Name One Successful Nation on Planet Earth That Has Libertarianism as its Core Governing Philosophy

[Yavin4]

I define succssful as a nation with an average to high standard of living, low or no crime, peaceful, relatively clean environment, and highly functioning.


By that definition, I don't count Somalia as successful.

[Yavin4]

1. 29 Views and No Responses?

So, there's no such nation.

[derby378]

2. When has America ever been libertarian?

There has always been someone clamping down on minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, gun rights, civil rights, you name it. Why is today any different?

[Yavin4]

5. I Didn't Say America Was Libertarian

I just want one example of a successful Libertarian based nation any where on planet earth.

[dtexdem]

3. Well, I was going to say Somalia -- and stick by it by this definition:

it is successfully carrying out libertarian nongovernance -- whether it intends to or not.

;-)

[daa]

4. Austria maybe?

[Yavin4]

7. Austria Has Universal Health Care

Not Libertarian.

[kestrel91316]

11. Austria is a social democracy like the rest of Europe, IIRC. FAIL.

[jpak]

6. The Republic of Douchebaggistan

yup

[MineralMan]

8. Bwahaha!

Nothing of the sort is possible. For one thing, one cannot build a successful economy on the efforts of Linux consultants.:rofl:

[JimDandy]

49. Linux was/is all about stopping CORPORATIONS

(not our GOVERNMENT) from programming us out of the equation.

[readmoreoften]

9. I know you said that Somalia doesn't count, but what about Imaginary Somalia?

Do the imaginary places that live in the Friedmanite mind, count?

[Yavin4]

21. Like Ayn Randistan?

Imaginary places do not count.

[originalpckelly]

31. OMG! That's about the best fictional name.

We have to call the America they are trying to create Ayn Randistan.

[OneGrassRoot]

43. LOL. I'm so gonna use that. n/t

[kestrel91316]

10. Antarctica. Oh, wait........

[AngryAmish]

12. Hong Kong?

[Yavin4]

20. Nope. Not Even Close. n/t

[former9thward]

22. Yes actually very close.

Although not now since the British have left.

[Yavin4]

23. Hong Kong Has Single Payer Health Care

They're not Libertarian. Also, drugs and prostitution are illegal as well.

[former9thward]

26. I didn't say they were pure libertarian.

But on the economic side they pretty much were. That is just a fact whether you like or not. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508696/Sir-John-Cowperthwaite.html

[Yavin4]

37. My Original Post Did Not Say "Economic Libertarian"

Economic Libertarianism without the Social and individual liberty is NOT Libertarian. Even Hong Kong's "Economic Libertarianism' is not accurate if they have public health care and education.

[former9thward]

42. You are now defining things as you want not as they are but it is your post so have at it.

[Yavin4]

45. Where in my Original Post Did I Use The Phrase "Economic Libertarianism"

I never did. You used it in order to answer my question because you cannot find an example of a government that sucessfully used Libertarianism as it base form of government.

BTW, there's no such thing as "Economic Libertarianism".

[Iggo]

48. Oh hey!

Takes me back to the days I first heard the term "Fiscal Conservative".

Ah, good times.

[WinkyDink]

24. "Not now" means "not now." The question wasn't about "ever in history."

[former9thward]

27. You make your posts your way and I will make mine my way.

Sorry if that flips you out but that is the way it is.

[WinkyDink]

50. I'm a fan of non-sequiturs as much as the next person. I don't know about the OP, though.

[LeftinOH]

13. The Ferengi Alliance (from Star Trek); profit above all else. n/t

[hifiguy]

40. Correct!

You win the thread! :)

[Broderick]

14. point made

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Delete - system duped

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Very good question. Well played

:applause:

[happyslug]

17. The Key to being Human, is to find the "perfect" balance between Communism and Capitalism

To be Human, is to be willing, able and ready to do things as a member of a larger group. Communism, by definition that means giving up some "Rights" for the greater good. Capitalism, is to look for what is best for ME, even if that means others must suffer a loss.

