can a libertarian nation survive

[silverhandorder]

Please stop using this phrase. I often see it used sarcastically by Republicans, Neocons and statists usually in relation to Somalia and to generally imply how disorganized and confusing a libertarian society would be.

As libertarians, we shouldn't expect (or promote the idea of) a paradise if libertarian reforms are instituted. Paradise implies that everything will be just peachy for everybody and no one will want for anything and peace will reign over the world. Some things may be better, some thing may be shittier, some things will stay the same. We should be promoting the idea that government and society will simply be less coercive.

Use the phrase "libertarian society" instead.

I was being sarcastic my self .

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I dont oppose it, I simply would prefer a middle-way between paleoconservatism and libertarianism that would make it hard for corporations and globalists to take over

Only free people can choose liberty and only free people can choose statism. The fact is we are free. Nature only limits our freedom so that it conforms to the physical limits of nature as we presently understand those limits.

If we can agree all human beings are in fact free then we can also agree on the reason for statism. Human beings demand coercion instead of freedom from coercion. Look at this thread. Many of the replies are well... we need something. I think it's pretty obvious what the problem is. Human beings demand problems are solved using coercion.

Until that changes libertarian society is not possible. Ironically until that changes a limited government society is not possible either. Why settle for second best?

So if the only solution is people to demand freedom of coercion why do people still demand coercion? Are people that insane to keep demanding solutions that don't work?

Despite good intentions, people can be such suckers. People say Social Security was great until Congress started spending the money. Ok lets say I agree for argument sake it was great. Why the hell do you trust other people with your money when no government in the history of mankind has ever proven trustworthy? Do you trust potentially anyone with the keys to your house?

Limited government folks say well that is the problem. To much government. It's the same damn thing. What government in human history has ever given up power and reduced its size because government woke up one day and said. Damn... were too big and powerful. Despite that, people say well... we can keep it limited.

Then people say. Well we just need to elect the right people. It makes me want to fucking vomit. It has never happened because people demand coercion. It is not going to happen as long as people want to solve problems pointing guns at other people. I want a border fence and I will be sending the goons by your house to collect.

How big of a sucker can you be? It's never happened. We already live in a world of anarchy because nature is anarchy. So how many ideal libertarians societies are there in nature? Arguably none because we are suckers that demand problems be resolved with force.

How about we advocate addressing the actual problem... which is found in the damn mirror. Go look in the mirror and tell the reflection in the mirror you want to be a part of the solution because you will no longer demand coercion, you will demand freedom from coercion.

/rant over

 

[Wesker1982]

lol wow, what a post. Anyone notice the mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to try to disprove liberty?

With no centralized authority, there is nothing to take over. Explained in detail here: http://www.box.net/shared/lsfxkg55d0

But you know if we brainstorm up a scenario where armies of astro-zombies come from space and start using their mind control to brainwash people, maybe that would be a good reason to oppose liberty.

 

[Pericles]

"Wars are caused by undefended wealth." Ernest Hemingway

The problem is that evil needs to be restrained, and there is more evil out there than I can restrain by myself.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I am not very good with words, so I made a picture to better illustrate my point

I got your point.

 

[nobody's_hero]

lol wow, what a post. Anyone notice the mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to try to disprove liberty?

With no centralized authority, there is nothing to take over. Explained in detail here: http://www.box.net/shared/lsfxkg55d0

But you know if we brainstorm up a scenario where armies of astro-zombies come from space and start using their mind control to brainwash people, maybe that would be a good reason to oppose liberty.

But if someone else has a centralized authority and you don't, their centralized authority beats your non-existent one.

Morally you win, for what that's worth. But you still lose.

 

[Pericles]

But if someone else has a centralized authority and you don't, their centralized authority beats your non-existent one.

Morally you win, for what that's worth. But you still lose.

Which is basically the story of Weimar Republic Germany, the Russian Republic of 1918, the 39 Years War as a great example.

Google Freikorps and compare that to the concept of a "private security agency".

 

[Sentient Void]

But if someone else has a centralized authority and you don't, their centralized authority beats your non-existent one.

