Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[Berzerker]

about what?

 

[amadeus]

about what?

That Jetsons/Flintstones crossover from 1987.

Libertarianism. It isn't a synonym for minimal-statism.

 

[mangxema]

Perfect according to who?

Anyone? I mean, that would be a legitimate question in reality, but not so much with pipe dream utopias.

 

[Cutlass]

Anyone? I mean, that would be a legitimate question in reality, but not so much with pipe dream utopias.

But that's the whole point, you see. You could never get a utopia according to everyone. And the libertarian utopia according to some would be hell on earth for others. But even leaving out the extremes, there's massive disagreement in the more moderate stances on what the "optimal" of just about everything is.

 

[Akka]

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.

And that's exactly how an actual "utopian libertarian" society would end up, so no problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

One of these days I'd like to see a thread in which we're able to discuss the implications of a right-libertarian form of social organisation without having to resort to "lol somalia". It is a potentially fruitful area of discussion; smugly affirming how very correct you are and have always been is not.

 

[Cutlass]

Start a

and define the rules.

 

[berkut]

In my point of view the libertarian utopia is the precise image of hell

 

[kochman]

In my point of view the libertarian utopia is the precise image of hell

For some reason, the first time I read this post, I thought it said...

"In my point of view the libertarian utopia is the precise image of marriage"

 

[Traitorfish]

Start a

and define the rules.

What's wrong with this one?

In my point of view the libertarian utopia is the precise image of hell

See, this is what I'm talking about. This isn't true. You know it isn't true. What you actually mean is that you see the program offered by right-libertarians for creating their utopia as something that would lead to hell, precisely because you regard that utopia is infeasible. So you're not actually commenting on the hypothetical society in question, but on your rejection of a particular body of politics. A rejection which isn't novel or insightful. And that's been 90% of the posts in this thread. So exactly what people hope to achieve beyond congratulating themselves, I don't know.

 

[classical_hero]

Why would anyone not support any type of utopia?

I certainly agree. So far any attempt to form a utopia have failed miserably.

 

[tonberry]

I’m wondering, in this libertarian utopia, what will happen when Ron Paul die? Would his successor be chosen or elected? If it’s the latter, can anybody be elected or only libertarian candidates are allowed?

 

[Traitorfish]

I’m wondering, in this libertarian utopia, what will happen when Ron Paul die? Would his successor be chosen or elected? If it’s the latter, can anybody be elected or only libertarian candidates are allowed?

North Korea officially refers to Kim Il-sung as the "Great Leader" (Suryong in Korean 수&#47161 and he is designated in the constitution as the country's "Eternal President". His birthday is a public holiday in North Korea.

 

[Mark1031]

You all are focusing too much on the term Utopia. Utopia is in the eye of the beholder so one person's Utopia is another person's Hell. What I'm asking is would you live in a state that essentially adopts Ron Paul's program? He has significant support in the US and in matchups against Obama is not much different than the other candidates garnering something in the mid- 40% range in polls. His program as I understand it is for extremely limited government. No environmental regulation, no social safety net programs of any kind, no federal reserve, currency based off the gold standard, no civil rights laws-you'd be free to hang the no blacks allowed sign in your window, no labor protections you can fire any union organizers, no sexual harassment protections-if you don't sleep with me you're fired it's your choice you have freedom, no drug laws, isolationist international stance, vastly reduced police state snooping into your affairs. Disputes between individuals or individuals and corporations-eg you dump your toxic waste in my backyard-are dealt with in the court system. This is my understanding of Ron Paul's philosophy. Perhaps I misstated his views and please feel free to correct me. I know that in his campaign he has argued that while these may be his views he would not want to reverse certain long-standing laws as president eg civil rights but he still considers them wrong. But these are his views and apparently a significant minority support in whole or in part so the question is would you live in a state which adopted in total his views? I don't want people complaining that oh this libertarian view would work just fine if only we hadn't been forced to keep civil rights laws.

 

[warpus]

Hell no.

I've already lived in communist Poland and that sucked. I'm happy where I am, in the best country in the world.

 

[classical_hero]

You do not live in the Best country in the world, that is Australia.

@Mark, well you used the word "utopia" so you are to blame for that being used in the thoughts of people. I am most definitely not a Libertarian. Libertarians seem to only live in America and in the rest of the world they are rather scarce. So it is not something I would ever desire to live under.

 

[Crezth]

Hell no.

I've already lived in communist Poland and that sucked. I'm happy where I am, in the best country in the world.

Canadians all seem very happy and prosperous so I'd call it pretty close to utopia.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Celine Dion into utopia just doesn't go.

 

[Cutlass]

@ Mark, as I've said here and a number of other places, the economy of such a place just won't stand. No matter what Paul may think, no one anywhere has had a sounder currency than what can, and usually is, accomplished with an independent central bank. And yet he thinks he will get "sound money" by abolishing the central bank. That indicates a fundamental disconnect from reality that can't be overcome.

As for the rest, while there are a couple of things in his stated policies that I find interesting and maybe even good, even more of his program is little more than the ultimate in special interests giveaways.

Ron Paul is, ultimately, more in the pocket of special interests than anyone else in Congress.

 

[Ayn Rand]

What's wrong with this one?


See, this is what I'm talking about. This isn't true. You know it isn't true. What you actually mean is that you see the program offered by right-libertarians for creating their utopia as something that would lead to hell, precisely because you regard that utopia is infeasible. So you're not actually commenting on the hypothetical society in question, but on your rejection of a particular body of politics. A rejection which isn't novel or insightful. And that's been 90% of the posts in this thread. So exactly what people hope to achieve beyond congratulating themselves, I don't know.

Yes, there are only so many times that one can re-swallow one's own ideological vomit before getting bored of the taste.

Spoiler :

Incidentally, I was quite enjoying our conversation a-la Marxism before it was closed down - maybe we should roll a thread out and cut-and-paste some of that convo and keep it going [as it was really the only serious and interesting part of that thread]. I believe I still owe you an answer