Can anyone cite libertarian economic policies being a success in a real country?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the past I've seen people propose Somalia as an example of libertarianism and counter-arguments said it's really places like Andorra, Monaco and Liechtenstein...which have a combined population of less than the city of Des Moines, Iowa. I'm kind of interested in seeing anyone explain how libertarianism is going to work in any country where the economy needs to be based on something other than being a tax haven or de facto bank for organized crime from real countries.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's worked out real well for Bir Tawil, I'm sure.

[dead0man]

Short answer:it's never been tried.

Long answer:it's a new(ish) movement, it's never been tried.  It has neither failed, nor succeeded.  Like pure communism, it might only work on small scales full of people that want to be there.  Unlike communism, it's never even been attempted on a large scale and I'd bet dollars to donuts there would be a lot less death and murder.  Also, less standing in line for toilet paper.  Sure, the healthy but lazy might not enjoy it.  Yes, there will still be people bickering about how we haven't taken the idealogy far enough and others saying we've taken it to far, but there wouldn't be purges over control.  There won't be 8billion C batteries and 150 AAs.

And anyway, I don't look at libertarianism as a name for a new type of govt or something.  It's not going to replace a liberal democracies or dictatorship or whatever.  It's more of a way to look at the world....or at least a well understood* name for a particular way of looking at the world.  It's a "Live and let live"...."do no harm" kind of a thing.  It's not selfism;there will still be charity, govts will still help citizens not able to help themselves.  It's not anarchy;there will still be police and laws and courts and jails.  You can't walk around with the biggest gun, doing whatever the hell you want.  It's not a system that benefits the rich;there can still be progressive taxes and the rich would have a lot less pull via the govt because the govt will have a lot less pull in the first place.  Plus, if, as many believe, the rich "run" things, wouldn't they have forced (tricked?) libertarianism down our throats if it favored them so much?

Or maybe I'm totally wrong, I'm a fake libertarian after all and I stopped flying the yellow avatar a long time ago.  Maybe some of the more "pure" libertarians will be along to correct my mistakes, I welcome them.


*ok, maybe "well understood" is the wrong phrase as most people seem to have no clue what it means...maybe that's because it's not really well defined and even it's followers can't really agree on much.  Hell, I don't hate Jews or Israel, some seem to think that makes me a fake libertarian (though they seem to get banned in time...must be a Zionist conspiracy <snicker>).

[k-onmmunist]

Short answer:it's never been tried.

Long answer:it's a new(ish) movement, it's never been tried.  It has neither failed, nor succeeded.  Like pure communism, it might only work on small scales full of people that want to be there.  Unlike communism, it's never even been attempted on a large scale and I'd bet dollars to donuts there would be a lot less death and murder.

Lol. You seriously think there has ever been communism anywhere?

[dead0man]

We've done this before.  No, straight communism has never been tried on a large scale.  Lots of people have called themselves communists and claimed to be working to that goal on a large scale, which is why I said "attempted", you may have missed that part because you bolded it so hard.  Every case has lead to some of the worst crimes against humanity the world has ever seen.  People calling themselves communists (whether they fit the exact definition or not) are some of the worst people the planet has ever seen.  It's horrible ideology except when it's done on a small scale with people that want to be there (and even then it kind of sucks, but hey, live and let live right?  As long as they aint killing people trying to leave, I got no issue with it.).

[k-onmmunist]

We've done this before.  No, straight communism has never been tried on a large scale.  Lots of people have called themselves communists and claimed to be working to that goal on a large scale, which is why I said "attempted", you may have missed that part because you bolded it so hard.  Every case has lead to some of the worst crimes against humanity the world has ever seen.  People calling themselves communists (whether they fit the exact definition or not) are some of the worst people the planet has ever seen.  It's horrible ideology except when it's done on a small scale with people that want to be there (and even then it kind of sucks, but hey, live and let live right?  As long as they aint killing people trying to leave, I got no issue with it.).

No, you just think it's a horrible ideology because it's opposed to your view of the world. Liberals have killed countless people in the name of democracy and 'freedom' but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

[dead0man]

No, you just think it's a horrible ideology because it's opposed to your view of the world. Liberals have killed countless people in the name of democracy and 'freedom' but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

My world view of live and let live....my world view of not shooting people in the back trying to leave my horrible system of govt?  Nice.  And not only are you nit picking, you're strawmanning too?  Awesome.

