Can someone succinctly explain to me Libertarianism?

[acptulsa]

Thanks for the reply.

Re what is in bold: See this is what I have trouble understanding. If we were to theoretically break up into 'nation states' what would prevent the wealthier, hi-tech, better armed states from conquering their neighbors?

That Constitution you refuse to read. Only the ancaps want to eliminate the federal government, and they want to get rid of all governments. Most of us are constitutionalists, and we believe in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Because competition between the states will keep them from individually becoming tyrannies. Because Europe was a nicer place before the EU. Because the Original Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, was right...

"I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

And because if your local fire department is run by the federal government, and it isn't performing well, you have to convince some odd twenty million voters that your fire department is more important than gay marriage, abortion and their own fire departments combined. And if you don't, improvements do not get made.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

You don't have to be economically literate to understand that you can't sue a corporation for damages for dumping lead in your back yard if they're dumping it there in compliance with EPA regulations. You don't have to be economically literate to understand that if regulations are so thick on the ground that it takes five CPAs and three lawyers to remain in compliance, Wal Mart won't mind a bit but the Cherry Street Bead and Candle Shop will never survive. You don't have to be economically literate to understand that just as soon as the federal government, in the mid 1970s, began insisting that cars become lighter (fuel economy CAFE ratings) and heavier (safety regs) at the same time, and less efficient (oxide of nitrogen restrictions) and more efficient (CAFE again) at the same time, Rambler went out of business, Chrysler nearly did, and the hope of anyone like a John Z Delorean popping up and showing Detroit how it's done became close to zero.

Do you?

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

Corporations can't steal without monopoly power, and that comes from government. Congress can't raise its own salaries to the stratosphere without getting fired, but it can remove all the restrictions on corporations giving them brib--er, I mean campaign contributions.

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

Corporations are not nimble. They have economies of scale, but until government made it impossible for small business to comply and compete, they could run circles around the giants just like Jeeps can run circles around tanks. Competition has ways that government cannot duplicate. And then there's this:

'What does the experience of the railroads tell us about the American way of competition and regulation? Obviously it suggests that the usual time lag between policy and reality has grown steadily worse over the years. Regulatory policy, like old generals, seems doomed always to fight the last war, partly because in our system it takes so long to recognize new problems and then to build a concensus for change. At bottom regulation involves a quest for some viable equation reconciling economic efficiency, social justice, and political acceptability. The more complex regulatory mechanisms become, the more difficult it is to adjust them or get rid of them when necessary, let alone tie them to these objectives.

'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'

And, at the end of the day, people can micromanage their own individual affairs better than a bunch of psychos in far-off and far out Washington can. Period.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

History has answered that question. Only those who are so infatuated with their own arrogance remain in denial about their inability to micromanage the lives of others--or the necessity of it.

[HVACTech]

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

that happened in 08.

get with the program.

[Natural Citizen]

I think that pessimist is just another one of eduardo's accounts.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, you can start here.

The Philosophy of Liberty (video)

[bolil]

I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is? "Just read the Constitution" is kind of lame to me. I mean, why should I care what a bunch of slave-owning misogynists with powder wigs had to say in an era that was radically different from the one we live in today? Isn't the Constitution interpreted in different ways and manipulated by cunning lawyers in business suits on a daily basis? Why the obsession with the Constitution? Is it even being followed anymore?

Anyway, I get the impression some of you folks want to take us back into the hunter-gatherer days. I'm not really into the whole 'tribal' thing, so that isn't cool to me. I'm a futurist who loves technology. I believe in safety nets, I'm not a fan of war, and I find the masses to be incompetent. I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

However, I am open-minded and I'm willing to listen. Anyone up to educating me on the philosophy of the movement? Is it simply "mind your own business" or does it go a bit deeper?

Please don't tell me to read the Constitution

Yeah, that whole tribal thing... what do you call nationalism? As far as safety nets, don't you think they would be more formidable if more than half their strands were not in the business of blowing $#@! up? You are the masses, pal. Go read the Bill of Rights and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Libertarianism: You own you, I own me. I have no right to you, you have no right to me.

As far as the nation state argument: The richer people who would wage war rely on poor people fighting them, without the phantom of "patriotism" there wouldn't be armies with which to attack. Also, the state as we know it is so incredibly powerful because if takes value from EVERYONE in the form of taxes. Without this crowd funding war is no longer profitable. Think about it, how long could Walmart wage war before the company went completely broke? Why would Walmart engage in a course of action that would result in their destruction? There would still be conflict, no doubt, but the loss of life and property would pale in comparison to what we see today in our... errr... non tribal nation state based world.

