're talking about libertarians. Why wouldn't I?

Honduras does not rank highly on any freedom index. Your article was full of shit.

a lot of those kids that showed up on the us border last year were from honduras.

their parents don't think they'll survive all that freedom

It's stupid, but it's not as retarded as socialism, and that's been tried.

economic freedom?

Well, that is an aspect that makes it similar to Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism as we understand it today, yes.

>Public education is also not libertarian socialist, because it is an institution regulated, and administered by a central authority who also collects the taxes for it.

Here's a question -

Around 1795 Connecticut sold a large tract of land (basically Ohio), and invested the money. By 1820 the dividends from the investment were so large that it paid for essentially all public education in Connecticut, except text books. Students paid for their own textbooks and there was a small property tax to pay for poor students. That condition lasted until the late 1850's.

The property tax-textbook issue aside, would that be considered an example of libertarian socialism? The state paid for public education, but without using any taxes to do so.

Want a different Index that specializes in economic freedom? Here' the Heritage Foundation ranking of Economic Freedom:

heritage.org/index/ranking

Honduras is 113th, right between Cambodia and Tunisia.

nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html

I think you responded to the wrong person. I don't know a thing about Honduras other than the fact that they're not white, which could explain why they're so shit.

It doesn't have mass appeal and will therefore never succeed as an ideology in and of itself. Its principles can be implemented as part of another system though, like monarchy for example. The pre-WW1 German Empire was the most libertarian state we had in recent history.

overthrow the government and hand it over to a few oligarchs and bitch about economic freedom

So Cuba is also a libertarian paradise?

yeah

cuba has had 50 years of sanctions

Well, I guess that depends on whether you consider it Libertarian for the state to own land. Also, was the public education state funded and state run? Were the schools themselves collectively owned and operated by the teachers and students?

based

Irrelevant to its domestic law.

washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/29/will-latin-american-leaders-give-obama-an-earful-on-cuba-at-americas-summit/

>Well, I guess that depends on whether you consider it Libertarian for the state to own land.

It divested itself from the land. Regardless of how it came to that position, it was libertarian to sell it. The question then becomes what to do with the proceeds.

>Also, was the public education state funded and state run?

State funded. I don't know what would constitute state run back then. I don't think the state was dictating what should be taught.

>Were the schools themselves collectively owned and operated by the teachers and students?

Don't know who owned them. I do know that the schools were falling into disrepair, and that is one of the three reasons that it ended. The other two were that the fund dried up and could no longer pay for everything and, before that happened, some assholes were complaining that, supposedly because parents didn't have to pay for schools, they weren't paying any attention to their child's education.

Do you just expect me to read random links? Quote what you want me to get out of that.

Well clearly it's not exactly the same, but in any political philosophy that recognizes the individual having a right to life, how do you justify neglecting to give a man a bottle of water when giving a bottle of water does not lead to your own dehydration.

even better
youtube.com/watch?v=jUx6VCvnJBk

What is your point?

Here's the Cato Institute country freedom ranking. Honduras is 101st, right between Uganda and Zambia.

cato.org/human-freedom-index

It would be the same justification as neglecting to give a man expensive cancer medication when giving the medication does not lead to your own death.
In any political philosophy that recognizes the individual having a right to self determination, how does one justify forcing a man to give up his property when said property was justly obtained?

>What is your point?
us sanctions will be irretentive

And...?

irrelevant*