New Hamspshire is rolling up

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Even though this seems like a poorly thought out claim to me, if we were to accept it as true, then we would never have had the conditions for a free market.

The government is given the right to take any property it wants from you as long as it can give some reason and only a fair amount of money, it's written clearly in the 5th amendment...and the founders included no exceptions or reasoning requirements

Most importantly, they gave no right to refuse...or even hinted at it

Also, in common law, and even as of 2008, if you have vast property holdings, and someone moves into a secluded area with a trailer, takes off the tires, and makes it their home, after a few years, you lose your property rights and it is their home, and they didn't give you one cent or any notice they were trespassing for years

It's an english and american tradition...its called adverse possession, you can read about it on wikipedia, i see it's listed there

The situation I described is almost exactly what happened in Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, where it was reinforced, the only argument the defendant who bought the land could make was that the guy really didn't live there that much (which he did)...there was no argument made that it was bad law, or bad principle, etc...

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by motivez

Part of the issue is you guys have the luxury of generally speaking based on philosophy and theory, rather than actual practice when it comes to stuff like this.. while people who are more moderate talk about how stuff actually has worked once it's been put into practice.

When's the last time a society worked like it would in a libertarian's wet dream?

Some country in Africa that we talked about awhile back was close according to lew.. I wouldn't want to live in that country, doubt any of you guys are eager to give up your citizenship to move there to be free with the roving bands of militias and whatnot either

I also think there's an argument to be made for government vs good government. We haven't seen an especially good government for the last 8 years. I don't buy into the idea that just because something is funded by the public, it has to be bad or it has to work inefficiently.

Nice post....

Perhaps if libertarians respected people enough to talk to them instead of down to them (just on this site alone a few posters call the people "sheep" and "blind") perhaps more people would take them seriously.

I dont give a fuck what libertarians say about their narrow definition of a "free market". Libertarianism unrestrained would lead to corporatism and extreme consumerism - how can it not? Power is given to the dollar as much as its given to the person in the marketplace and in the struggle for power I think we've seen who wins that battle. Liberty will take a back seat to those that can shape policy with their money.

Yes government cannot have so much control over the marketplace but there must be some protections and ultimately the citizens should have power not the corporations or our consumer part - in the libertarian society the citizen always loses.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The only other sensible conclusion is that the message really is that unpopular.

If that were true, then I'd tend to agree with:

LewRockwell.com Blog: Proud to Be an American?

Fed Up

[Thorgrim]

It's funny how conservatives so roundly condemned Baldwin for saying he was going to move to another country

This is going well beyond that, now people are questioning whether they want to even be considered an American, basically I read that as saying "If only I could renounce my citizenship"

Ofcourse, who get's all the patriotic BS inquistion? Who is that directed towards? Democrats who were proud to be Americans after the GOP took over Congress, after Bush won twice

Naturally, libertarians will all get a free pass on this, one does not attack a group with so many Republican friends

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The government is given the right to take any property it wants from you as long as it can give some reason and only a fair amount of money, it's written clearly in the 5th amendment...and the founders included no exceptions or reasoning requirements

Most importantly, they gave no right to refuse...or even hinted at it

Also, in common law, and even as of 2008, if you have vast property holdings, and someone moves into a secluded area with a trailer, takes off the tires, and makes it their home, after a few years, you lose your property rights and it is their home, and they didn't give you one cent or any notice they were trespassing for years

It's an english and american tradition...its called adverse possession, you can read about it on wikipedia, i see it's listed there

The situation I described is almost exactly what happened in Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, where it was reinforced, the only argument the defendant who bought the land could make was that the guy really didn't live there that much (which he did)...there was no argument made that it was bad law, or bad principle, etc...

There was a story about this on NPR not too long ago. Some couple in Colorado owned a bunch of land and basicaly just let it sit and never visited it. They bought it as an investment and were waiting to sell it. Well it turns out some people had been using it for years. Not living there, but I guess they had a garden or a path going through a part of it or something like that.
It fell under the same law of adverse possession. I think they were fighting it. It probably happens more than we know.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's funny how conservatives so roundly condemned Baldwin for saying he was going to move to another country

This is going well beyond that, now people are questioning whether they want to even be considered an American, basically I read that as saying "If only I could renounce my citizenship"

Ofcourse, who get's all the patriotic BS inquistion? Who is that directed towards? Democrats who were proud to be Americans after the GOP took over Congress, after Bush won twice

Naturally, libertarians will all get a free pass on this, one does not attack a group with so many Republican friends

I don't get it. Because some super (blindly) patriotic Republicans criticize Baldwin, libertarians get lambasted by a democrat? I don't even see how these things are related. I would expect a similar response from those same Republicans, though I think the difference is I can't claim any nation to be more free, which is what I would want, only less war mongering. Didn't Baldwin and Depp and others claim that France was the end-all, be-all to what they want in a country? I haven't heard any libertarians say that.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Nice post....