Morally you win, for what that's worth. But you still lose.

This, and the premise in the OP, is demonstrably, historically false.

We have at least one *very* good example, very recently, showing how decentralized nations are *extraordinarily* difficult to 'conquer'. Let me describe it. First off, the 'country' is certainly not libertarian - but that's not the point here. It's a centralized and focused military power against a decentralized society.

The invading nation has *SIGNIFICANTLY* greater technology, tactics, and experience in organized warfare. It is militarily centralized, and focused. It's backed and funded by an economic superpower with seemingly limitless resources compared to the nation being invaded. The invaded nation does not have particularly enforced borders (is basically open borders), and is a third-world nation under an agrarian society, and still mostly using technology from the middle ages (some are able to use crude but still inferior modern weapons and improvised explosives for guerilla warfare, however).

But for some reason, the vastly technologically, militarily, and economically superior invading nation is not able to effectively conquer the other nation. As a matter of fact, the war has become increasingly expensive (financially and politically), contributing to bankrupting the invading nation, demoralizing the troops and the people in supporting the war, and attacks against the invader have become increasingly common and more effective as time has gone on.

Anyone know the example I'm giving? Give up?

It's the USA vs fucking Afghanistan.

And this isn't even an economically and technologically advanced libertarian 'nation'.

/thread

 

[ClayTrainor]

This, and the premise in the OP, is demonstrably, historically false.

We have at least one *very* good example, very recently, showing how decentralized nations are *extraordinarily* difficult to 'conquer'. Let me describe it. First off, the 'country' is certainly not libertarian - but that's not the point here. It's a centralized and focused military power against a decentralized society.

The invading nation has *SIGNIFICANTLY* greater technology, tactics, and experience in organized warfare. It is militarily centralized, and focused. It's backed and funded by an economic superpower with seemingly limitless resources compared to the nation being invaded. The invaded nation does not have particularly enforced borders (is basically open borders), and is a third-world nation under an agrarian society, and still mostly using technology from the middle ages (some are able to use crude but still inferior modern weapons and improvised explosives for guerilla warfare, however).

But for some reason, the vastly technologically, militarily, and economically superior invading nation is not able to effectively conquer the other nation. As a matter of fact, the war has become increasingly expensive (financially and politically), contributing to bankrupting the invading nation, demoralizing the troops and the people in supporting the war, and attacks against the invader have become increasingly common and more effective as time has gone on.

Anyone know the example I'm giving? Give up?

It's the USA vs fucking Afghanistan.

And this isn't even an economically and technologically advanced libertarian 'nation'.

/thread

Game, Set, Match!

Awesome post man! +rep

 

[Pericles]

Game, Set, Match!

Awesome post man! +rep

As opposed to, say how well the native populations of the rest of the world did against the British Empire? There is a 300 year history of native populations being defeated and occupied by European powers. And that is allowing for Afghanistan and the Crusades as a draw.

 

[Reactionary]

With no centralized authority, there is nothing to take over. Explained in detail here: http://www.box.net/shared/lsfxkg55d0

Horribly faulty analysis. a nation does not take over other nation to expand the taxpayer base. They dont need to take and fight in every street and every house of the whole invaded nation.

Nation A invades nation B for resources, Nation A takes over the oil wells or the water sources and they get what you need, the war is over. How can the stateless Nation B survive when all the natural resources are taken over by hostile nations and sold to massive prices to the citizens of Nation B?

Even if that were not the case, the libertarian civil defense is hopeless against a war of extermination, where your enemy dosnt wanna steal your propierties or make a financial gain, just eliminate you and your tribe from the face of Earth and gain living space. Anyone who does not know what a war of extermination is must read some history, from the mongol invasions to the war against american indians, to the russian civil war of 1918 and world war II eastern front.

 

[Wesker1982]

But if someone else has a centralized authority and you don't, their centralized authority beats your non-existent one.

Hows that working out in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Wesker1982]

Horribly faulty analysis. a nation does not take over other nation to expand the taxpayer base. They dont need to take and fight in every street and every house of the whole invaded nation.