If you look at those two definitions, they are incapable, but to be Human is to balance those two extremes. No person can be truly "On his own", which is the key for Capitalism for that means everyone else he knows is a competitor that he (or she) must overcome. On the other hand, if we wait for Group approval for everything, the key to Communism, we end up waiting for long periods of time to do anything, including sweeping one's home (Which in a true Communist society everyone would have to agree to before it is done).

On the other hand, to build anything more then what animals can do (i.e. walk, talk, have sex, live in a cave etc) requires GROUP effort, thus to do anything requires people to WORK together for the common good. Libertarianism rejects this concept that people MUST work together for the common good, and replaces it with the concept that people will do what they are EXPECTED to do for their own good. i.e. people will build bridges for the pay their receive to build the bridge NOT that the Bridge permits people to travel from one side of the Bridge to the other.

While people are PAID to build bridges, Bridges are NOT built just for pay. Bridges are built to provide a COMMON way to get people from one side to the other, i.e. for the Common Good. Libertarianism maintains that the "Common Good" does NOT exist and people do things for their own reasons NOT the "Common Good". Thus everything must be PAID FOR, before it is done, unless it is FORCED upon people to do so.

The problem is societies and people do NOT operate that way, yes people want to be paid for what they do, but people also are willing to work together to get things done for the Common Good. This can be forming into Armies to fight off an enemy of the group, or just working together to prevent a over flowing River from flooding their town. It may be people getting together so that the local schools have a decent teacher, it can be making sure a Public Park is kept clean for the Children. I can go on, but these efforts tend to be joint efforts and as such "Communist" in nature. This leads to the concept of "Community", which is what a person want to live it, even at the cost of Individual freedom.

On the other hand, people do value their freedom, once the goals of the Common Good are reached (and one of the those common goals is individual freedom). This freedom permits people to do what they want, even at the cost of the rights of others.

The key to any successful society is to balance these two extremes, to provide for the Common Good, while also providing for people individual freedom. Both, the Common Good and individual freedom must give to make sure the other exists. To have one without the other is in many ways meaningless, to have complete individual freedom, means to have nothing unless you can keep it by force, to have complete sense of Community is to give all to the Community and nothing for one self. Thus the key is to balance these two extremes, an balance Libertarians reject.

With such rejection, any Libertarian society quickly comes to face what it is ill-equipped to handle, something that needs everyone in the society to sacrifice something for the Common Good (Mostly some "freedom" in the sense of serving together as a unit to defend the society, this can be a military unit, or just people helping each other out in a flood or other natural disaster). This inability to work for the common good dooms any Libertarian society and thus you will NOT find one.

[fascisthunter]

18. Somalia!

er.... oh wait

To me liberatarians lack a conscience and do not care to engage in any debate honestly. You say up, they will automatically say down. Their ideology is a fantasy built on lies, selfishness and pure greed(the me, me, me syndrome).

[Ter]

19. Has it ever been tried in a modern, advanced society?

How about North America, 10,000 BC? Seemed like a great place to live, as long as you could avoid a saber-toothed tiger and a giant short-faced bear.

[GliderGuider]

25. The Anarcho-Primitivists have already claimed every utopia before 8,000 BC...

I personally would prefer to try some form of philosophical anarchism before Libertarianism. Maybe something with a lot of mutualism in it.

[Zanzoobar]

28. First of all, to debate it, you have to agree on a definition

To define libertarianism you must include the principal architects or their disciples in the debate. You prolly wont find them here.

If you can come up with a reasonable definition other than "A Republican who smokes dope", you may find a reasonable debate.

Truly, I hate these threads. I am not a (L)ibertarian or a (R)epublican.

[Yavin4]

47. Fine. I will Use The Wiki Definition

Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


Is that good enough?

[unblock]

29. the u.s of fuckin' a., dude!

sorry, channeling some serious right-wing stupid for a minute, there.

