Well, the Libertarian Party can afford to be consistant…it knows it won’t win elections. Once you start worrying about winning elections, you’ve got to think about what your voters actually want…then ideological purity is a lot harder.
on occasion, i wonder why the Libs always want to start these experiments in the US. why not somewhere in a third-world country, where the effects would be a lot more pronounced? A lot of these societies already have a fairly libertarian system re:government involvement/services…would it not work?
i guess i just don’t understand. why muck with what is arguably the most prosperous society out there (even in the poorer pockets we’re ahead of the game)…even if travel expense is an issue, why not try somewhere in central america?
i am also quite scared by RexDart’s claim that success is not about “is everybody better off now”…must be those crazy liberal Democrat ideas that i was brought up with, but i always that that this was EXACTLY the measure of success for any given thought/action/system.
Stonebow, the reason Libs aren’t interested in third-world countries is that they do not have a libertarian system of government. Libertarians in general believe that a government has only a very few proper functions and two of those functions, namely enforcing contracts and protecting property rights, are simply not done in most third world countries (this has a lot to do with why they remain third-world).
Getting 20,000 libertarians to agree on a political action is like trying to teach 20,000 cats to dance ballet.
I don’t think it’s so crazy an idea. In fact, I can think of at least one state which is heavily influenced by a once-migrant population which settled in a particular area and essentially tailored that state’s laws to its own vision (within limits): I’m talking about Utah, of course.
The thing is, the Mormons essentially founded Utah, while these guys are looking to migrate, concentrate, and influence the local politics there. Seems a lot tougher, but perhaps still achievable.
(I almost forgot to wonder out loud if some of the Libs aren’t Dag Nasty fans:
Being here after all this time
Being laughed at
Being judged
Like being in bed with a porcupine
A thousand pricks against ONE!
–Dag Nasty, “Simple Minds”)
"I agree with ElJeffe (there’s a first time for everything) that while the principles of Libertarianism are quite appealing in the abstract, I think a lot of it would be largely unworkable in the real world. That said, I’d love to see the results of such an experiment. Libertarianism is a valuable enough philosophy, at least on paper, that it would be eminently worthwhile to see which aspects can be adapted and adopted in a larger forum. "
Okay, Cervaise, let’s see how many people have heard of this concept.
Laissez faire. Otherwise known as the free market. A very Libertarian idea. And, one that seems to work quite well in practice, keeping prices down and quality up.
While some concepts of Libertarianism would be unworkable, many of them would indeed better society. Drug laws. Libertarians want to abolish laws that make drugs such as marijuana and heroin illegal. If this were to be done, what would happen?
A lot of people would tell you that the use of such drugs would increase dramatically, resulting in, basically, a bunch of perpetually stoned kids and their crackhead parents.
Libertarians disagree.
The use of the drugs would increase for a short while, and then drop off, and the number of kids using heroin would actually begin to decline. The reason? Novelty would begin to wear off, and the rugs would be discarded (sort of) the way a young girl discards her Christmas presents after a while.
Another example? Gun laws. As they stand today, federal gun laws are restrictive and intrusive. They require registration for certain kinds of guns, ban ownership of other kinds completely, and generally attempt to do everything short of revoke the second amendment.
In the Libertarian world, these laws would be revoked, making it easier for law-abiding citizens to own guns, for whatever reason. If someone wanted to buy a gun, they would just go out and do it. No questions asked.
No one is forced to buy a gun. No one is forced to wait to buy a gun.
I think it would work.
Prostitution laws. Oy vey. It is not a good idea to legislate morality, and that is what prostitution laws do. Has it ever occurred to these beauracrats that this might be the only job those girls can find? Or, maybe they want to do it. Some people are like that. It doesn’t hurt anyone, does it? Let them do what they want to.
Anyway, my point in all this is that Libertarian theories are good on paper, and good in practice, or they would be, if we were allowed to put them in practice.
Libertarianism is fine until one person or group is richer than all the others. May be a mine or railroad company, or the Morman clergy, but someone will quickly take advantage of a power vacuum, which is all that Libertarianism is.
OK, Tsiyeria, let’s look at the real-world example of the porcupines moving into Idaho. As I pointed out before, Idaho’s gun laws are extremely sparse, but do contain a number of restrictions on selling guns to children. While you’re willing to say that “In the Libertarian world… If someone wanted to buy a gun, they would just go out and do it,” are you willing to say that “In Idaho, we will remove all of the oppressive laws restricting the sale of guns to children under 18 and forbidding sales to children under 12”? Do you think that all 20,000 of the hypothetical Idaho movers will agree that it would be good to remove laws that require parental consent for teenagers to own firearms, much less the voters in the state?
