Libertarian ideology

farfromglorified wrote:

I am not aware of any purely Libertarian cities, states or nations. The argument exists for many, but there are always flaws (as with any pure political ideology). America itself, if one had to assign a pure ideology to its unpure founding principles, would have been closest to Libertarianism, IMO.

There are many small towns and regions in the United States and Austrailia where Libertarianism is effectively practiced, but often more because of geographical and resource restrictions (governing small, disparate populations often is not worth that trouble) as by Libertarian choice.

Others have argued that historical societies such as some Native Americans, Norsemen, or some 20th century S American societies were largely Libertarian, but I have trouble finding a lot of truth in those arguments.

The standard for the question is fairly simple: finding populations that exist based on the three axioms I detailed above in my response to Dan. While many populations match to some or majority extent, I'm not aware of any to which strong counter arguments do not exist. And once one applies a more formal standard of nation/state, that standard largely contradicts Libertarian thought, thereby making the standard counterproductive.

All that said, I've never taken on a truly active study on historical instances of the practice, since that doesn't interest me much.

farfromglorified wrote:

The past interests me very little. It's not Libertarian history that I'm disinterested in, it's history I'm largely disinterested in.



I don't believe there are good ones. I mean, Libertarian beliefs are fringe beliefs and have been so (though to varying degrees) throughout history. Few nations have even come close to being defined primarily by a belief in individual rights, history being so dominated by empires, collectivism and religion.

Libertarians tend to focus, in practical examples, on constructs like corporations and other social institutions that tend to be defined by similar principles. However, these examples are obviously tainted by their typical existence within non-Libertarian constructs.



I don't think any Libertarian would tell you to risk what you consider best, if that means your non-Libertarian ideology. Rather, they would simply tell you that you have no right to risk their lives and rights to achieve it, which would put you in agreement, not opposition.

Libertarians don't believe that society has to be full of Libertarians and slaves to Libertarianism. That kind of defeats the purpose. If you were some kind of hard-core socialist, Libertarians wouldn't tell you that, in the event that the US government suddenly became a Libertarian construct, you had no right to build collective structures. They would simply tell you that you have no right to enslave the unwilling in the process. The reverse, however, would not be true. In socialistic societies, Libertarian action becomes illegal.

Here's a very practical example of this: about two weeks ago, as a Libertarian, I participated in a protest here at a local commune whose land is being threatened by annexetion by my town. The people who live there are extreme communists and their political ideals could not run much more opposite to my own. But I participated in that protest because I am a Libertarian who believes that the people there have every right in this world to live how they choose, even if the choices they make are what I consider incredibly foolish and counter to their own stated purposes.



I don't disagree with this at all. The founding principles of the US were compromises. Hence "upure" in that they did not follow any single political ideal.

I don't fervently share the Constitutionalist outlook of many Libertarians, since I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution to begin with. I simply tend to agree with the Libertarian interpretation of the document moreso than the alternatives. Because of the rather superficial agreement, I have trouble representing their arguments here. Since Constitutionalism and Libertarianism often run hand-in-hand, you can find a lot Libertarian arguments on the intent of the Constitution on the web. Most of these arguments are pretty weak, as are the arguments on a document others proclaim to be "interpretive" while at the same time telling people its fundamental nature is prescriptive.

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm confused as to why this means it is greater than its parts. Certainly some things are out of an individual's control, but those are still real, tangible things that can be ascribed to some individual.

That's kind of saying the same thing. Obviously "the amount deducted" affects "what your income gets you". And Libertarians would counter this with discussions of inflation and waste and decreased competition that are a common product of the systems they (and I) dislike.

Libertarians do not believe they have a right to a specific labor value, they simply believe they have a right to exchange whatever value their labor is judged having as they see fit with anyone who will trade for it. So telling a Libertarian he or she "should be thankful" would be a tough proof.

Ok, these make more sense to me now.

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure, though "effective" and "works" beg a whole lot of questions and imply a whole lot of concepts. Regardless, for every effective political ideal you can find, there was a time and place in history where someone could have easily said "hey, it's never been done, so why should we try it". Why we do things should primarily be a question of values and purposes, not just precedent. Precedent, absent values and purposes, is just brainwashing or past-worship.

But I don't disagree that history provides a good guide. It is a useful tool.

farfromglorified wrote:

I totally understand, and understood you before.

To understand the positives and negatives of Libertarian implementations, just look for places in your society where the grasp of government is not strong. Furthermore, apply reason to the ideals. If you find them lacking, that's perfectly cool.

jeffbr wrote:

Actually, if you are an owner of a business you know that there is plenty of government going on withing your business to keep it from running efficiently. The trick for the business owner is to navigate around government to make the business function in spite of the intervention.