[otherone]

I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is?

For me it's very simple.
One is either an Individualist or a Collectivist.
Ask yourself two questions:
Do I, as an individual possess Rights?
Who determines what those Rights are?

[Shane Harris]

The basics are simple. However to answer your way through the deep rabbit hole of theory, succinct principles must be expounded upon and a basic understanding of free market economics is necessary.

The basic Principles/Axioms:

"The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another." - Murray Rothbard, 'War, Peace, and the State' (essay) http://mises.org/rothbard/warpeace.asp

Understanding the State:

"...We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm." - Murray Rothbard, 'Anatomy of the State' (essay) http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp



The Free Market:











'What Libertarianism Is' - Stephan Kinsella
http://mises.org/daily/3660

Great books on the subject:

A Bibliography on Libertarian Anarchy, assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/12/h...-capitalism-2/

[acptulsa]

...and I find the masses to be incompetent. I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

Generally the difference between a liberal and a libertarian is, a liberal is arrogant enough to think the masses are incompetent at everything and think the thing through just enough to assume that their lives should be micromismanaged for them. A libertarian is both generous enough and selfish enough to be willing to give liberty if they get it in return, and thinks the thing through far enough to realize it would be stupid to let the incompetent masses micromismanage his life.

[Cleaner44]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of zero regulations. That seems to me like it would lead to a corporate dystopia.

(I am economically illiterate)

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

But wouldn't they put them out of business if there was no government oversight anyway? The big guys would crush the little guys without restraint.

This is one of the most frustrating things to me with those of a liberal pursuasion. If you recognize that the corporations are in bed with the government, why would you want to strengthen that relationship? You need to realize that regulations and the regulators don't restrain corporations, but in fact restrain compotition and give the advantage to the corporations that are in bed with the government regulators.

The federal government and the regulators work to reduce compotition and increase monopolies.

The federal government and the regulators do not work to protect the consumers from big bad evil corporations as you seem to hope that they do.

Do you need proof of this?

[acptulsa]

This is one of the most frustrating things to me with those of a liberal pursuasion. If you recognize that the corporations are in bed with the government, why would you want to strengthen that relationship?

Because all you have to do is put the right guy in charge. You know, the guy they thought Obama was, but he wasn't. The guy we had for three years before the CIA shot him and blamed it on Lee Harvey Oswald. You know. That guy.

And if you let them make our lives a living hell for another thousand years, they might find him, too.

[otherone]

Because all you have to do is put the right guy in charge.

The response goes something like this:
"I admit that the country has serious problems, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if a Republican were in charge?"


LEVIATHAN

IS PLEASED

[mczerone]

Yeah, I realize that corporations and government are engaged but they're not married yet. I'm afraid they'll get married, divorce, and one will walk away with all the money.

They aren't married because that'd be incestuous. From the very founding the regulators were to be beholden to special interests - to give big money "a stake" in seeing a strong central government.

They aren't married because the regulators are the daughters of the big money interests.

Also - libertarians don't want "zero" regulations, they want responsive, market-driven regulations.

Thanks for sticking around and not being a "drive-by critic."

[Christian Liberty]

The response goes something like this:
"I admit that the country has serious problems, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if a Republican were in charge?"


LEVIATHAN

IS PLEASED

And Republicans would say the same thing, except switch "democrat" for "Republican."

Ron Paul, of course, shatters their illusions.

[thoughtomator]

I like Frank Zappa's succinct encapsulation of libertarianism: "Do what you want, do what you will - just don't mess up your neighbor's thrill"

[TaftFan]

See my signature.

[Cleaner44]

I like Frank Zappa's succinct encapsulation of libertarianism: "Do what you want, do what you will - just don't mess up your neighbor's thrill"

Another version from Zappa was:
Whatever you can do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder

[pessimist]

That Constitution you refuse to read. Only the ancaps want to eliminate the federal government, and they want to get rid of all governments. Most of us are constitutionalists, and we believe in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians wanted to eliminate the federal govt completely.

And because if your local fire department is run by the federal government, and it isn't performing well, you have to convince some odd twenty million voters that your fire department is more important than gay marriage, abortion and their own fire departments combined. And if you don't, improvements do not get made.

Yeah I understand that. But a lot of these local governments rely on federal money do they not?

Corporations are not nimble. They have economies of scale, but until government made it impossible for small business to comply and compete, they could run circles around the giants just like Jeeps can run circles around tanks. Competition has ways that government cannot duplicate. And then there's this

I honestly know VERY little about economics, and I will be in WAY over my head trying to talk about them. I am just not understanding here. So you're saying that if the government just got out of the way of business, that small business would thrive?