Perhaps if libertarians respected people enough to talk to them instead of down to them (just on this site alone a few posters call the people "sheep" and "blind") perhaps more people would take them seriously.

I dont give a fuck what libertarians say about their narrow definition of a "free market". Libertarianism unrestrained would lead to corporatism and extreme consumerism - how can it not? Power is given to the dollar as much as its given to the person in the marketplace and in the struggle for power I think we've seen who wins that battle. Liberty will take a back seat to those that can shape policy with their money.

Yes government cannot have so much control over the marketplace but there must be some protections and ultimately the citizens should have power not the corporations or our consumer part - in the libertarian society the citizen always loses.

Just as liberals shouldn't be all grouped together with Michael Moore and Republicans with Bill O'Reilly, please do not group all libertarians with experience you have with people who debate poorly.

[hsmith]

Oh yeah, Hillary and Obama tied with their number of delegates in NH

[lew]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I was asking about that african country that lew was talking about as being very libertarian

It was Somalia. And I never described it as being very libertarian.


Since the collapse of the government in the 90s, it had the prospect of becoming a real world example of an anarchist / libertarian society. But it never developed. The people only embraced free market economics in a few areas, and in those areas, Somalia did indeed prosper and rise above all of their neighbors, which just a few years earlier had been ahead of Somalia.

But our own CIA got involved, Al Qaeda got involved, other Warlords got involved, and they didn't have an understanding of free market economics anyway, so it never materialized.


However, there are a few real world examples of libertarianism. The "Wild West" was one. It turns out the West wasn't that wild after all and that there were private courts and police setup. And private property rights dominated the scene. And people were safer and prospered, relatively well.

Here's a good book on the subject

Amazon.com: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance): Books: Terry L. Anderson,Peter J. Hill



Our own country was fairly libertarian leading up to FDR, and especially leading up to Lincoln.


Estonia is also fairly libertarian (as are Ireland, Switzerland and a few other countries), though by no means close to pure libertarianism / anarchism.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Just as liberals shouldn't be all grouped together with Michael Moore and Republicans with Bill O'Reilly, please do not group all libertarians with experience you have with people who debate poorly.

True that..

But I ask, isn't power given to the dollar in the libertarian world? If a consumer or a producer holds a dollar and his competitor or consumer does not - who has more power and influence in the marketplace? And what makes you think such influence would stay in the sphere of the marketplace? If a citizen in a republic is said to have power through voting then that power naturally extends beyond politics because government affects other things. The same goes with the marketplace, its not just good and services, it affects rights, it affects freedom thus if the dollar is given more power than the citizen then it's only natural that the dollar would have a profound impact of on governing that will eventually violate the rights and power of citizens.

It is happening right now as we speak but at least we know it is wrong and must change, but in a libertarian sense it would be called "natural"

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

True that..

But I ask, isn't power given to the dollar in the libertarian world? If a consumer or a producer holds a dollar and his competitor or consumer does not - who has more power and influence in the marketplace? And what makes you think such influence would stay in the sphere of the marketplace? If a citizen in a republic is said to have power through voting then that power naturally extends beyond politics because government affects other things. The same goes with the marketplace, its not just good and services, it affects rights, it affects freedom thus if the dollar is given more power than the citizen then it's only natural that the dollar would have a profound impact of on governing that will eventually violate the rights and power of citizens.

It is happening right now as we speak but at least we know it is wrong and must change, but in a libertarian sense it would be called "natural"

I don't believe it's wrong. A consumer should not run the country, because a consumer does not produce more than he consumes.

By his very nature, he is wasteful.

A man of production, on the other hand, actually contributes something to the world, and it's not hard to become such. He runs a balanced budget, because if he doesn't, he's not able to produce.

Just a thought

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by lew

It was Somalia. And I never described it as being very libertarian.


Since the collapse of the government in the 90s, it had the prospect of becoming a real world example of an anarchist / libertarian society. But it never developed. The people only embraced free market economics in a few areas, and in those areas, Somalia did indeed prosper and rise above all of their neighbors, which just a few years earlier had been ahead of Somalia.

