Then I will have to consider your statemetn that “Libertarianism requires a strong rule of law, and equal treatment under the law” to be invalid.
I already did back it up. Iraqis are free to own guns, enter into private agreements with each other, and engage in commerce with relatively little government interference. I hear Libertarians clamoring for these things all the time, and they have them in Iraq.
Wow. How snide are you when something offends you? You are as entitled as anyone to dislike libertarianism, disagree with it, or be offended by it. And welcome to it. But to anyone who has any clue what libertarianism is about, you are advertising yourself to be clueless.
And what can you do about it now? You’re describing a scene that is common throughout America. Libertarians must be taking over. Of course, you wouldn’t be able to junk your yard up like that in my neighborhood, as we do, in fact, have a homeowners’ association. We have to abide by its rules because of a contract we signed when we bought the house. We even have to pay dues. And though they could not compel us to join, they had no problem making it a condition of buying a house in this neighborhood. No government agencies involved at all. Libertarians must be taking over here, too.
And here, I suppose, the implication is that intrusive marketing to people who do not want to buy is a hallmark of libertarianism? I’d be interested to see your cite for that.
Excellent logic. Of course, criminals don’t have access to guns now–that would be against the law. I particularly like the way you paint a libertarian society as one in which no one is safe. It certainly demonstrates your ignorance of what libertarians believe. Puzzling, though, because you don’t have to look around this board much to find a libertarian explaining their views on government. Whether you see it expressed as “protection of life, liberty, and property” or as “protection from force and fraud”, surely your attention didn’t wander so quickly that you missed the very first item that government guards, right?
Since the closest we can probably come to “consensus” libertarian views is the platform of the party, I’ll go with that. From www.lp.org :
Wow, that giibes with your characterization pretty much in no way whatsoever. I do think it is interesting that you apparently think our society is composed predominantly by people who are ready to go on a multi-state killing spree and just haven’t managed to get a gun. It’s a wonder you’re able to leave the house.
Ah, yes, the popular “libertarians don’t care about the environment” and “libertarians will let business do whatever they want to” argument. This one is from the official Libertarian Party Platform :
Guess you just made that one up, too.
Wait, I take it back. That wasn’t snide at all.
Straw Man: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.
Of course, when you purposely misrepresent the other side, it’s just plain assinine.
-VM
Are you aware that personal insults are not allowed in Great Debates? Get back to me when you get some manners. Good bye.
Since when has pointing out the flaws in one’s argument and suggesting one isn’t well-versed in a particular subject matter qualified as a “personal insult”?
Calling someone “clueless” is a personal insult, and I refuse to engage with people who can’t play nice with others. Frankly, I’m not interested in your opinion on the matter.
Yes, but he did not call you clueless. He said your argument makes you look clueless.
Where I come from, when you criticize someone else’s value system with a string of intentional untruths, it is a personal insult. Clearly, you had no interest in debating any legitimate libertarian views–you were more interested in portraying libertarians as short-sighted fools. If you feel insulted by my response, take comfort in the fact that I only referenced things you had actually said and didn’t just make up some absurd beliefs and atrribute them to you.
If you like, we can do an experiment. Tell me something that you believe in (political party, religious beliefs, etc.), and I’ll treat it in the same way as you are treating libertarianism, and we’ll see if you feel insulted.
-VM
In that case, I’m not calling you an asshole, but your argument makes you look like an asshole.
Happens all the time, my friend. The difference is, I don’t act like a petulant child when it does.
I see you are making a lot of friends in this thread blowero. 
If its a usage fee then only those folks that use a service pay the fee. If you use a road you pay a usage fee. If you take a case to court then you pay a usage fee. If you don’t use either you don’t pay anything. At tax however is usually considered an across the board payment from all citizens, reguardless of usage. For instance, if you have no wife, have no kids, you are still required to pay your taxes to support education. An anti-war peacenik type (pointing no fingers here) is still required to pay taxes to support the military.
Perhaps the difference between a fee and a tax are too subtle, or maybe the difference is one of degree and not type. I’ll leave it for you to decide which. I know where I come down.
But then your own bias against the concept has seriously gotten in the way, as is obvious with your responses in this thread…so, your opinion is less than informative on this subject. You came in with preconceptions and then simply nitpicked your way through any response…and then when folks got frustrated with your snide replies and got heated, you looked all innocent and pointed fingers at them for being rude to you.
I’ll be honest…when I go into communist threads talking about ‘how it could work’ I’m pretty much the same way (with more justification IMO but thats another matter). However, I KNOW I’m biased against them, I have pre-conceptions and mountains of historical data which has formed that.
Thanks much to mr_moonlight and Smartass for answering my question about the gold standard. Kind of what I already knew, and I’m still unsure how tieing your currency to a fixed amount (i.e. a limited amount of gold in reserve) is better than having a free market currency that rises and falls based on your industrial production and your currencies actual market value. I’m not enough of an economist though to really assert that forcefully though.