I just don't see how that would happen. I mean, these mega corporations could go into every town (pretty much like they do now) buy up everything in sight, lower the prices of goods, and drive mom and pop out of business. Eventually the biggest, wealthiest guy in town would rule over everyone. Government should be there to prevent that from happening.

And, at the end of the day, people can micromanage their own individual affairs better than a bunch of psychos in far-off and far out Washington can. Period.

I can agree with that to a certain extent, but I do believe in laws and regulations and safety nets. I do not believe most people have the ability for self-governance. I believe if we were to end all federal programs or 'freebies' it would lead to a disaster in a nation with a population of nearly 314 million people (and counting). It's not just people who are reliant on the fed, but entire states, cities, and towns.

I am open to the idea of libertarianism. I used to be pro gun control but now I am starting to come around to the gun rights side. I am currently undecided on where I stand on the subject. I can see the pro and cons on both sides of the arguments.

[acptulsa]

Yeah I understand that. But a lot of these local governments rely on federal money do they not?

They do in recent years. And we're fighting that. Cut federal taxes, cut out Big Brother, and let Little Brother handle it (fund it through local taxes and put the mayor in charge because he's easier for voters to fire if necessary).

I honestly know VERY little about economics, and I will be in WAY over my head trying to talk about them. I am just not understanding here. So you're saying that if the government just got out of the way of business, that small business would thrive?

Did during the Roaring Twenties, among other eras.

I just don't see how that would happen. I mean, these mega corporations could go into every town (pretty much like they do now) buy up everything in sight, lower the prices of goods, and drive mom and pop out of business. Eventually the biggest, wealthiest guy in town would rule over everyone. Government should be there to prevent that from happening.

Could they? And while they're buying everyone out (assuming everyone would sell), how many people are starting other new businesses? If people figure out that to start a business is to immediately get an offer to sell, could such a policy not break even the richest corporation? If they buy trainloads, what happens when they buy trainloads of pet rocks just before the fad ends? Can nimbleness not compete with economies of scale? I say yes.

No, if this were the best way for megacorporations to drive out competition, that's what they'd do. But instead, they buy Congress, and get laws passed which pretend to restrict them but which they can afford to comply with and small business can't. If it wasn't working for them, that wouldn't be where they were spending their money.

I can agree with that to a certain extent, but I do believe in laws and regulations and safety nets. I do not believe most people have the ability for self-governance. I believe if we were to end all federal programs or 'freebies' it would lead to a disaster in a nation with a population of nearly 314 million people (and counting). It's not just people who are reliant on the fed, but entire states, cities, and towns.

Forcing 100% of the population to contribute to the poor doesn't get the poor more help if corruption is soaking up half the take. Passing laws makes it less a matter of helping those who need it most and instead rewarding those who can fill out the forms properly. Charity helps people with heads and hearts and hands. Government does it with a cookie cutter. How could it do otherwise without being accused of favoritism?

You aren't just condemning the poor with your concern for those who aren't so self-reliant, but the charitable. Charitable people, if free, are free to provide meaningful help, personalized help, help that's customized to be effective. Why tie their hands? Why take money from the charitable and give it to those proven to be both unimaginative and corrupt?

I am open to the idea of libertarianism. I used to be pro gun control but now I am starting to come around to the gun rights side. I am currently undecided on where I stand on the subject. I can see the pro and cons on both sides of the arguments.

That's what we're here for. All we need is an open mind, and then we can provide bountiful food for thought. Excuse us for making sure the horse was willing to drink before hauling in more water.

[presence]

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians wanted to eliminate the federal govt completely.

"Ron Paul" supporters tend to come from a multitude of philosophies; we're united in our belief in liberty. Some of us were liberals, others conservatives, others minarchists, some anarchists, many "constitutionalists"; regardless of our backgrounds we're each slowly shedding our old skin in favor of liberty. As liberty increases statism invariably decreases... some are so fed up they want the entire state abolished; most of us just want it massively reduced.

Yeah I understand that. But a lot of these local governments rely on federal money do they not?

Usually this "reliance" on federal funds comes at the cost of obedience. That is, the more funds you take, the more bull$#@! you're mandated to spend it on. Fargo ND "relies" on federal money to counter terrorism; they have a $8m SWAT team; Fargo.

I honestly know VERY little about economics, and I will be in WAY over my head trying to talk about them.

