can a libertarian nation survive

[Reactionary]

There has been an influx in trolls lately.

well if you consider paleocons trolls? I thought it was a forum for debate ideas about Liberty politics, not a "lets agree on everything" kind of cult

 

[pcosmar]

well if you consider paleocons trolls? I thought it was a forum for debate ideas about Liberty politics, not a "lets agree on everything" kind of cult

paleocon?
Define please.

All I get from your posts is the "con" part.

 

[Reactionary]

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

I noticed how I was red after my first post. I didnt know people come here for ideological masturbation and to make their e-genitalia grow

 

[Reactionary]

paleocon?
Define please.

All I get from your posts is the "con" part.

Pat Buchanan's style of conservatism+protectionism+antiglobalism

 

[ClayTrainor]

I noticed how I was red after my first post. I didnt know people come here for ideological masturbation and to make their e-genitalia grow

People come here for a lot of reasons, including to troll. It's good to have a mechanism that exposes them.

 

[Reactionary]

People come here for a lot of reasons, including to troll. It's good to have a mechanism that exposes them.

More like a yellow-star to identify those who dissent from the open-border libertarian majority in this forum

anyways I came to have a serious debate if possible, I even tried to make a drawing in paint to better express my ideas , but I see it just crashed into a "guess who's trolling" game and debate is impossible here

oh well whatever

I will be supporting Ron Paul and donating whenever I can. i may not agree 100 % with his ideas but he is spot on the Federal Reserve problem that is the greatest threat to our stability

 

[pcosmar]

Pat Buchanan's style of conservatism+protectionism+antiglobalism

Well,,,,
I can understand how you would be confused.

 

[emazur]

Being libertarian doesn't mean being pro-open borders. Bob Barr in 2008 didn't support open-borders (and if you see the Reason Libertarian debate that year, pretty much all the candidates said no open borders so long as there's a welfare state). In 2004, Michael Badnarik didn't support open borders. I know Harry Browne ('96, 2000) was OK w/ open borders but I've also seen him say it shouldn't be done while there's a welfare state - I'm not entirely sure what policy he advocated.

 

[Sentient Void]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference.

The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.

Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.

"Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.

Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

It's hardcore enough that so many people here are armed and territorial as is. If it were decentralized as in a libertarian society - it would be virtually impossible to conquer such a people. A centralized power structure is much easier to conquer. How this esscapes people is beyond me.

I've enjoyed the thorough debunking throughout this thread of the misguided concept that decentralized societies somehow can't defend against centralized ones.

Welcome to the forum, BTW. Don't worry, all of us at some point or another has called and/or been called a troll by someone at some point on this forum

Though it is true, we have had a sudden influx of legit trolls to the forum recently - so bear with us if we're a bit touchy.

 

[silverhandorder]

There are plenty of people here that disagree but you don't see them get rep nuked. Speaking about nukes who is going to be stupid enough to invade a nuclear power?

 

[Annihilia]

I like these kinds of scenarios that contain enormous concentrations of evil that simply exist for no good reason. "Poof" out of thin air type stuff.

Okay, so if this libertarian an-cap society were to exist in parallel with this evil collectivist state, the first priority of defense agencies would be to protect persons and property against this threat. This would probably mean a cache of nukes as a deterrent, since it is more cost-effective compared to say, maintaining a standing army of a few hundred thousand for this one remote threat..

If this invasion were merely an issue of taking over resources, it would hardly be in the Evil Empire's economic interest to risk having their existing infrastructure crippled for the sake of a few extra oil refineries.

Problem solved?

 

[pcosmar]

More like a yellow-star to identify those who dissent from the open-border libertarian majority in this forum

anyways I came to have a serious debate if possible, I even tried to make a drawing in paint to better express my ideas , but I see it just crashed into a "guess who's trolling" game and debate is impossible here

oh well whatever

I will be supporting Ron Paul and donating whenever I can. i may not agree 100 % with his ideas but he is spot on the Federal Reserve problem that is the greatest threat to our stability

Where to start?
First, the Open borders folks are not a majority, nor is that the position of Ron Paul.
Liberty Is. and hence the term libertarian.

Your post and funny pictures came off as racist fear mongering. You may reconsider your approach and presentation.

As far as your "Libertarian Fails" style of posting,,,, I have seen entirely too many in the last few years. You are not the first.
I consider myself to be a Constitutional Conservative. Some have called me an anarchist, but that is simply not true.
"libertarian" is also accurate. I believe in Liberty.

As far as your accusations of e-masturbating over the Rep system
I came here pissed off, and that has not changed (grown possibly) I don't post to impress anyone.
You are the new guy that kicked the hornets nest, and are surprised that you get stung.

And most of the folks that post here are not all that dim

 

[nobody's_hero]

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

But we're not exactly talking about a military invasion (I'm not sure how the thread turned in that direction, if you'll look back at the example the OP gave with his drawing, the scenario doesn't require a military at all). We're talking about an underselling of a society from within, once a foothold of 'outsiders' (for lack of a better word) and their ideas about government have taken hold.

I can almost promise you that if we flooded Afghanistan with 10 million socialists from the USA, they'd have a central government in no time. No one would have to fire a shot.

That's what the OP was getting at.

 

[pcosmar]

That's what the OP was getting at.

That was done over a hundred years ago. I was born under the occupation.
And a hundred years after the libertarians established this country. There was a lot of time for the folks back then to get complacent.

We are trying to get it back.

 

[nobody's_hero]

That was done over a hundred years ago. I was born under the occupation.
And a hundred years after the libertarians established this country. There was a lot of time for the folks back then to get complacent.

We are trying to get it back.

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?

 

[Annihilia]

But we're not exactly talking about a military invasion. We're talking about an underselling of a society from within, once a foothold of 'outsiders' (for lack of a better word) and their ideas about government have taken hold.

I can almost promise you that if we flooded Afghanistan with 10 million socialists from the USA, they'd have a central government in no time. No one would have to fire a shot.

That's what the OP was getting at.

Okay, but the US government can't ship 10 million socialists to Afghanistan without destroying itself in the process.

So in this hypothetical universe, a full-on centrally planned successful socialist state (already a fiction) would be attempting to populate a stateless, individualist society hostile to the idea of a state and erect a political system from scratch. The main goal would be to subvert the population by introducing some fabricated consensus. Somehow this native population is going to be so stupid as to ignore the influx of millions of new residents..

 

[AlexMerced]

go http://www.blackyellowfree.com

The newest post is about how Ireland was essentially an anarchist nation and one of the most advanced civilizations at the time for about 1000 years

 

[nobody's_hero]

Somehow this native population is going to be so stupid as to ignore the influx of millions of new residents..

We're talking about Afghanistan, not the United States.

And a socialist state doesn't have to be 'successul'. The problem with socialist states is that they are inherently unsuccessful, but at the same time they are hell-bent on bringing everyone else down while trying in vain.

 

[Annihilia]

go http://www.blackyellowfree.com

The newest post is about how Ireland was essentially an anarchist nation and one of the most advanced civilizations at the time for about 1000 years

You should tag that post with Rothbard as well since it was from For a New Liberty.

 

[Annihilia]

And a socialist state doesn't have to be 'successul'. The problem with socialist states is that they are inherently unsuccessful, but they are hell-bent on bringing everyone else down while trying in vain.

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.