-XT
I think it’s just breaking down along partisan lines, xtisme. I think a couple of libertarians are upset because they have too thin a skin. People need to understand that there is no such thing as insult by proxy. If I disagree with something about the tenets of Libertarianism, and you happen to be a Libertarian, it doesn’t mean I’m insulting you. I consider myself a liberal, and there have been plenty of rotten things said about liberals in this forum; that wouldn’t justify my insulting them personally because I didn’t like what they said about liberalism. This is a really a case of people being able to dish it out but not being able to take it.
Unless I missed the rule that says Libertarianism is sacrosanct.
It just seems the discussion is rather…heated…is all.
Well, IMO nothing is sacrosanct. However, some of the things you’ve kind of gone on about are differences in opinion among small ‘l’ libertarians…or even among different factions of big ‘L’ Libertarians. Just like Democrat and Republican aren’t monolithic sets of stances among those folks self identifying themselves as in either party (or, for that matter larger concepts like Democratic Government), Libertarians aren’t monolithic either…nor are Socialists or Communists.
By any but the loosest definitions of Libertarianism though I don’t see how there have ever been any real world examples of a true Libertarian government…which was the original question asked in the OP after all. But of course thats from MY perspective and my own thoughts on just what Libertarianism and a Libertarian government would be (which I already gave earlier in the thread if I’m not mistaken). YMMV.
-XT
Anyway, I’ll ignore your smartass comment and go ahead and address what you said:
Then why is it a “Gasoline Tax” and not a “Gasoline Usage Fee”?
I understand your point, I think. You advocate replacing the income tax with charges levied for specific usages. That’s fine, but don’t say we wouldn’t have any taxes. It’s still a tax - just a different kind of tax.
But I didn’t get any valid responses. Sure, I played devil’s advocate - but how many times have our resident Libertarians played devil’s advocate in the gun and smoking threads? They do it all the time. This is just a case of being able to dish it out and not being able to take it. There are some things about the current situation in Iraq that seemingly fit the description that I have heard self-professed Libertarians say they are in favor of. If it’s so obvious that Iraq is not a Libertarians society, it should be simplicity itself to explain why it’s not. The “pre-conceptions” I have stated are all things I have HEARD self-professed libertarians say. If that’s not consistent with what you think Libertarianism is, then explain how it’s not. Don’t just say, “Waaaah! You’re ignorant. Why do you hate us?”
And Tristan’s utopian “dream sequence” was completely over-the-top, so I composed a likewise over-the-top response. You guys really couldn’t see the point I was trying to make? That such a utopian society would be unworkable? You can’t be free to do whatever you want, and at the same time prevent other people from doing whatever they want.
Nonsense. Show me where I personally insulted anyone before Smartasspersonally insulted me.
Why do you think it’s O.K. for you to be biased against communism, but it’s not O.K. for me to be biased against libertarianism?
Really, I’ve been holding back up to this point, although it doesn’t seem to have done any good. If we really want to look at the situation honestly, Libertarians are just as much of an extreme fringe group as Communists. You guys really have a self-inflated, myopic view of the political climate in the United States.
Well here’s an idea - we could have a discussion about that, rather than hurling invectives.
This is god advice. You should follow it more often. I will now.
Because the Gasoline tax is a tax. You have to pay it whenever you buy gasoline. The scenario that John Mace laid out was for the government to charge a percentage of the transaction covered by a contract. However, the point is that only those wishing for thier contracts to be backed up by the government would pay the fee. If you wanted to sign a contract without paying this “tax” you would be perfectly free to do so. The only thing you give up is the right to have the courts adjudicate the terms of the contract in case of a dispute.
If you don’t like calling it something besides a tax, perhaps “voluntary tax” is closer to the truth.
Naw…you seem to be having more fun doing it the other way.
Because in this instance I wasn’t talking about a gasoline tax…or usage fee for that matter. I was talking about a ROAD unsage fee…sort of like a toll. Sure, if you squint and look at it in the right light you could say that is a ‘tax’…I already said in the statement you quoted its all in how you look at it. Myself, I don’t see it as a traditional ‘tax’, because its not charged across the board but only on folks that use whatever service you are ‘taxing’…If you want to see it as a ‘tax’ thats fine by me…to me its a semantics arguement anyway.
No one who isn’t a complete nutter is saying we’d do away with ALL revenew streams to keep the government going (be they traditional or flat taxes, VAT, usage fees, etc)…even Libertarians WANT some government. Just not BIG government.
Well, I disagree. I thought you got some fairly good responses…especially considering that the actual OP was about real world examples (which there aren’t really any IMO). The thread wasn’t supposed to debate all the in’s and out’s of big ‘L’ Libertarianism…nor are most of the responders to this thread big ‘L’ Libertarians. Including your’s truely, though I admit I did vote for Badnarik this election and even campaigned for him. But I don’t agree with the parties full platform…I just found him better than the two alternatives the big parties served up this election.
Well, I agree it was over the top…and it had many substantial things wrong with it from a bit ‘L’ Libertarinan perspective to boot. Which were pointed out in passing by several of the boards small ‘l’ libertarians too. Even HE backed off of that post blowero when some of the more glaring things were pointed out to him and said he’d do some further research…and that was before your post which picked it appart.