“[C]ompliance with federal regulations – such as those aiming to prevent discrimination or reduce pollution – often requires that firms develop internal systems or procedures that have a fixed cost per firm in addition to costs that vary with the size of the firm. In that case, achieving the goal of the regulation at small firms will be relatively more costly than achieving it at large firms.”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...allFirms_0.pdf

I can agree with that to a certain extent, but I do believe in laws and regulations and safety nets. I do not believe most people have the ability for self-governance. I believe if we were to end all federal programs or 'freebies' it would lead to a disaster in a nation with a population of nearly 314 million people (and counting). It's not just people who are reliant on the fed, but entire states, cities, and towns.

You do have to ask though... would they be so reliant if they werent so heavily taxed? Would they be so reliant if their dollars value relative to gold wasn't debased annually?

I am open to the idea of libertarianism. I used to be pro gun control but now I am starting to come around to the gun rights side. I am currently undecided on where I stand on the subject. I can see the pro and cons on both sides of the arguments.

More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all wars combined.
More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all wars combined.
More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all wars combined.


Step one in democide is disarmament of the people.

[acptulsa]

You do have to ask though... would they be so reliant if they werent so heavily taxed? Would they be so reliant if their dollars value relative to gold wasn't debased annually?

And would they not have jobs--potentially good ones--if small business (traditionally the engine of employment) were being allowed to thrive? And is it truly not a greater thing for a person to be working and self-reliant than living from handout to handout?

Does self-respect not count for something?

[pessimist]

Here is the problem though, what do you think would happen if all these government programs and 'handouts' ended tomorrow? There would be absolute chaos.

How do you libertarians expect to make that transition from big government to a more smaller and self-sufficient one? The federal government is the lifeblood for MANY people. Remember we live in a monstrously large nation with an ever growing population who require government assistance for survival.

In theory I like the ideas so far. I just don't find it realistic for the modern world.

[acptulsa]

Transition can be managed. We're trying to help people, not yank the rug out from under everyone. There's quite a lot we can do--deregulate, bring the troops home--to put the economy on the path to recovery long before we undo the other damage. Repealing the laws that are crushing small business--and, by extension, the economy--could take up an entire session of the legislature by themselves. That leaves most of a year for people to experience the economic recovery before we can even begin to undo that other silliness. And even then it might not be the first priority.

The silly assed federal laws in this nation fill a room. No wonder we're experiencing the growth of tyranny. Not only are their so many laws that most people commit three felonies a day, but ignorance of the law is (though still not considered an excuse) unavoidable--even lawyers have to call lawyers if the crime they're accused of isn't within their field of expertise. It isn't like this crap can be disassembled in a day.

Not realistic for the modern world because a transition period is necessary? Be realistic. A transition period is unavoidable. What isn't realistic is the notion that what we're doing now is sustainable.

[thoughtomator]

Another version from Zappa was:
Whatever you can do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder

I'm very familiar with Zappa's work but I can't place that one. Where's it from?

[amy31416]

There is an aspect of Darwinianism to libertarianism as well, and I think that makes both the left and right hate us. It is a bit "cold," but if you can't make it without handouts (both individual and corporate), then you don't deserve to make it (in most scenarios). The right justifies corporate welfare and welfare for our "allies" overseas, and the left tries to justify it for "the little guy," while neither side wants to recognize how much damage it does. I honestly believe we wouldn't have all these issues if we didn't have so much domestic, foreign and corporate welfare.

It destroys.

[fr33]

For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

[TheTexan]

Libertarianism is best defined as a philosophy that doesn't appreciate all the great things government does for them.

[Ronin Truth]

Here is the problem though, what do you think would happen if all these government programs and 'handouts' ended tomorrow? There would be absolute chaos.

How do you libertarians expect to make that transition from big government to a more smaller and self-sufficient one? The federal government is the lifeblood for MANY people. Remember we live in a monstrously large nation with an ever growing population who require government assistance for survival.

In theory I like the ideas so far. I just don't find it realistic for the modern world.

My relatively painless solution: Eliminate 1% of the Federal government every year. If really ambitious 2% per year.

[FindLiberty]

Of this entire thread, I approve.

[osan]

I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is?

Ever hear of the "Golden Rule"? If not, you need to learn it. If so, do you understand it, and I mean REALLY understand what it says? I doubt it, as most do not. You need to get it in your head and think on it a LOT. There are implications that run very deeply there and understanding it properly and more fully takes a fair effort for the average bear. But when you have it, you have in your possession of the basis for proper human relations (PHR).

"Just read the Constitution" is kind of lame to me.