Nation A invades nation B for resources, Nation A takes over the oil wells or the water sources and they get what you need, the war is over. How can the stateless Nation B survive when all the natural resources are taken over by hostile nations and sold to massive prices to the citizens of Nation B?

What nation?

 

[mczerone]

Horribly faulty analysis. a nation does not take over other nation to expand the taxpayer base. They dont need to take and fight in every street and every house of the whole invaded nation.

Nation A invades nation B for resources, Nation A takes over the oil wells or the water sources and they get what you need, the war is over. How can the stateless Nation B survive when all the natural resources are taken over by hostile nations and sold to massive prices to the citizens of Nation B?

Why is it "Nation B"? You're still assuming that attacking the central political power will somehow transfer all rights in everything to the invader. The free society would recognize each resource as belonging only to it owner, and any "invading force" would really just have to show up like a thug and try to steal the land from the owner. Defense services that are paid for by the owner and those who value stable ownership would be more than sufficient to protect the property from theft.

Even if that were not the case, the libertarian civil defense is hopeless against a war of extermination, where your enemy dosnt wanna steal your propierties or make a financial gain, just eliminate you and your tribe from the face of Earth and gain living space. Anyone who does not know what a war of extermination is must read some history, from the mongol invasions to the war against american indians, to the russian civil war of 1918 and world war II eastern front.

What tribe? Again, if states want to do these horrible things, a free society is much better equipped to handle the attack than is a govt society. Further, without a state making uniform culture the norm, there would likely be tons of semi-dominant cultures made up from peoples from all genetic backgrounds. It would be nearly impossible to create a single collectivist image that could be used to drive the hatred of an invading force.

welcome to RPFs, btw. Please stick around for some constructive activities apart from these horrible "libertarianism can't solve X" accusatory threads.

 

[Reactionary]

Why is it "Nation B"? You're still assuming that attacking the central political power will somehow transfer all rights in everything to the invader. The free society would recognize each resource as belonging only to it owner, and any "invading force" would really just have to show up like a thug and try to steal the land from the owner. Defense services that are paid for by the owner and those who value stable ownership would be more than sufficient to protect the property from theft.

I cant imagine a "defense service" fighting a war against a central army and winning. Can you imagine the logistical chaos??

1- "General, we need to take over the hill or we will be encircled"
2- "Colonel, we cant do that, it is private property not under our protection, entering there would violate someone's rights"
1- "General, the enemy has taken over the hill! We are encircled!"

What tribe?

You may not recognize what your tribe is, but an enemy will.

Again, if states want to do these horrible things, a free society is much better equipped to handle the attack than is a govt society.

I dont see it supported by history. Anarchists losing to red army, natives losing to central powers, etc.

welcome to RPFs, btw. Please stick around for some constructive activities apart from these horrible "libertarianism can't solve X" accusatory threads.

Actually I am pro-Liberty and pro-Ron-Paul and I dont mind libertarians, I just consider myself more of a paleocon and I wanted to find a place to debate my position with left-leaning libertarians

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I dont see it supported by history. Anarchists losing to red army, natives losing to central powers, etc.

Look harder. The French Grand Armee led by Napoleon lost to a bunch of loosely organized Russians. The British army lost to a bunch of ragtag American colonists (America was a relative anarchy at the time). There are numerous stories like this, I just don't have time to go through them all.

 

[Reactionary]

Look harder. The French Grand Armee led by Napoleon lost to a bunch of loosely organized Russians.

were they? what about the strategic retreat of General Bagatrion? not to mention General Winter and General Typhus fighting in the russian side.

The British army lost to a bunch of ragtag American colonists (America was a relative anarchy at the time). There are numerous stories like this, I just don't have time to go through them all.

a question, you think the revolutionaries could have won without french help?

It seems from the example that the only way libertarians could win is by extensive guerrilla warfare after a long period of occupation.

 

[doctor jones]

There has been an influx in trolls lately.

 

[pcosmar]

There has been an influx in trolls lately.

You're not the only one to notice.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There has been an influx in trolls lately.

You're not the only one to notice.

I like how easy they are to spot now, with the rep system.