Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[Mark1031]

Do you support a Libertarian Utopia, let’s say in Texas with Ron Paul as the leader? I am so sick of hearing crazy libertarian arguments about taxes at gunpoint etc that I’d just like to be rid of them. They remind me of old time Communist apologists who claim they have the answer to all our problems it’s just that it is never implemented in the correct way. So let them have Texas, with all the oil and infrastructure to give them a head start. They can have a refund of all the SS and Medicare $$ they have put in based on population but all federal and defense industry must be pulled out. No dollars we will pay them off in gold. They can smoke weed all day while running their glorious entrepreneurial society.

Would you move there? What would be the result in 10 yrs, 50 yrs?

 

[Ajidica]

It would still be a net drain on America due to proximity. I support sending them to Somalia.

 

[Virote_Considon]

As Ayn Rand once said:
"I'd like for me and my husband to sign up for state welfare, please".

So no, no I would not.

It would still be a net drain on America due to proximity. I support sending them to Somalia.

Somalia is not the anarcho-capitalist paradise it's made out to be. Them Islamic militias expect protection money (taxes) and offer public services in kind, for a start.

 

[Murky]

Any kind of society based on libertarianism would quickly devolve into a Dystopia. At best it would resemble feudalism.

Lots of young people seem to be enthralled by the idea of everyone being left on their own. The idea works so long as you never have any health problems or suffer extended unemployment. Without any kind of public safety net you would have to rely on the kindness of others, which is considered a form of welfare by some libertarians.

The rich would rule and everyone else would work like slaves or become homeless and starve.

 

[emzie]

Yes, of course. On the moon. And without me.

 

[kochman]

This would obviously negatively impact the USA, because like it or not, a lot of rich and/or job producers WOULD move to such a situation, for however many potential motives... thus draining the USA of those two types disproportionately...

In a way, this was already done in the not to distant past...

It was called the immigration to America, where people who wanted to have a shot at producing moved...

 

[bombshoo]

I actually like most of the libertarian movement in the United States. They have a habit of introducing new ideas to the right, and thus moderating a lot of conservatives' views on issues like drug control, gay marriage and defense spending.

I don't agree with them economically, but I can put up with it and they at least bring things into question things that otherwise might not be questioned (which is always positive).

As for the Objectivists, if they were to go and try and start a Randian society somewhere else, I can't say I would miss them.

 

[Mark1031]

The rich would rule and everyone else would work like slaves or become homeless and starve.

Well they might have trouble finding a labor force for all their John Galt's as the current citizens would be able to move to the US if they chose to.

 

[Murky]

Well they might have trouble finding a labor force for all their John Galt's as the current citizens would be able to move to the US if they chose to.

If you examine a lot of their rhetoric it's aimed at being good for business owners and economic development. The problem is finding a working class that is willing to work like slaves, getting screwed in the process. A few will rise to the top, but most people would remain in a permanent state of indentured service until their body gives out. At that point they would simply be tossed aside like trash to be replaced by the next sucker.

 

[amadeus]

"The government can't solve our problems" = utopia?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It depends on what kind of libertarianism we are talking about. A Geo-Libertarian society would likely function much better than our own, not only for the rich but also the poor. It is however very unlikely for Anarcho-Capitalism to last long without completely reversing the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

[Mark1031]

"The government can't solve our problems" = utopia?

Do you think government has ever solved a problem? Why is the US doing better than Zimbabwe or Somalia? Is it that the people are better? More entrepreneurial? Less taxed and regulated?

 

[Save_Ferris]

If it's utopia, then I support. I don't care what type of utopia it is: utopia is utopia.
/thread

PS: If this were libertarian, wouldn't weed be allowed?

 

[Murky]

It depends on what kind of libertarianism we are talking about. A Geo-Libertarian society would likely function much better than our own, not only for the rich but also the poor. It is however very unlikely for Anarcho-Capitalism to last long without completely reversing the Non-Aggression Principle.

The problem I see with the Non-Agression Principle is that you can adopt a "Live and Let Die" philosophy and stay within its moral code. Is it moral to allow the suffering of others when the community could be lending a hand?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The problem I see with the Non-Agression Principle is that you can adopt a "Live and Let Die" philosophy and stay within its moral code. Is it moral to allow the suffering of others when the community could be lending a hand?

That will depend strongly on your definition of "Non-Aggression Principle" and "lending a hand"

 

[amadeus]

Do you think government has ever solved a problem?

Not without creating additional problems in the process. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about any government is that it did not immediately seek out to control the entirety of a nation.

Why is the US doing better than Zimbabwe or Somalia? Is it that the people are better? More entrepreneurial? Less taxed and regulated?

To start, Zimbabwe is in no way anarchic: Zimbabwe, in fact, represents one of the best arguments against having a state in how backwards and repressive the regime is and how the regime has impoverished the country.

Somalia's problems date back long before the fall of Siad Barre in 1991.

 

[Murky]

That will depend strongly on your definition of "Non-Aggression Principle" and "lending a hand"

As in having a system in place to handle situations where a person needs help with the basic necessities of life until they regain their health and/or find employment.

In my opinion, a community service organization is the best way to go. It should be partly funded by the community it serves and the federal government. Everyone contributes something to it and anyone in need would have access to it. You wouldn't need to rely on the kindness of others to get by when you are in hard times. In the case where someone needs help they can apply for it a local CSO office. It would go through an approval process. Once approved, funds would be spent to make sure that their basic needs are met for the near term. It could also do things like having classes to teach people to do better at job interviews or provide a place to volunteer.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Letting the lolbertarian secessionists have any part of the Union is too much to presume. Better to send their ideology to its native land.

Yes, Somalia

 

[Crezth]

Somalia is not the anarcho-capitalist paradise it's made out to be. Them Islamic militias expect protection money (taxes) and offer public services in kind, for a start.

Gee, that sucks! Someone should make a law against tha-

oh.

 

[illram]

I thought Bioshock was a fairly accurate representation of what a libertarian utopia could amount to.