The Constitution is a second-rate written expression of PHR, but it fell terribly short. Why? Because it underestimates the sheer depths of evil that the average man will tolerate and perhaps to which he will even enjoin himself. Those men did not quite imagine with the fullness of our daily experience just how widespread and profound the depravity of the common man would become. I believe they understood this intellectually in terms of potential, but they were incapable of understanding where the world was going to actually go. I further suspect they may have believed too deeply in the power of their intellectual lovechild; that it would stem the tides of perdition that were only but lapping at their shores in those days. How could they have imagined the world as it now exists? The technologies were beyond their wildest imaginations. Were we to take a time machine to those days and speak of television and computers and so forth, they would lock us away in cells with the other crazy people.

I mean, why should I care what a bunch of slave-owning misogynists with powder wigs had to say in an era that was radically different from the one we live in today? Isn't the Constitution interpreted in different ways and manipulated by cunning lawyers in business suits on a daily basis? Why the obsession with the Constitution? Is it even being followed anymore?

Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution is gravely flawed, true. The principles that underpin it, however, are not. One of the most important skills one will ever develop in their lives is that of separating wheat and chaff. Always ask yourself, "what is essential here?" That is what is important to understanding and it is precisely one of the key abilities that so few people ever attain. They are not even aware of it. When I listen to people speaking on, say, political issues (a great example of where the ability is absent), I see their thoughts ensnared in the meaningless trappings of the issue in question. They touch upon the essentials, but only incidentally because they are unable to extract the fundamental ideas and relationships from what is usually a vast and jumbled tangle of often conflicting notions. Because of this, the issue appears fraught with contradictions and paradoxes, but when competently treated, all that disappears in the light of distillation that exposes the deeper truths lying just beneath the surface. Once those truths are discovered and properly correlated, clarity most often ensues to a greater or lesser degree and one is then able to see with far stronger eyes the more fundamental truth and understand it.

Anyway, I get the impression some of you folks want to take us back into the hunter-gatherer days.

Perhaps you lack good listening skills. We are not luddites.

I'm not really into the whole 'tribal' thing, so that isn't cool to me.

In a free land, you don't have to be, but you DO have to allow others their rightful prerogatives as well.

I'm a futurist who loves technology.

Your youth betrays you. Technology is another word for "convenience" and "power". Nothing wrong with it per sé, but when you "love" it too much, you become its subject and it your master. Do not fool yourself for even the most brief moment on that point. If you think you are too smart or strong to be mastered by your petty fascinations, I am here to tell you that you fool yourself in the most dangerous fashion imaginable. But don't feel alone - most of the rest of the world is right there with you. I will add that "futurism", when picked apart by adept analytic fingers, is one of the most lame notions imaginable. We can go into this further if you wish to see why. I am sure plenty here can address the topic with alacrity. Perhaps a thread of its own is warranted, though.

I believe in safety nets,

Do you believe in forcing others to provide them even when they object?

I'm not a fan of war,

Well that is good to know.

I find the masses to be incompetent.

Incompetent at what? Everything? Your statement is so broad as to have zero meaning.

That aside, what is your point? Grant the incompetence for argument's sake - now what? What are you proposing here? The inference to be drawn is that something should be done about it. What would you have done, and by whom?

I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

Seems like a whole lot more than just a little.

However, I am open-minded and I'm willing to listen.

Well, we will see. Only time will tell.

Anyone up to educating me on the philosophy of the movement? Is it simply "mind your own business" or does it go a bit deeper?

Mind your own business is about as deep as anything in the universe gets. Again, youth betrays you, which is no sin. When you spend as much time considering these ideas as some of us have, you begin to see just how fundamental "mind your own business" becomes, and how broadly its implications spread. But that is not the entire deal, of course.

Try freedomisobvious.blogspot.com and poke around there. Some of the essays should be up your alley. Some are rather well written, some less so, but the basic ideas there are pretty well on the money. I think there are some 34 in all and they are generally pretty short.

[Carlybee]

Here is the problem though, what do you think would happen if all these government programs and 'handouts' ended tomorrow? There would be absolute chaos.

How do you libertarians expect to make that transition from big government to a more smaller and self-sufficient one? The federal government is the lifeblood for MANY people. Remember we live in a monstrously large nation with an ever growing population who require government assistance for survival.

In theory I like the ideas so far. I just don't find it realistic for the modern world.

At the rate things are going we are going to end up as characters in an Orwell novel. As the saying goes I don't want to die on my knees.
The more power you give government, the more they will take. A large percentage of politicians who become elected officials are either corrupt from the onset or easily corruptible. In that sort of scenario the people have no voice. We aren't even sure our votes aren't hacked at this point...why on earth would we want to continue along the path of larger and larger government?