[jmowreader]

30. No one can because libertarianism doesn't fucking work, okay?

This is of course Yavin's point.

Even in Ayn Rand's little fantasy wheel chock (I'd call it a "book" but you can use two copies of it to keep your semi from moving) libertarianism didn't work: the country's economy had gone to hell in a handbasket before all the rich fucks went Galt, and it remained in this state even after they left. (Now, if a LIBERAL would have written that book, the country would have gotten better after the parasites moved into John Galt's commune.)

[sofa king]

32. Was not the U.S. libertarian during the Gilded Age?

There were comparatively few laws or regulations, and the few we had were purchased or de-fanged by competing moneyed interests. One could buy heroin at the corner drug store, and Coca-Cola really was the real thing. The streets were three feet deep in shit, diseased meat was partly comprised of the workers who canned it, every prostitute was dying of syphilis and nobody used condoms. The economy lurched about like George Bush at a wedding reception, and the average life expectancy of a newborn was around 46 years. If you didn't like someone, you could gather a gang of like-minded people, publicly execute someone, and get away with it. Domestic intelligence corporations kept files on everyone, and freely handed that information over if you were the right sort of white male, preferably of Dutch or English descent.

Isn't that libertarianism at its best?

[Zanzoobar]

33. Ah, then...

"The streets were three feet deep in shit, diseased meat was partly comprised of the workers who canned it, every prostitute was dying of syphilis and nobody used condoms. The economy lurched about like George Bush at a wedding reception, and the average life expectancy of a newborn was around 46 years. If you didn't like someone, you could gather a gang of like-minded people, publicly execute someone, and get away with it. Domestic intelligence corporations kept files on everyone, and freely handed that information over if you were the right sort of white male, preferably of Dutch or English descent."

We are nearly a libertarian society. The fatal diseases and life expectancy may have changed, but we're still libertarians at heart.

Thank you, brother.

[sofa king]

35. Yep.

And shhh, don't tell anyone, but if you take out people with full health coverage, life expectancy is once again declining in the South, Appalachia, and Texas....

[Zanzoobar]

36. It's almost perfect

Except those folk in Appalachia keep hanging on!

By gum, all that interbreeding MUST BE BENEFICIAL despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Yavin4]

38. African Americans and Women Had Economic Freedom and Liberty

during the Gilded Age?????

[sofa king]

51. I'm not sure I understand.

In fact, I'm not sure how a libertarian society can avoid returning to the time-honored traditions of exploiting women and minorities for financial gain. How would the weak government envisioned, or anyone else, be able to protect and enforce such a right, particularly since the money always backs exploitation over equality?

And as it happens, during the Gilded Age, black males did indeed enjoy total freedom, backed by clear language in our nation's sacred governing document....

[LooseWilly]

34. India

Ask the "middle class" Indians and they'll say they have a high standard of living, only high crime in "bad neighborhoods", a clean enough environment and that the country is functioning better than ever.

Then look around you and you'll see that there are only sidewalks in front of businesses that are trying to attract wealthy clientele, and there's just dirt beside the pavement everywhere else... No apparent effort is made to clear away squatters from vacant lots (my guess is that the cops don't bother and the owners are too cheap or poor to get hold of hired goons). Nearly every highway that a vehicle can reasonably expect to do more than 35-45 kph on is a toll highway.

Libertarian and scooping up global tech jobs left and right. (Well, except for the areas that are held by Maoist guerillas...)

[Yavin4]

39. India Is Far From Libertarian. Far From It.

I was in India, and the government forces the bars to close at 11:00 PM.

[robcon]

41. Hong Kong before the Chinese takeover.

n/t

[Yavin4]

46. Wrong. Before the Chinese Takeover

Hong Kong had government based health insurance. They were single payer.

[Iggo]

44. Every Man For Himself is not a sound governing philosophy. (n/t)