What do you say to this?

[rp4prez]

Personally, I think libertarianism is crazy. What you have in many underdeveloped countries is basically what libertarianism prescribes--incredibly weak central government, almost no taxes, very little governmental involvement in anything. And as a result you have massive amounts of endemic disease, unsafe drinking water and food, a large illiterate populace, horrible infrastructure, obviously no innovation.

People don't pay income taxes in many "third world" countries. There is little governmental involvement in people's lives, no social programs to speak of, low government spending and so on. And those places are awful to live. People complain they are 'dirty' and 'disorganized' when they come from richer nations. Because there is no government and no infrastructure. All modern developed nations had huge government spending programs at key periods on education, public health, science, transportation. Even the internet is the result of a 'government program.' If Ron Paul is a libertarian, that's all I have to know about his political philosophy. It's an absurd political philosophy.

I'm thinking of saying something to the effect of how most of our property taxes goes to things such as EMS, firefighters, local schools etc. Most of our taxes the federal government goes to waste in huge bureaucracies that makes a lot of situations even worse. No system is perfect but I do think that Ron Paul is thinking about individual rights and is fiscally more responsible than any other candidate to choose from.

[ThePieSwindler]

It seems this fellow is mistaking anarchism for libertarianism/federalism. The US would be fine witha weak central government because it is a federation.

[nexalacer]

I would point out that one problem is money. These countries have been taught throughout the history of colonialism that they must live by the western ways in order to be successful. This translates to depending on the western monetary systems to support their own economies. Their money is virtually worthless, an example being Liberia, whose dollar trades with the US dollar at 57:1. Their natural resources are typically controlled by western countries which leads to no ability to create within the country. Of course with no wealth there would be no development.

Another problem is the governments. The governments are typically not limited, except in the fact that they don't offer any services, however they are thriving in weapons and the monopoly of force.

When you are defending libertarianism, it is important to emphasize the point that libertarianism is absolutely dependent on the principle of the natural right to ownership of themselves and their own rightfully earned personal property, from which develops the absolute criminality of the use of force upon another person or said property. This principle is completely ignored in most 3rd world countries, whether by multinational corporations that forcefully take land and resources from the native inhabitants through cooperation with international organizations such as IMF, World Bank, UN, as well as the local governments, who ALSO completely ignore the libertarian's PRIMARY principle!

People have a tendency to associate pure libertarianism and thus anarchy with the complete chaos that the statists have been preaching for centuries, but in fact, this is a quite farcical point of view. Human beings would not fall into a state of chaos without state governments because it is against the natural order of the Universe. Of course there is are elements of uncertainty in the Universe, however uncertainty does not equal chaos. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems is many religions have been teaching that human beings are divinely inspired or divine beings or beings created by the divine, thus outside the realm of nature. This view leads people to believe as the poster that you quoted: We are not capable of functioning in nature, with nature, without some sort of control, whether that control comes from a deity or from a government. In order to teach people about libertarianism, you must find ways to demonstrate how people can function without control. The best way to that, imo, is to show them how the control actually hinders our ability to succeed!

[Duckman]

I'm thinking of saying something to the effect of how most of our property taxes goes to things such as EMS, firefighters, local schools etc. Most of our taxes the federal government goes to waste in huge bureaucracies that makes a lot of situations even worse. No system is perfect but I do think that Ron Paul is thinking about individual rights and is fiscally more responsible than any other candidate to choose from.

Well, this isn't bad, but it doesn't really address the distaste he has for libertarian principles. You are in effect saying that Federal spending is waste, but local spending is OK. Consider that many libertarians oppose publicly funded schools whether they are paid for with local or federal taxes.

What I would instead focus on is that 3rd world nations are hardly libertarian. Many of them are in pepetually bad situations because they have leaders who care only about their own power and do not enforce laws except to benefit themselves. Libertarians believe there must be a strong rule of law, but the law must be restricted so that its only function is to prevent one person from harming another. Such rule of law does not exist in these 3rd world nations which are "dirty" and impoverished. Free enterprise will raise the standard of living even in 3rd world nations, but if you don't have a safe community where people can begin to trade and open storefronts with the safety of knowing they are unlikely to be robbed or looted (perhaps even by the government itself) then there will be no progress.

As for the necessity of government sponsored roads, infrastructure, and public works, I believe that competition results in better services and quality for everyone so I believe that government ownership should be a LAST resort for any such thing. I am not a 100% strict libertarian here however; I have yet to hear a reasonable alternative to government ownership of city streets, for instance. But I support the idea of private toll highways, private utilities, and other infrastructure, to the greatest extent possible.

Many people feel that libertarian ideas are crazy because we need the government to do X, Y, and Z for us. But it's simply not true, or at least not true to a huge extent.