You didn’t…and I didn’t say you did. What I said was that he lost his patients with you because of some of your patented stinging replies and sarcasm…but he did TRY and answer your questions up to that point IMO, to the best of his ability. So did Dewy and Sam, again remembering that the OP was about real world examples of actual nations or societies that have adopted something close to big ‘L’ Libertarianism. If you thought I was throwing down on you there then I mis-typed (and I appologize btw)…it wasn’t my intention to suggest YOU had insulted anyone directly first. But you have to admit that sometimes you have kind of a sharp way of replying to people, that while not personally insulting still stings. Or, maybe you don’t see it.
Well, I would tend to agree that big ‘L’ Libertarians probably ARE as much of a fringe group as Communists are. Certainly if you look at their platform over all it becomes pretty obvious early on that much of its simply impossible, no matter how nice it might be if you could actually get it to work.
The key difference though I think with some big ‘L’ Libertarian types is that Communists got their shot at making their system work…several times in fact. However, Libertarians got only Hong Kong, which, while close (and successful btw) wasn’t exactly all they would have wanted. I think there is an element of resentfulness there, an air of ‘if only WE were given a shot to see what we can do’…in fact I’ve actually been to several meeting with big ‘L’ Libertarians and thats EXACTLY what they talk about.
Nor is there an equivelent to Communist Light…i.e. Socialism…on the Libertarian side. Certainly the Republican party doesn’t represent Libertarianism Light. Which is why you get so many lamenting the whole ‘if only’ mantra repeatedly…including, again, one XT.
I still think that many elements of libertarianism COULD successfully be integrated into one of the main stream parties in the US (the Democrats oddly enough would have the best shot…if they ever wanted to go that way)…and that they would be pretty popular AND successful. I seriously doubt they WILL be of course…too bad really.
-XT
See, here’s an example of exactly what I’m talking about. You keep accusing me of having a particular “sarcastic style” of posting that you object to, yet you are as much or more guilty of it than I. I know you love to bait me, xtisme, but I’m just not gonna fall for it anymore. Get your jollies somewhere else, please. Smartass started in with the insults first.
I KNOW you weren’t talking about it in that instance, that’s precisely why I brought it up. I was asking you why the gasoline tax, which IS called a “tax”, but is an example of a fee that you ONLY pay when you use gasoline. It’s not an across-the-board tax; it only applies when you buy gasoline. Why do I always feel like I’m pulling teeth just to ask the simplest of questions around here?
Again, this is just breaking down along party lines. Still no need for personal insults.
Yes, theirs was a response FROM a libertarian perspective, saying, in essence, “I agree with your sentiment, but I quibble with these details”, whereas mine was a response from a non-libertarian perspective, saying in essence, “I completely disagree with your philosophy”. Why do you want to disallow my response? You admit that his post was over the top, yet you want to censor mine. Again, this is just breaking down along partisan lines.
Of course I see it. I think it makes the debates more lively. Surely you’re not going to tell me that you don’t realize that YOU do it too - all the time, and that pervert, dewey, and smartass, are just as guilty. I don’t really have a problem with that. But I DO draw the line at personal insults, because it’s against the rules, and I refuse to continue conversing with people who can’t follow the rules. And I’m not talking about some tortured reasoning where you’re only following the letter of the rule, like saying, “Your argument makes you sound like a [whatever]”, and then claiming you weren’t actually calling me a [whatever]. I just refuse to play infantile games like that with you guys. If you don’t like it, that’s tough.
I mean, let’s not play this game, o.k.? You guys ain’t exactly saints. Don’t tell me you’re gonna join the ‘dish it out but can’t take it’ club too, xtisme.
Communism would be nice if you could get it to work, too. The point is, you can’t.
But they already have to some extent. Fiscal responsibility and lower taxes has become both a Democratic and Republican plank. Unfortunately there hasn’t been too much success with that (Clinton has come the closest so far). There are some elements of libertarianism that I would like to see implemented. I just think libertarians, on the average, go too far.
Oops. Of course I meant Clinton came the closest as far as fiscal responsibility, but not with lowering taxes.
You want to criticize libertarianism? Fine, go ahead–as long as you criticize actual libertarian views, we can have a lively debate. What is offensive is when you intentionally misrepresent libertarian positions. In the post that apparently hurt your feelings so badly, I pointed out the cases where you completely misrepresented libertarian views. This would be no different than if I jumped into a thread on communism and pointed out the way communists believe it’s okay to kill citizens at random.
And let’s not forget the final swipe:
If this is the way you like to debate, fine with me; I’ll just respond in kind: In fact, it wouldn’t do much good for a liberal to “think” in Libertopia, since understanding it would require a solid grasp of economics.
You want to debate? I’m okay with debate. You want to trade snide remarks? I’m okay wth that, too. But to post this kind of of condesending crap and then act wounded when I answer in kind is just plain hypocritical.
My skin feels just fine. How’s yours?
-VM
Where do you get the idea that this is what libertarianism is about?
Are you serious?