...but we can compare numbers if you want.  I'll start:
USSR under Stalin=8-61 million....real number probably around 20million
PRC under Mao=numbers vary but likely somewhere between 30 and 50 million...lets say 40 million
Khmer Rouge=more than 2 million

Good luck!

[k-onmmunist]

No, you just think it's a horrible ideology because it's opposed to your view of the world. Liberals have killed countless people in the name of democracy and 'freedom' but I don't see anyone complaining about them.

My world view of live and let live....my world view of not shooting people in the back trying to leave my horrible system of govt?  Nice.  And not only are you nit picking, you're strawmanning too?  Awesome.

...but we can compare numbers if you want.  I'll start:
USSR under Stalin=8-61 million....real number probably around 20million
PRC under Mao=numbers vary but likely somewhere between 30 and 50 million...lets say 40 million
Khmer Rouge=more than 2 million

Good luck!

Khmer Rouge weren't communist, they were agrarian nutters, so that rules them out immediately.

A lot of deaths under Mao were from incompetence rather than any actual killing.

As for Stalin, you can't really live and let live when the rich peasants are threatening to withhold food supply and force the country into famine. Your system of government would leave the working classes to either work over 10 hours a day every day or simply leave them to starve.

[dead0man]

Khmer Rouge weren't communist, they were agrarian nutters, so that rules them out immediately.

From wikiQuote

[k-onmmunist]

Just because somewhere says they're communist, doesn't mean they are (i.e. China) Sorry, your logic fails

And you're incorrect about the planned economy being an incompetent system... capitalism is an inefficient system and if it wasn't, we wouldn't be in the horrible mess we're in now.

There would have been a famine in the late 1920s - the kulaks threatened to starve out the cities because of their opposition to communism.

It would be nice if you would pull your head out of the sand for a minute and actually think about this. The Holodomor as a man-made famine was originated by U.S. anti-communist moguls, and it was the Nazis who first promoted it. Hmm. Nevermind the fact many non-Ukrainians died of famine! Obviously that means nothing!

You're wrong, as usual. You're simply a right wing hawk who sees everything left wing as evil and unfair. Well you're wrong. Sorry.

[Joe Republic]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

[k-onmmunist]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

[Joe Republic]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

So which one is next?

In any case, I sincerely hope you're not expecting anybody here to take any of your political outpourings seriously any more, not when you could feasibly get into an impassioned debate with yourself from like a month ago.

[k-onmmunist]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

So which one is next?

In any case, I sincerely hope you're not expecting anybody here to take any of your political outpourings seriously any more, not when you could feasibly get into an impassioned debate with yourself from like a month ago.

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

[Frink]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

He sure seems to push to the extremes.

[dead0man]

Just because somewhere says they're communist, doesn't mean they are (i.e. China) Sorry, your logic fails

<snip>

You're wrong, as usual. You're simply a right wing hawk who sees everything left wing as evil and unfair. Well you're wrong. Sorry.

If you want to continue this silly defense of "communism" feel free to start a new thread, you can even use any part of my posts here as a starting point ('cause it's clear, coming up with your own ideas isn't your strong suit) if you want.  I'll gladly continue the discussion there, I won't here.

(and I'm not running away, so please don't shoot me in the back like a good commie would)

[k-onmmunist]

Just because somewhere says they're communist, doesn't mean they are (i.e. China) Sorry, your logic fails

<snip>

You're wrong, as usual. You're simply a right wing hawk who sees everything left wing as evil and unfair. Well you're wrong. Sorry.

If you want to continue this silly defense of "communism" feel free to start a new thread, you can even use any part of my posts here as a starting point ('cause it's clear, coming up with your own ideas isn't your strong suit) if you want.  I'll gladly continue the discussion there, I won't here.

(and I'm not running away, so please don't shoot me in the back like a good commie would)

[Frink]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

So which one is next?

In any case, I sincerely hope you're not expecting anybody here to take any of your political outpourings seriously any more, not when you could feasibly get into an impassioned debate with yourself from like a month ago.

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

Why exactly, pray tell, are you here then?

[k-onmmunist]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

So which one is next?

In any case, I sincerely hope you're not expecting anybody here to take any of your political outpourings seriously any more, not when you could feasibly get into an impassioned debate with yourself from like a month ago.

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

Why exactly, pray tell, are you here then?