[bc2208]

Great reply nex

[akovacs]

uhhhhhh... most underdeveloped countries have very strong central governments actually. They take any aid money and spend it on themselves. They discourage private investment by nationalizing everything. They disarm their population, leaving them at the mercy of warlords. They put you in jail for speaking against the government...

So how exactly is this libertarianism again?

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

At the risk of being labeled a racist, many of the third world's problems are cultural, and not the result of "libertarianism".

No clean water? That isn't the responsibility of the government. The government could pass a simple law -- "No entity or individual providing food or water services shall knowingly provide sub-standard services. Violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties." Innovators can then form their own ways or providing water to people. Don't need the government involved any more than an oversight committee.

Don't need a government to start schools. If people were really concerned about illiteracy, they could find someone who knew how to teach. Even Jefferson's idea of public schooling was something that should be decided on a limited local basis.

No infrastructure because there's not a market for it. Did cities form because government existed first, or did cities form when people moved to a place and built their own infrastructure?

[pyrazole2]

freedomhouse.org's freedom in the world index. Most 3rd world countries are considered 'not free' or 'partly free'.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=21&year=2007&display=map

[nexalacer]

It seems this fellow is mistaking anarchism for libertarianism/federalism. The US would be fine witha weak central government because it is a federation.

Hmm.

I agree when trying to convince someone outside of libertarian ideas of the merits of libertarianism, it's best to avoid the usage of the word "anarchy" in any form, but not because they are not related. Mostly the problems with the word "anarchy" come 5000+ years of statism, which have basically conditioned human beings to depend on some sort of state apparatus. I find it hard to understand how many libertarians find anarchism offensive. If the basic tenet of libertarianism is the absolute inviolability of personal property, and understanding economics as Oppenheimer stated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer#The_economic_and_the_political_m eans) where "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.", then we must conclude that the state is a criminal organization since their very existence is dependent on the income of tax, which is a violation of personal property!

All anarchism means is "without rule", thus no state, which is exactly what a libertarian would desire if he were true to the basic tenet of libertarianism!

[M.Bellmore]

The idea is to have a small federal government. Each state still has its own government to handle all of the needs of the state. I would imagine that most small countries only have one government.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Third world countries = corrupt dictatorships.

[ThePieSwindler]

Most third world countries suffer from one of two problems - either they are ruled by an authoritarian who utilizes the resources of the nation for the betterment of the state, and not the people, or they have an incredibly corrupt central governments that works with corrupt private entities to cut the biggest pieces of the pie for themselves. Somolia is an interesting case because there is very little central government, and though there is certainly extreme poverty and disease, there is also considerable growth in infrastructure, telecommunications, and civilized politics among warlords/tribes, because resources are able to be more efficiently allocated without the

Another thing to consider is that many third world countries lack resources and wealth because they are so indebted to the IMF, that often their debt exceeds their GDP, resulting in little to no capacity for economic growth.


I agree when trying to convince someone outside of libertarian ideas of the merits of libertarianism, it's best to avoid the usage of the word "anarchy" in any form, but not because they are not related. Mostly the problems with the word "anarchy" come 5000+ years of statism, which have basically conditioned human beings to depend on some sort of state apparatus. I find it hard to understand how many libertarians find anarchism offensive. If the basic tenet of libertarianism is the absolute inviolability of personal property, and understanding economics as Oppenheimer stated where "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.", then we must conclude that the state is a criminal organization since their very existence is dependent on the income of tax, which is a violation of personal property!

This simply demonstrates there are differing degrees of libertarianism. I am personally an anarcho-capitalist, but i do believe government can serve a useful role as a defender of individual liberty - a role that private entities might not serve as well (though that is certainly debatable, but I am not trying to bring that specific debate up).

I personally believe that the only ethical taxes are those where the government is taxing a resource/product that it has acquired itself through trade (this doesnt mean tariffs, this means that i think things like excise taxes on gas are ok). As far as the role of the state, i see limited as being very different from small. I am for limited federal government, meaning the federal government has a few defined, enumerated powers that it does have significant influence in, though no power must go unchecked, of course, but the federal government should have considerable power in areas where power is given by the people/states (such as what the constitution was intended to do). Any power NOT GIVEN to the central government means just that - the central government has NO power or authority to make ANY law concerning an area where it is not specifically entrusted to them via a constitution and consensus by the states/people. Of course this is certainly not followed today, but this is the #1 reason why Ron Paul is by far the best candidate, because he would actively work to limit unconstitutional uses of power by the federal government.

Lets put it this way - if we followed the 10th amendment more literally, and if the federal government had power in only the areas it was specifically bestowed, the vast majority of our problems would be either solved or simplified in this nation.

[Duckman]

All anarchism means is "without rule", thus no state, which is exactly what a libertarian would desire if he were true to the basic tenet of libertarianism!

