Why would libertarianism not work?

[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.

People should have both Social and economic freedom, thats why the Libertarian party is the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US.

The Libertarian Party, being an authoritarian party, supports neither social and economic freedom (which, to be quite honest, when you actually consider how different things interact with one another in the real world, are actually the same damn thing).

[Liberated Freedomstan]

People should have both Social and economic freedom, thats why the Libertarian party is the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US.

The Libertarian Party, being an authoritarian party, supports neither social and economic freedom (which, to be quite honest, when you actually consider how different things interact with one another in the real world, are actually the same damn thing).

I disagree.

They're not authoritarian; they just either don't understand the impact the reforms they support would have, or worse, are being paid not to care.

[Napkiraly]

I'll make it clear that when I talk of libertarianism I talk of the laissez-faire branch. The branch that idolizes Adam Smith.

Which is ironic given his support for things such as public education, progressive income taxes, regulating banks and retaliatory tariffs.

[Llamalandia]

The Libertarian Party, being an authoritarian party, supports neither social and economic freedom (which, to be quite honest, when you actually consider how different things interact with one another in the real world, are actually the same damn thing).

I disagree.

They're not authoritarian; they just either don't understand the impact the reforms they support would have, or worse, are being paid not to care.

I stopped listening to anything franklin bluth had to say a long time ago, he's obviously just trolling or incredibly ignorant or reality. :)

[Zavea]

libertarianism

well there's yer problem

[Mkuki]

I'll make it clear that when I talk of libertarianism I talk of the laissez-faire branch. The branch that idolizes Adam Smith.

Which is ironic given his support for things such as public education, progressive income taxes, regulating banks and retaliatory tariffs.

*shrug* Never read his stuff.

[The Saint James Islands]

The Libertarian Party, being an authoritarian party, supports neither social and economic freedom (which, to be quite honest, when you actually consider how different things interact with one another in the real world, are actually the same damn thing).

I disagree.

They're not authoritarian; they just either don't understand the impact the reforms they support would have, or worse, are being paid not to care.

Well, either way, they're clearly full of hot air. Either way, they ought to be laughed at, made fun of and promptly dismissed as political thinkers (which they are not).

[Surfistan]

I'll make it clear that when I talk of libertarianism I talk of the laissez-faire branch. The branch that idolizes Adam Smith.

Which is ironic given his support for things such as public education, progressive income taxes, regulating banks and retaliatory tariffs.

Sounds kinda

SOCIALIST

[The Saint James Islands]

I disagree.

They're not authoritarian; they just either don't understand the impact the reforms they support would have, or worse, are being paid not to care.

I stopped listening to anything franklin bluth had to say a long time ago, he's obviously just trolling or incredibly ignorant or reality. :)

You didn't read my last post on the emoticons, did you?
And that might be called trollnaming. The mods will eat you alive for that.
And no, Franklin Delano Bluth is not ignorant of reality, he simply has a different approach to it than you do.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Which is ironic given his support for things such as public education, progressive income taxes, regulating banks and retaliatory tariffs.

Sounds kinda

SOCIALIST

*gasp!*

Those dirt ComLibRuNazi Yuropians stealin' mah ideology!

[Napkiraly]

Which is ironic given his support for things such as public education, progressive income taxes, regulating banks and retaliatory tariffs.

Sounds kinda

SOCIALIST

Historical revisionism by us lefties, obviously. *nod*

[Llamalandia]

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.

What you say is sometimes true, but perhaps some workers would rather not john a union (like the teachers union for instance) because they believe in the simple fairness of things like merit pay, that is getting paid more for doing a better job than someone else and not being layer off in order of seniority first and quality second. Unions remove choice from people, if I want to work (for whatever amount of pay) it should be a decision between me and an employer not me and a union. and I'll use as many smileys as I want because I like to. :)

[Surfistan]

Sounds kinda

SOCIALIST

Historical revisionism by us lefties, obviously. *nod*

I blame Doctor Commie, travellin with his Prole-TARDIS.

[Mike the Progressive]

I disagree.

They're not authoritarian; they just either don't understand the impact the reforms they support would have, or worse, are being paid not to care.

I stopped listening to anything franklin bluth had to say a long time ago, he's obviously just trolling or incredibly ignorant or reality. :)

I thank Tom Cruise everyday that Bluth's "reality" will never be our reality. And if the world does become so fucked up where that is the accepted truth, by that time the sun will explode and we won't have anything to worry about.

[Dires]

My question is, if there is no government, or at least a very small government, what happens if we are attacked?

[Liberated Freedomstan]

My question is, if there is no government, or at least a very small government, what happens if we are attacked?

Depends on the country.

[Llamalandia]

I stopped listening to anything franklin bluth had to say a long time ago, he's obviously just trolling or incredibly ignorant or reality. :)

You didn't read my last post on the emoticons, did you?
And that might be called trollnaming. The mods will eat you alive for that.
And no, Franklin Delano Bluth is not ignorant of reality, he simply has a different approach to it than you do.