It’s easy to make a bold claim about what would work “In a Libertarian World”, but no one lives in the magical land of Libertaria.
This may be a stupid question, but haven’t we (the US) been there, done that? 19th century…The Jungle, etc.?
didn’t that simply result in exploitation of the very poor by companies selling tainted/defective, but necessary goods?
now, i may agree that the government has it’s hands in too many pies, but i can’t agree that ‘the market’ will always result in a healthier, happier populace. and if that’s not what we’re aiming for, what is?
I second RTFirefly in that when ideas take priority over people, it’s not a good thing. i’m not a big fan of ‘you’ve got to break a few eggs’ mentality…because it’s seldom their eggs they are talking about…it’s usually MY eggs.
Yeah, it would really suck if a freedom loving group of people succeeded to make a better life for everyone.
Exactly. It’s like the thousands (tens of thousands?) of uninsured (illegal) drivers in Indiana. Yes, they can be sued, but they have nothing you can get from them. Yes, they are also fined if discovered, but the fine is miniscule.
a better life for everyone who can afford to be Libertarian, you mean…
No, I mean everyone. Success means a system that works for everyone.
I once attended a state Libertarian Party convention. You may find it interesting that some of the biggest activists were definitely in the lower income class. I didn’t care about that, but that seems to be important to you, so I thought I’d mention it.
Libertarians are not at all a rich party. If you want to hang out with rich folks, you have to go to the Democratic or Republican fund raisers.
Let’s face it: Why would a rich guy who wants the government to help him keep his money give it to a party which is not in control and which would deemphasize government’s role even if they were in control (and therefore diminish the government’s ability to help the rich)? They wouldn’t.
Libertarians only want to decrease the power of government, which is not in the interests of the rich, and which will drive the rich away from influencing government.
The Libertarians have no pork to sell, only an ideology based on freedom and rugged individualism.
Acually, no, it wasnt tried in the 19th century. What was tried then was granting monopolies to companies as it was thought that that was the best/quickest way to get infrastructure built. AT&T, the Railroads; they were all granted exclusive rights from one level of government or another, or members of government were major shareholders and so looked the other way.
Libertarianism is a threat to some peoples way of life, yes. Much as the abolitionists were a threat to some peoples way of life. If the LP was such a potential benefit to ‘the rich’ and corporations, I would expect to see a bunch of millionaire industrialist Libs. But many of the richest corporations in this country want to see a free market no more than the democrats want to see one. You cant rig things that way.
Afford to be Libertarian? Since when do you need money to believe something?
Yes, everyone needs money to live. But…funny, it seems that the longer we stay under the Democrats and the Republicans…the less money we seem to have…
Oh, yeah…that would be because the taxes keep getting raised!
okay now…i’m not totally against libertarian philosophy, but to equate libertarians and abolitionists is a little silly.
Tsiyeria- i’m not sure that you’re snarky comments are warranted. is it silly to suggest that only some people will be able to afford to engage a system that rests almost entirely on property rights?
yes, the current political system relies far too heavily on wealth for my tastes- but to codify it into law seems antithetical to my notions of civil society. but then again, i’m a big fan of the mixed economy-capitalist/socialist - that allows for maximum economic success while making a good faith effort to keep people from starving in the streets.
but we don’t want to turn this into a ‘giant squid’ debate.
if the Libs want to go to Idaho, good for them. If they can make a go of it, good for them. will i ever want to buy into it? not a chance.
It’d be just wonderful if a freedom loving group of people succeeded in making a better life for everyone. This doesn’t have anything to do with Libertarianism, however.
“It’d be just wonderful if a freedom loving group of people succeeded in making a better life for everyone. This doesn’t have anything to do with Libertarianism, however.”
Ok, gex gex…I seem to be making wrong comments, no sarcasm here. So, tell me what you think Libertarianism is all about.
Tsiyeria: I’ve heard what Libertarians consider Libertarianism to be about: most simply, (the poster) Libertarian’s mantra of “no coercion.”
It sounds grand in theory. That there are no laws restricting what you want to do, except that you shalt not coerce others (through means of violence, fraud etc.).
However, the idea is far too simplistic and ignores two important facts:
Firstly, that as social creatures, we form societies that rely on give and take. Living in a community requires that we work together to a certain extent so that some members of the society don’t get left behind. At times this must be mandated, because people can be, and often are inherently selfish.
Secondly, whilst Libertarianism purports to create a circumstance where everyone has the means to pursue their own happiness, the reality is that it favours those with economic strength, allowing them to gain unhindered power and influence over those with less economic strength.
These are just my personal issues with Libertarianism. I could, and if you want me to, I will, write a more in depth discussion on my problems with Libertarianism, but at the moment I’m not in the mood.
Basically, though, I think we just have different political ideas.