Individual people can be quite intelligent.
Get 'em in a group, though… 
I have several times offered the Libt a chance to show us a hypothetical “Libertaria”, most recently in the “Why don’t Libt get votes” thread, here. I also provided a very real possible country they could use. Or said an imaginary one is OK, also. I did this before, some months ago. SO, you Libt gonna “put your principles where the land is”, or not?
Again, I want to say that Libertarianism has some wonderful ideas, and some principles that could be adapted to American democracy. BUT… as a practical form of government- it’s not. I don’t think the Lib’t will show us a “practical” Libertaria, as they simply can not. It is all very well to say “no taxes”, without showing us how a real country works without taxes.
Lib’s version of Libertania would work.
IF everyone had the same definition of Libertanianism.
IF everyone in Libertania were honest and hard working.
IF no one in Libertania were power hungry.
IF it were surrounded by a magical barrier that would stop other countries from seizing control.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I don’t think Libertaria is all that pie-in-the-sky as some would make out, although in its purest form it seems unlikely to efficiently protect the poor and disenfranchised to the degree I would like (at least when on a large scale), but…I don’t think the Libs are at all stupid or foolish to hold the political philosophy they do. The cries of “tyranny!” and “theft!” on the Libertarian side and “ridiculous!” and “impossible!” on the more pro-government side, often make it rather difficult to hear good ideas from either.
Funny. This exact argument could be used in favor of Socialism, or Feudalism, or Slave based states
Libertaria is no more nor less pie-in-the-sky than any other utopian ideal. Libertarianism, however, seems to be an increasingly effective and vital opposition philosophy, in the sense that public support for the fundamental tenets of libertarianism is necessary to counter the erosion of civil liberties we’re likely to see from both sides of the current political spectrum, if left unchecked.
::: applauds and humbly bows before Xeno, in deference to his concluding sentence :::
<a stunned xeno sits at his desk and smiles in the warm glow of Polycarp’s approval>
Poly, I’m just tickled if you enjoy any of my posts as much as I enjoy all of yours.
Alright, everyone else, go on about your business; nothin’ to see here…
I’m not sure I understand; it seems to me that Libertarianism would mean an end to protection of an individual’s civil rights; “civil rights” would cease to have a legal meaning under a Libertarian regime.
lissener, the libertarian ethic of noncoercion leads most true believers toward spirited defense of the “unalienable” rights inumerated in the DoI, and toward spirited opposition to any legislation which forces government intrusion into the lives of Peaceful, Honest People™.
While I don’t endorse libertarianism, for many reasons, I remain convinced that any law which restricts a basic civil liberty must be so well justified that it can withstand all arguments put against it (and I believe that most of the legislation resulting from the “War on Drugs” cannot). In recent times, it is the libertarians who seem to put forth some of the most effective arguments.
But what about civil liberties that are restricted by common practice, not by law? Wouldn’t Libertarianism eschew laws that addressed such insidious, deniable restrictions?
Yes. Which is one of the reasons I think absolute libertarianism would create a society with more coercion of (and less protection for) its members. —Which in no way invalidates the “noncoercion” aspects of the philosophy as applied to government action which restricts those liberties guaranteed by law.
Well okay then.
Parole Board: “Re-cid-i-vist. Re-peat of-fender. Not a very nice name, is it?”
HI: “No sir; that’s one bone-head name, alright. But that aint me no more.”
PB: “You’re not just tellin’ us what we wanna hear, are ya Hi?”
HI: “No sir, no way.”
PB: “Cause we only wanna hear the truth.”
HI: “Well then, I guess I am tellin’ you what you wanna hear.”
PB: “Boy, didn’t we just tell you not to do that?”
HI: (crestfallen) “Yes sir.”
PB: “Well okay then.”
Raising Arizona
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
First try!
Polycarp said:
To me that doesn’t necessarily sound like libertarianism. It is of course commendable that Penn and his associates felt themselves bound by the Golden Rule in politics, but what of cases where they didn’t personally mind being compelled to do something or to refrain from something? Then they wouldn’t have had compunctions about imposing those requirements on others, right? Doesn’t sound particularly libertarian to me, unless you equate mere lack of hypocrisy with libertarianism. And if I recall correctly, the Scots-Irish in Pennsylvania were quite dissatisfied with Quaker rule, and felt it infringed on their liberty.
BTW, just out of curiousity, was the book you mentioned “Albion’s Seed”?
Yep, Nebuli. I’d neglected to look it up and post it; thanks for identifying it.
And no, I’m not suggesting that colonial Pennsylvania was the Utopia anybody, including in particular Lib., aspires towards. Simply that it was an attempt to institute a society on approximately libertarian principles that, despite some minor flaws from true libertarianism and a variant on Lib.'s principles, worked well for close to a hundred years.
Which is the only reason I started this thread – because Lib. is consistently hassled by the demand to show how libertarianism would work IRL. And, while I am not enamored of doctrinaire libertarianism, I felt that evidence supporting his views in part was worth presenting. (See the Lissener/Xenophon interchange for some of my objections; others lie in my view that people who need help – never mind who defines “need” and “help” for the moment – should have a mechanism to get the help they need – and that Lib’s theory that taxation is theft is not valid here – I for one fore-give it to them if they truly need it. (Anybody recognize the quote?))
Not in response to any particular post in this thread, but just a product of distracted rumination while I was working:
A Libertarian society would work only if every individual member were a committed Libertarian.
This of course renders such a society impossible: it would collapse under its own internal contradictions.
lissener: Does your idle rumination hold true for all X? That is, is the statement: “An X society will only work if all members are committed X’s” true for anything you put in for X? If not, why not?
Aside from that, your statement is self-evidently untrue. In a society dedicated to preserving the freedom of men from initiated force or fraud, said society only needs to punish those who violate this dictum. I mean, really. The fact that you can come up with some sentence you consider a slam-dunk makes it neither logical nor true.
You mean you feel our current soc is not in favor of freedom from “initiated force or fraud”? Or are we doing one of those “Humpty Dumpty” definitions, where, altho force is only applied if you break the Law, since YOU (personally) did not agree to that Law, that is “initiated force”?
We are still waiting for your model Libertaria, as you offered.
Early Penn. was not, by any standards given by Libertarians here, a Libertarian soc. They had Laws & taxes, and those laws & taxes were applied to any residents, whether or not you “agreed” to them. Thus, the resisdents were “forced” to obey, thus not Libertarian.
I am getting the idea from Libtians that what they want is a society where every single law or tax or regulation only has to be followed if they personally AGREE to that Law, tax or regulation. Or am I wrong?