Mainly just for off-topic stuff. I gave up on my hopes of using this forum to debate a year or so ago.

[Joe Republic]

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

Agreed, it is tough to expect serious debate among kids whose political philosophies are so well-grounded and infallible that they've been entirely abandoned a few weeks later in favor of whichever relevant Wikipedia article was most recently read.

But I'm sorry, you're right.  It is a little difficult to keep up with you, especially since your posts aren't interesting enough to read, by and large.  But you have to admit that your relationship to the political matrix chart is rather similar to a kid with ADHD playing on a pinball machine.  Well, I suppose you essentially just did.

[Frink]

Wait, is Winston's communist blah for real?  I thought it was a joke?!  Jeez, are there any ideologies left that he hasn't tried?

Conservatism? Fascism? National anarchism? Many other bizarre varieties of anarchism? Trotskyism?

So which one is next?

In any case, I sincerely hope you're not expecting anybody here to take any of your political outpourings seriously any more, not when you could feasibly get into an impassioned debate with yourself from like a month ago.

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

Why exactly, pray tell, are you here then?

Mainly just for off-topic stuff. I gave up on my hopes of using this forum to debate a year or so ago.

I was referring to the section of the forum reserved for debate.

[k-onmmunist]

I don't expect any serious debate on this forum anyway, given that most of the people on here are either left-of-centre hacks or libertarians. And it's been more than a month since I was a capitalist. Keep up please.

Agreed, it is tough to expect serious debate among kids whose political philosophies are so well-grounded and infallible that they've been entirely abandoned a few weeks later in favor of whichever relevant Wikipedia article was most recently read.

But I'm sorry, you're right.  It is a little difficult to keep up with you, especially since your posts aren't interesting enough to read, by and large.  But you have to admit that your relationship to the political matrix chart is rather similar to a kid with ADHD playing on a pinball machine.  Well, I suppose you essentially just did.

Bitch bitch bitch, whine whine whine. I changed my mind. So what? You don't even have any real opinions so you can't complain.

[Alcon]

Not to fuel the flames here, but I can understand changing ideologies, but how does one manage with such confidence each time?  Like, if I kept changing my mind on fundamental stuff weekly, I'd concede that I'm operating on very shaky ground.  I don't understand how one can experience epiphanies and then just abandon their revealed truths, and not question whether they ever had too much faith.

Now, back on topic:

There's a whole lot of weird thinking going on here.  First off, libertarians basically are just more apt to think that consent-based free markets are more effective than whatever constraints are placed on them.  Few libertarians are absolutists, and gee whiz, absolutist countries tend to be screw-up countries.  Almost every country concedes some "libertarian" points.  The debate is just over perceived inefficiencies, and examples of when our day-by-day actions in the market system don't result in the ends we want out of society.  Almost every libertarian concedes that these points, too.  So, why are we assuming a "libertarian country" must be ideologically hyper-pure in a way that "liberal countries" aren't?  I'm far, far from an economist, but this seems like pretty shallow analysis to me.

[k-onmmunist]

Not to fuel the flames here, but I can understand changing ideologies, but how does one manage with such confidence each time?  Like, if I kept changing my mind on fundamental stuff weekly, I'd concede that I'm operating on very shaky ground.  I don't understand how one can experience epiphanies and then just abandon their revealed truths, and not question whether they ever had too much faith.

I don't change my views weekly for Pete's sake. I'm not answering any more on that because people are being ridiculous now.

[Alcon]

Not to fuel the flames here, but I can understand changing ideologies, but how does one manage with such confidence each time?  Like, if I kept changing my mind on fundamental stuff weekly, I'd concede that I'm operating on very shaky ground.  I don't understand how one can experience epiphanies and then just abandon their revealed truths, and not question whether they ever had too much faith.

I don't change my views weekly for Pete's sake. I'm not answering any more on that because people are being ridiculous now.

Hey dude, I was obviously being hyperbolic, which is why I said one, not you.  Let me elaborate:

My criticism doesn't matter if it's weekly or yearly.  I don't understand how someone can change their ideology so sharply, after having previously been strongly convinced, and not wonder if they overestimate the strength of their own convictions.  This is especially true if it happens multiple times.  This change doesn't give any cognitive dissonance, or make you wonder about the foundations of a new ideology, if you were so convinced of something you've since summarily dismissed?  I don't understand the thought process behind that.