Yes actually I did read it.
ok whatever. Just offering an opinion here that shouldn't be regarded as absolute fact it just seems to me he has a history of saying things that meant mostly to be provocative in an unreasonable way not meant to foster real discourse but only to annoy people.
Saying that libertarianism is an authoritarian doctrine is ridiculous and does in fact show a lack of basic understanding of libertarian ideals and an unwillingness to educate oneself about it. It's like saying that someone who espouses a socialist agenda is a communist it's simply and obviously untrue. Most Socialists aren't communists and only an unreasonable person would assert that they were, just as only an unreasonable person would call libertarians authoritarian when in point of fact they are about as anti-authoritian as it gets short of being an anarchist (though I'm sure Bluth would just say every anarchist is really just dictator in disguise or some such nonsense.) :)

[Napkiraly]

Historical revisionism by us lefties, obviously. *nod*

I blame Doctor Commie, travellin with his Prole-TARDIS.

And now that the Doctor is Malcolm Tucker, he'll be cursing away the bourgeois daleks.

[The Serbian Empire]

Libertarianism is not compatible with bread and circuses or neo-Conservative constant war proven more effective in elections. If the Libertarian can't win the election; then it's proof it will not work by default of the voters who are more favorable to reactionaries or politicians offering things that may not be deliverable in the future. Can't change the voters until they realize that those things finally are not delivered or that reactionary war policies are not good for a country's debt (there's a lot of debt hawks in the reactionary crowd).

[Llamalandia]

My question is, if there is no government, or at least a very small government, what happens if we are attacked?

The people get drafted to defend the country (or militias are organized or whatnot) but generally countries don't just get attacked for no reason, and a lot of times people attack out of fear of strength (japanese at pearl harbor).

[The Saint James Islands]

You didn't read my last post on the emoticons, did you?
And that might be called trollnaming. The mods will eat you alive for that.
And no, Franklin Delano Bluth is not ignorant of reality, he simply has a different approach to it than you do.

Yes actually I did read it.
ok whatever. Just offering an opinion here that shouldn't be regarded as absolute fact it just seems to me he has a history of saying things that meant mostly to be provocative in an unreasonable way not meant to foster real discourse but only to annoy people.
Saying that libertarianism is an authoritarian doctrine is ridiculous and does in fact show a lack of basic understanding of libertarian ideals and an unwillingness to educate oneself about it. It's like saying that someone who espouses a socialist agenda is a communist it's simply and obviously untrue. Most Socialists aren't communists and only an unreasonable person would assert that they were, just as only an unreasonable person would call libertarians authoritarian when in point of fact they are about as anti-authoritian as it gets short of being an anarchist (though I'm sure Bluth would just say every anarchist is really just dictator in disguise or some such nonsense.) :)

In the realm of government, what you're saying might be true. But, libertarianism is inherently authoritarian in the workplace. It would promote absolute owner control over everything relating to his/her business. That means that workers would be severely limited in their rights to fair pay and decent working conditions. A libertarian America would be the Gilded Age Part II.

[Llamalandia]

Yes actually I did read it.
ok whatever. Just offering an opinion here that shouldn't be regarded as absolute fact it just seems to me he has a history of saying things that meant mostly to be provocative in an unreasonable way not meant to foster real discourse but only to annoy people.
Saying that libertarianism is an authoritarian doctrine is ridiculous and does in fact show a lack of basic understanding of libertarian ideals and an unwillingness to educate oneself about it. It's like saying that someone who espouses a socialist agenda is a communist it's simply and obviously untrue. Most Socialists aren't communists and only an unreasonable person would assert that they were, just as only an unreasonable person would call libertarians authoritarian when in point of fact they are about as anti-authoritian as it gets short of being an anarchist (though I'm sure Bluth would just say every anarchist is really just dictator in disguise or some such nonsense.) :)

In the realm of government, what you're saying might be true. But, libertarianism is inherently authoritarian in the workplace. It would promote absolute owner control over everything relating to his/her business. That means that workers would be severely limited in their rights to fair pay and decent working conditions. A libertarian America would be the Gilded Age Part II.

Hey, no one forces you to work for one employer, if you don't like your job quit and find one that pays and treats you the way you want and if you can't you can always start your own business. Also libertarians wouldn't allow employers to do anything they want to employees without consent. Libertarianism is all about choice and freedom to contract as one sees fit. :)

[Surfistan]

I blame Doctor Commie, travellin with his Prole-TARDIS.

And now that the Doctor is Malcolm Tucker, he'll be cursing away the bourgeois daleks.

Establishing an intergalactic and interdimensional dictatorship of the Proletariat .

[Dires]

My question is, if there is no government, or at least a very small government, what happens if we are attacked?

Depends on the country.

Ok, say it was the United States, even ignoring the internal issues with libertarianism, with no government, we would immediately be steamrolled by centralized forces.

[Liberated Freedomstan]

Depends on the country.

Ok, say it was the United States, even ignoring the internal issues with libertarianism, with no government, we would immediately be steamrolled by centralized forces.

The US Libertarian party encourages extensive use of the nuclear deterrent.