Why would libertarianism not work?

[The Saint James Islands]

Libertarianism would likely lead to too many people doing drugs, being overall rebellious, and starting gang wars and stuff. Plus there would be no respect for religion and that would make things all the worse (religion provides moral guidance and direction).

I'd also like to bring up another point...

Libertarianism overly promotes individuality to the point where it becomes a celebration of selfishness. In this type of society, we will lack the spirit of community that makes society strong and work. Community spirit would be dampened or altogether disappear as individuality is idolized.

I reject your premise, I accept your conclusion.
Religion =/= morality

[Kelmet]

Nice sourcing

To be fair I don't think any of that stuff is post-sequestration.

true that

[Ashmoria]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

[Mkuki]

To be fair I don't think any of that stuff is post-sequestration.

true that

Actually, I was wrong. One of them, the middle link, is post-sequestration.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Uh also monarchy, anarchism, dictatorship, military junta's, need I go on?:):)

Well, I'd rather live under Napoleon I, Elizabeth II or Peter I rather than "enjoy" libertarianism... as for dictatorships, as long as I'm the political officer, that's fine.

but but but Dutch Republic! :c

[Llamalandia]

Then I wasn't wrong, I was really talking about the late 19th century, I read something about it a few hours back, can't really recall what exactly, but boiled down to that there were entrepeneurs in the 19th century America that came from meager beginnings (although, very few.)

The 19th Century was a horribly unfair economy. Unions were routinely crushed, there was no minimum wage, trusts and monopolies were legal, and the poor got fucked.

And yet now we bailout the monopolies and oligopolies when they get into trouble and call it a stimulus seems like going backwards. Also there is some debate about the antitrust role of govt amongst libertarians, it's not that libertarians automatically think absolutely all regulations is bad for the free market, it's just that most regulation is bad again being totally absolutely laizze faire would be more anarchist. Also libertarians aren't anti-union they are just pro right to work, having a union is fine as long as join is voluntary and not required in order to work somewhere. :)

[Risottia]

The gov't can also, you know, print money.

But that leads to the argument that the more dollars are out there the less one dollar is worth no?

Not quite true.
It all depends on the purchasing power - which is influenced by inflation but not just by that.

[Mike the Progressive]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

[Kelmet]

But that leads to the argument that the more dollars are out there the less one dollar is worth no?

Not quite true.
It all depends on the purchasing power - which is influenced by inflation but not just by that.

As long as the USA its still top dog before I die, I die happy,

[Mkuki]

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

What makes you say that, Nixon?

[Liberated Freedomstan]

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

It would also be a lot worse for most of those 300 million people.

[Risottia]

Well, I'd rather live under Napoleon I, Elizabeth II or Peter I rather than "enjoy" libertarianism... as for dictatorships, as long as I'm the political officer, that's fine.

but but but Dutch Republic! :c

Dutch Republic? Damn, I'd have to drink Heineken. Pass. Hooray for the Kingdom of Bohemia... as long as I get Plzeňský Prazdroj!

[Liberated Freedomstan]

but but but Dutch Republic! :c

Dutch Republic? Damn, I'd have to drink Heineken. Pass. Hooray for the Kingdom of Bohemia... as long as I get Plzeňský Prazdroj!

I find that incredibly insulting. Don't blame the rest of the Netherlands for Holland's export piss-drink.

[Llamalandia]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Then perhaps we should split off most government functions to smaller units say oh maybe 50 of em (we could call them states) and then we could further subdivide some of that power and decision making into many many smaller govt units (we'll call them cities) you see where I'm going with this right. hey If minimal govt works for 1 million people but 300 million then why not just have 300 small govt sounds good enough to me.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

What makes you say that, Nixon?

There's a certain degree of patience required in interacting with federal, state and local bureaucracies. Minimal government being smaller or less government would mean less red tape and hoops to jump through. Not saying it's better for several reasons, but not feasible because it would be "just too complicated?" Hardly.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Then perhaps we should split off most government functions to smaller units say oh maybe 50 of em (we could call them states) and then we could further subdivide some of that power and decision making into many many smaller govt units (we'll call them cities) you see where I'm going with this right. hey If minimal govt works for 1 million people but 300 million then why not just have 300 small govt sounds good enough to me.

Or we could, you know, keep shit simple and have one central administration rather than 300 squabbling countries that have to constantly exchange information and red tape.

[Ashmoria]

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

no. it wouldn't be simple. it would be far more complicated to get what you need forced out of the guy at the top than it is today (even though its really hard to do today)

[Mkuki]

What makes you say that, Nixon?

There's a certain degree of patience required in interacting with federal, state and local bureaucracies. Minimal government being smaller or less government would mean less red tape and hoops to jump through. Not saying it's better for several reasons, but not feasible because it would be "just too complicated?" Hardly.

I see...

[Ashmoria]

I suppose it might work given a small enough population.

minimal government isn't feasible in a country of 300+million people. its just too complicated.

Then perhaps we should split off most government functions to smaller units say oh maybe 50 of em (we could call them states) and then we could further subdivide some of that power and decision making into many many smaller govt units (we'll call them cities) you see where I'm going with this right. hey If minimal govt works for 1 million people but 300 million then why not just have 300 small govt sounds good enough to me.

now THAT is complicated.

[Kelmet]

Then perhaps we should split off most government functions to smaller units say oh maybe 50 of em (we could call them states) and then we could further subdivide some of that power and decision making into many many smaller govt units (we'll call them cities) you see where I'm going with this right. hey If minimal govt works for 1 million people but 300 million then why not just have 300 small govt sounds good enough to me.

Or we could, you know, keep shit simple and have one central administration rather than 300 squabbling countries that have to constantly exchange information and red tape.

Franklin came up with that concept before 1776, but I don't think that would work, I like our state system

[The Saint James Islands]

Also libertarians aren't anti-union they are just pro-right-to-work-for-less, having a union is fine as long as join is voluntary and not required in order to work somewhere.

Fixed.
And don't put two emoticons in a row, the second won't work without a space. And with a space, it's just annoying and kind of spammy.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well actually it would be a lot more simple.

no. it wouldn't be simple. it would be far more complicated to get what you need forced out of the guy at the top than it is today (even though its really hard to do today)

Actually, I'd say in a society of 300,000 or even 3,000,000, would you be able to "get what you need forced out of the guy at the top" than in a nation of 300 million. For example, it's why several states are better able to tax (I presume is what you mean by your legalized thuggery) the wealthy than the federal government is or will ever be able to. Because in a state of 3 million, it's easier.

[Sauritican]

One reason is that I believe that society just wouldn't function properly, you give humanity too much choice, and we screw it up

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

What you describe is authoritarianism, not libertarianism.

Libertarianism is, and always has been, anti-capitalist, precisely because capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization.

[Ashmoria]

no. it wouldn't be simple. it would be far more complicated to get what you need forced out of the guy at the top than it is today (even though its really hard to do today)

Actually, I'd say in a society of 300,000 or even 3,000,000, would you be able to "get what you need forced out of the guy at the top" than in a nation of 300 million. For example, it's why several states are better able to tax (I presume is what you mean by your legalized thuggery) the wealthy than the federal government is or will ever be. Because in a state of 3 million, it's easier.

sure

that's why I said it might work in a low population state.

but we don't have a low population state. we have a high population, high diversity state.