On the flip side, command economies haven't been much fun to experience either, so to postulate that only one of the two systems has some problems 'alleviated' is indeed to skew the choices.
Would you rather live in a Socialist or Libertian State?
- Thread starter CCA
- Start date
On the flip side, command economies haven't been much fun to experience either, so to postulate that only one of the two systems has some problems 'alleviated' is indeed to skew the choices.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Because, in this hypothetical situation, there is no one else to go to war with. Yes, I am a pessimist.
skadistic
Caomhanach
But many of its militias will be better equipped since guns wont be outlawed like in the socialist nation where fear of popular overthrow is common place.
Mise
isle of lucy
Ignoring the OP, I'd like to live in a Libertarian place, for a number of reasons:
1. Communism is already here, and I already know how that turns out. Libertarianism hasn't really been tried yet though, and I'd like to experience it first hand.
2. I'm smart so I'd probably end up with a very nice life.
3. I value and wish to express my freedoms a lot more than would tolerated by a Communist government.
1. Communism is already here, and I already know how that turns out. Libertarianism hasn't really been tried yet though, and I'd like to experience it first hand.
2. I'm smart so I'd probably end up with a very nice life.
3. I value and wish to express my freedoms a lot more than would tolerated by a Communist government.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Even IF the communistic state started out much better than the libertarian state, over time, the libertarian state would be better of (you know, problem of the commons and all that economic mumbo-jumbo communists forget about).
The late 1800s is not a good example of "libertarianism" Even so, it wasnt that great anywhere else, and better in America, who was rising very fast as a world power.
seriously. biased. example.
The late 1800s is not a good example of "libertarianism" Even so, it wasnt that great anywhere else, and better in America, who was rising very fast as a world power.
seriously. biased. example.
I'm just saying that both have been tried, and proven to be utter crap that doesn't work. Thus the claims of massiv advantage for a Libertarian govt are crap. Personally I think both societys would eventually collapse of their own weight.
Militia's can't fight a modern war. Even with the ability to gather heavy weaapons mercenarys are known to be poor fighters, and if Iraq is any indication a milittary force relying on 'mercs' will be destroyed quickly. A publicly funded army that is supported nationalisticaly will always be stronger.
Yes it has, or something far closer than I'de ever want to ge has. Sadly it didn't work Libertarianism is a like Communism a failed ideology.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Yes the Russians did so well in Afganistan..........
Yes, because those dang Muslims were fighting for their religon... Not money...
Besides this falls into the whole insurgency thing again, Russia won every battle but lost the war as America did in 'Nam, and will do in Iraq.
skadistic
Caomhanach
The Russian/Afghan war wasn't about religion.
US did win every battle and lost the war in Vietnam just like the socialist would.
No, it was just one of the many Muslim v. rest of world wars that has occured over the last century. It was very much about expelling the heathen invaders. I want you to show me one time a private militia has fought and won against a modern military force. Muslim insurgents are not mercenarys they are very clearly fighting for something.
Finally while Communism sucks, we all no it is a wonderfull government for fighting wars in. It's just not great for waging peace (The Cold War) but as long as the people can be rallied against a great outside threat Communist countries will thrive.We all know how the USSR destroyed Germany with little allied help. Sure we invaded Normandy etc. but the most divisions ever fighting on the Western front were a total of 30, on the Eastern front it peaked at 400.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Lexington and Concord.
Anyway for nearly 5,000 years most wars were fought by mercenaries and most armies were mostly made up of mercenaries. Mercenaries have existed a lot longer than any nationalist armies.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
The Peoples Republic of China? Are you actually saying China and Mexico are roughly the same in population terms? Or in any terms? If so this thread might as well be closed now because the OP has no idea what is going on.
Parhaps you didn't see where I said "Modern"? The world has changed greatly since the times a person could pick up a gun, and be a soldier. US troops have tens of thousends of dollars of gear, and months of hard training. As well as the nationalism that no mercenary army ever has.
btw The American revolutionaries were not mercenarys... Mercenarys work for money, they were fighting for their freedom.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Chandrasekhar
Determined
Who says that the army of the Libertarian state would be mercenary-based?
plarq
Crazy forever
It should be volunteer based.
plarq
Crazy forever
I can't say which end of the spectrum is better, because in China, the worst part of socialism and libertarianism are combined.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I'd prefer to live in a Libertarian state than living in a Socialist state. I'd rather would want to be in a place that does not place a heavy burden on taxes on it's people.
Similar threads