Well, my personal problem with anarchism (and why I am a minarchist) is that I do believe there is a need for a law to establish "justice" (as Bastiat put it) to prevent one man from oppressing another through violence. True anarchism has an "every man for himself" character to it which I think will quickly deteriorate into a situation where those who can wield the most local force will have the ability to
control those around him, a definitely un-libertarian situation.

Plus, many libertarians (myself included) point to the need for a robust legal system as the way to solve disputes. I believe such a legal system requires a state.

Also, those who support restricting immigration appear to need a state to create and enforce such restrictions.

The KEY to the positive effects of capitalism and freedom is the idea that you can be (mostly) free from harm and free from forcible loss of your property. Only then can people truly exercise their freedom in ways that help themselves and others.

[nexalacer]

At the risk of being labeled a racist, many of the third world's problems are cultural, and not the result of "libertarianism".


I'm not going to label you racist for these comments, but I would recommend you take of the western civilization blinders. Their older cultures have been mostly eradicated and they've been left with hybrid cluster-fucks that mix some remnants of their old culture along with the values and political functioning of western civilization.

So basically, what your left with, is the hollow shell of western economic and political action without the education or theory to back it up. It's not a fault of THEIR culture, it's more a fault of our own culture's superiority complex that led to a forced imposition of our way of life on people that functioned perfectly well living their own way of life.

Their culture is not inferior to ours, because there is no quantitative way to measure the superiority or inferiority of culture, thus they are not comparable in a "better or worse" sense, unless you have a superiority complex.

I suggest a Cultural Anthropology 101 class at your local community college.

[nexalacer]

Well, my personal problem with anarchism (and why I am a minarchist) is that I do believe there is a need for a law to establish "justice" (as Bastiat put it) to prevent one man from oppressing another through violence. True anarchism has an "every man for himself" character to it which I think will quickly deteriorate into a situation where those who can wield the most local force will have the ability to
control those around him, a definitely un-libertarian situation.

Plus, many libertarians (myself included) point to the need for a robust legal system as the way to solve disputes. I believe such a legal system requires a state.

Also, those who support restricting immigration appear to need a state to create and enforce such restrictions.

The KEY to the positive effects of capitalism and freedom is the idea that you can be (mostly) free from harm and free from forcible loss of your property. Only then can people truly exercise their freedom in ways that help themselves and others.

Law does not have to have a state to come into existence. British Common Law and Irish Brehon Law are two examples of law systems that require(d) no influence from the state. Adjudicating services could be offered based on a very simple criminal law that requires no state: The only criminal act is an act of aggression against another person or another person's property. The only worry for "justice" in this system would be that the victim of the criminal act felt as though justice was done. However, the limit would have to be proportional, and that's where the effectiveness of the adjudicating services would come into play. I don't want to get into how this system would work here, but if the law develops separately from the state, it is a big jump to say the law and its legal system requires the state for legitimacy.

Again, you're use of the word "anarchy" is that which the 5000-year-old state run propaganda machine has made you believe. Anarchy means no state, it does not mean it has to devolve into an "every man for himself" system, it simply means there is no monopoly on force nor anyone given a legitimate license to steal (both of which current states hold!). There is nothing in the meaning of anarchy that says that a society cannot come to an agreement on what laws to apply to their society based on the fact that constant warfare and violence is in few peoples best interest.

You're idea of the deterioration into a state where one person gains a natural monopoly on the use of force has two flaws. One, it ignores the argument against natural monopolies, which is typically a solid libertarian point. Two, it ignores the fact that in a healthy libertarian free society, people would not put up with the excessive shows of force by the so-called monopolist and would hinder this person in two ways: stop funding his psychotic rampages and fund another protection agency (or two or three) to smack him down.

Finally, if you are a libertarian and believe in the natural rights of human beings to own private property that they gained through non-agressive means, then you cannot oppose immigration (rather migration, as it would not be immigration if there were no states) as long as the migrating individual does not use aggressive means to make his new home. If there is an opposition to migrants who follow the rules of a libertarian free society, it will likely be based on a linguistic or cultural difference, which is the equivalent of changing the natural rights from applying to ALL human beings to applying to all those human beings who look like you, sound like you, or act like you. In effect, you're destroying the most basic principle of libertarian theory in order to satisfy a personal, subjective, and ignorantly prejudiced point of view. THAT is as un-libertarian as I can see.

Now, that's not to say I don't want immigration control now, but that is because I think the only way to get to the place where there is no need for immigration control is to first limit the government down to nothing in the territory that our current state controls. If we don't make the change to anarchy slowly, it WILL develop into chaos, because right now most people aren't ready for no state due to 5000 years of conditioning!

[maiki]

3rd world countries are not libertarian. Well. Let me qualify that. Many third world countries are in constant turmoil. They will switch quickly through extreme systems of government every 20 years. The result is a hodge podge of many things, no infrastructure, no security for business, few property rights, random agencies controlled by the government and some not at all, and some non-existent. Certain things in 3rd world countries can be an example of one thing or another, but rarely the whole system.