can a libertarian nation survive

[Reactionary]

guess you have a libertarian nation with open borders

how can this libertarian nation survive tribalism and ethnic networking by a group that is very hostile to the libertarian majority, and that has somehow managed to convince the same libertarian majority that tribalism to their favor is morally evil?

for the hostile group it may be very easy to gang on each libertarian individual to take them off their way one by one until an oppressive state has been established

imagine this hostile group importing millions of semi-slaves from highly socialist countries, keeping them inside of the libertarian nation with minimal inversion, i.e. making them sleep in little rooms, minimal food provisions

and imagine they manage to convince the semi-slaves that their lives would be far better, if only the libertarian majority could share some of their wealth. Now the hostile group arms the semi-slaves with all kind of war weapons and waits until the numbers are finally in their favor to launch an all-out statist revolution

what kind of measures you would take to avoid this problem?

Imagine that you have closed borders, but the hostile group and the semislaves are already inside the country

[silverhandorder]

Kill the fuckers everyone of them. What you thought a libertarian nation can not take action against imminent invasion? The security firms will make short work out of such people.

edit: But let me ask you what would your own current government do against such a highly organized group? It would fold in days should they be in the place of this libertarian nation.

[madfoot]

I don't think a 100% ideologically libertarian nation is feasible, but a country with policies of non-inteventionism in military and economic affairs doesn't have any problems as I see it.

I don't really get the scenario that you're proposing. Sounds a lot like the "Islamofascism" scare to me.

[Philhelm]

In a libertarian nation, the borders would mostly constitute of private property, and trespassers would be lawfully shot. :D

So, these invaders couldn't be arrested, or defeated in battle if they were to initiate agression against the citizenry? It sounds more like you are speaking of a nation that is in a state of anarchy. And why wouldn't a libertarian nation have tribalism or ethnic networking of its own? It's not like people would be forced to associate with others one way or the other.

[nobody's_hero]

In some ways, this is like what happened to the native americans.

[Reactionary]

In a libertarian nation, the borders would mostly constitute of private property, and trespassers would be lawfully shot. :D

here is the problem, if you have a powerful hostile ethnic network then they may have access to unlimited resources coming from an enemy country, they only need to buy their own airport to bring the semislaves and then bribe some libertarians to get access or right away buy land in the heartland

once their power concentration reaches critical mass, they can attack individual libertarian landowners and overwhelm them with firepower

[Reactionary]

What you thought a libertarian nation can not take action against imminent invasion? The security firms will make short work out of such people.

The hostile group will not attack right away. They will build up their power slowly, and try to buy the mass media as quickly as they can, no matter the cost, as they may have access to "infinite" resources from an enemy country


Once in control of mass media they can use it as a tool to create panic and demonize people that try to warn against their conspiracy

[johnrocks]

If open borders was the definition of a libertarian; George Bush would be friggin Hayek and John McCain would be Murray fucking Rothbard!

Instead of worrying about what a "pure" libertarian government would act, how about we start with not intervening all over the damn world and end the welfare state and see how that works!

Perhaps if we did that,defended our own borders,ports and waterways, allowed people to legally do drugs as long as they didn't harm others, not have the welfare state so that the Americans here would have a choice to pick fruit or not get paid to eat in the first place; we would not even have to concern ourselves with how a "pure" libertarian society could exist!

[pcosmar]

For what reason would this "Tribe" have to attack in a free and open society?
Why would the other armed and equipped citizens not defend themselves from an attack?

Why do people with NO concept of Liberty post dumb questions and absurd scenarios?

[specsaregood]

I don't think a 100% ideologically libertarian nation is feasible,
since you appear to be an expert, please explain for us exactly what is a "100% ideologically libertarian nation". thanks in advance

[Pericles]

In some ways, this is like what happened to the native americans.

Correct answer.

[Reactionary]

For what reason would this "Tribe" have to attack in a free and open society?
Why would the other armed and equipped citizens not defend themselves from an attack?

Why do people with NO concept of Liberty post dumb questions and absurd scenarios?

1. Power, historical grudges
2. Guilt, Propaganda
3. If you think it is an absurd scenario, you lack an understanding of human nature

[Reactionary]

http://www.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/7/6/4376367/theory.gif

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

[pcosmar]

So you are opposed to a libertarian country because some hostile ethnic tribal group will take it over? :eek:
:rolleyes:

:(

[Reactionary]

So you are opposed to a libertarian country because some hostile ethnic tribal group will take it over? :eek:
:rolleyes:

:(

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

[Reactionary]

In some ways, this is like what happened to the native americans.

Correct answer


Exactly. This rule is specially true for native americans of south america, that ended up with a spanish elite on top

[pcosmar]

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

Oh, That's simple.
Do away with corporate law. Corporations are a construct of the state. End that.
End membership in the UN and throw them out. Ignore them. Stop funding them.

The answer is really simple. Return to the Constitution. Limit the Government. Allow freedom to work.

[silverhandorder]

The hostile group will not attack right away. They will build up their power slowly, and try to buy the mass media as quickly as they can, no matter the cost, as they may have access to "infinite" resources from an enemy country


Once in control of mass media they can use it as a tool to create panic and demonize people that try to warn against their conspiracy

So how would US government stop them? If they are so organized to avoid detection in libertarian paradise they will also avoid detection of CIA.

edit: In fact I rather have a short period of libertarian paradise then of US government.

[1000-points-of-fright]

libertarian paradise

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.

[FrankRep]

Border Security

Ron Paul: A nation without borders is no nation at all (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


GO RON PAUL!

[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. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

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.

[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 :rolleyes:

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHrCWDMaJjw) 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 :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:
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. :p

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.

[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.