can a libertarian nation survive

[Sentient Void]

"Could a libertarian nation survive if Stalin was revived from the dead and came back with a 'New Socialist Man' mind control device which he used on the libertarian society to convert them all to support a socialist paradise?"

"Would you still be a libertarian if it could be shown that in order to have societal peace and happiness, Hitler's concentration camp captains need to rape Jewish inmates and make lampshades out of their skin?"

Silly hypotheticals are silly.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If they're in a position to start buying up land and shipping people by the millions over, they would have to be rather successful. I doubt a mediocre socialist state would be in any position to buy huge swaths of land with actual currency since libertopia is not going to accept their worthless paper. Then shipping a bunch of starving socialist drones that they will have to feed, clothe, shelter, direct.. Kind of silly.

They don't bring their own money with them in order to fund this socialist state once they arrive in a stateless society, I didn't mean to imply that. They don't even have to buy any land (you're thinking as though the idea of property rights is just going to sway folks who have never known anything other than a centralized government ruling over them; you are, of course, morally right in your appreciation of property rights, but nonetheless, you are outnumbered). My ten million hypothetical immigrants simply arrive with the shirts on their backs and someone starts pandering to them in order to broaden their power. It's not an instant process, but relative to the history of Afghanistan, my ten million immigrants could go to work establishing a socialist government where none existed before. Again, it's the numbers game, which the morally right but vastly outnumbered, out-media'd, and out-funded libertarians are losing.

 

[Flash]

I hope we can, but I'm concerned that the open-borders doctrine will do more good for the seller-outers than for the remaining contingent of libertarians still holding out in this land. America has devolved into a de-facto democracy, and once they reach 51%, it won't matter how ideologically pure of a libertarian a person might be, like I said, it's a numbers game, more so, than it is about who is right or wrong.

So say if you spend a year trying to educate your close friends and family (let's say, about 20 people) about what freedom is, but in that span of time 500 people move into your community, bringing with them their ideas of what government's role should be (nanny state) . . . you lose.

—Right or wrong, you lose.

So can a libertarian nation society survive?

This is actually the very reason I stopped being a Minarchist and became an Anarchist. At the end of the day, even if Classical Liberals took back the government, the Statists will seep back into politics. As the population grows wealthier (which I think everyone here THINKS would happen in a libertarian society) the birth rate declines. Statistics show the majority of first-world nations have very low birth rates. So what happens? You need immigrants. A lot of these immigrants are coming from third or second world nations. Being so poor and coming to a nation like ours, politicians who promise free things to them are going to be elected. Why else are modern day hispanics voting so heavily for the Democratic Party? Why else did catholic immigrants love the Democratic Party? They're the ones offering all the goodies. Before you know it the immigrants (who have more children) will out-populate the 'natives' to the land and vote for a big-gubmint politician every single election.
Edit: I would assume a stateless society would have a better chance at dealing with the immigration problem than minarchism. Without elected officials, it would be less likely for the burgeoning group to gain power. May be I'm pessimistic but I think freedom-loving humans would always be persecuted by those that want more for themselves & less for everyone else.


I think one of the main problems is the fact politicians are ELECTED because they're good at campaigning. NOT because they understand how to run a nation or the proper role of governing. Using the government as a solution to our problems is EASY for them. Not enough people being educated? Let's build public schools! Too many poor people? Let's create minimum wage! All their solutions fit in a 30-second sound bite that will get them elected & re-elected time and time again.

If I couldn't choose an anarchic society, I would be in favor of living in a Republic where voting was severely limited and and politicians weren't directly elected by the people. Perhaps people would be allowed to vote for local state representatives, but Senators & Federal Representatives would be elected by the state legislature. That way, politicians would be inclined to ensure the survival of their nation (and they don't wanna piss off the state legislatures so they'll leave a large amount of power up to the states rather than central government) rather than appeasing the unions, special interest groups, corporations, etc.. that got them into power, like they do in this society.


I do admit that a stateless society would be at a greater risk of being invaded than a statist society. If the stateless society is the size of a continent, it would probably acquire a large level of wealth & private security companies or whatnot would be able to use nukes to fend off any military invasion. But if a small region of America... say New England decided to secede & become stateless, it wouldn't stand a chance again any foreign invasion. I think this obvious. But ALL small nations (nations as in people who share a similar culture and region, statist or stateless) face this threat.