But our own CIA got involved, Al Qaeda got involved, other Warlords got involved, and they didn't have an understanding of free market economics anyway, so it never materialized.


However, there are a few real world examples of libertarianism. The "Wild West" was one. It turns out the West wasn't that wild after all and that there were private courts and police setup. And private property rights dominated the scene. And people were safer and prospered, relatively well.

Here's a good book on the subject

Amazon.com: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance): Books: Terry L. Anderson,Peter J. Hill



Our own country was fairly libertarian leading up to FDR, and especially leading up to Lincoln.


Estonia is also fairly libertarian (as are Ireland, Switzerland and a few other countries), though by no means close to pure libertarianism / anarchism.

Ah, yeah. I read something about a guy who wanted to try and claim a valley in between Somalia and one of the countries it borders (forget which) and turn it into a 'Galt's Gulch' or something like that.

Somalia is hardly a libertarian paradise though, as you said

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I don't believe it's wrong. A consumer should not run the country, because a consumer does not produce more than he consumes.

By his very nature, he is wasteful.

A man of production, on the other hand, actually contributes something to the world, and it's not hard to become such. He runs a balanced budget, because if he doesn't, he's not able to produce.

Just a thought

That would make sense if he was only a producer but people are multifaceted - consumers, producers and citizens - in one capacity or another. And since people are not always rational and emotions sometimes come into play, he may not always act as a producer when governing thus in your view he would be wasteful and a poor leader.

A producer should not rule the country - it should a body of people in a republican form of government

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by lew

It was Somalia. And I never described it as being very libertarian.


Since the collapse of the government in the 90s, it had the prospect of becoming a real world example of an anarchist / libertarian society. But it never developed. The people only embraced free market economics in a few areas, and in those areas, Somalia did indeed prosper and rise above all of their neighbors, which just a few years earlier had been ahead of Somalia.

But our own CIA got involved, Al Qaeda got involved, other Warlords got involved, and they didn't have an understanding of free market economics anyway, so it never materialized.


However, there are a few real world examples of libertarianism. The "Wild West" was one. It turns out the West wasn't that wild after all and that there were private courts and police setup. And private property rights dominated the scene. And people were safer and prospered, relatively well.

Here's a good book on the subject

Amazon.com: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance): Books: Terry L. Anderson,Peter J. Hill



Our own country was fairly libertarian leading up to FDR, and especially leading up to Lincoln.


Estonia is also fairly libertarian (as are Ireland, Switzerland and a few other countries), though by no means close to pure libertarianism / anarchism.

Thats actually a good example as to why those societys can not succeed. They lack the strong central government necesary to form police and military forces to make sure war lords don't take over, to make sure they aren't invaded. To setup infrastructure.. etc.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Thats actually a good example as to why those societys can not succeed. They lack the strong central government necesary to form police and military forces to make sure war lords don't take over, to make sure they aren't invaded. To setup infrastructure.. etc.

What about the decades of decades that it worked for us without getting invaded? We were able to fend off mofos with a central government no stronger than what we advocate

[lew]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Thats actually a good example as to why those societys can not succeed. They lack the strong central government necesary to form police and military forces to make sure war lords don't take over, to make sure they aren't invaded. To setup infrastructure.. etc.

You should read the Wild West book I linked.


It shows that there was no central government in the West during the 1800s and that there were private courts and private police. And that it was a very safe place. And that the Mexicans nor Indians nor anyone else was taking over the place for lack of a central government. It worked well for several years.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What about the decades of decades that it worked for us without getting invaded? We were able to fend off mofos with a central government no stronger than what we advocate

Different time, differnet world. The fact that there were 2 oceans separating the US from basicaly the rest of the world kept us free from alot of that sorta stuff. There were probably a million factors that played into it.
In the right circumstances, in a world that doesn't exist today, libertarianism would be perfect.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by lew

You should read the Wild West book I linked.


It shows that there was no central government in the West during the 1800s and that there were private courts and private police. And that it was a very safe place. And that the Mexicans nor Indians nor anyone else was taking over the place for lack of a central government. It worked well for several years.

In that environment I can actually see it working. Population was spread out and sparse. People were relatively self sufficient. There were insurmountable barriers preventing invasions ( oceans and mountains) . Native americans had no aspirations to "own" land. The concept was foreign to them. The world of business was much simpler. In that instance it worked well as a starting point. In today's world? not a chance.