Feeling kinda disheartened

[motivez]

If you guys really want change, there has to be a way for the rest of the country to take your ideas seriously. Right now, no offense, but the economic libertarian dreamworld you guys espouse in thread after thread doesn't exist anywhere, and hasn't ever existed in the modern world..

So it's theory vs practice, and without showing that the system works in the real world, no one (and by that, I mean, not enough people to make a difference) will ever take it seriously enough to allow it to be given a chance on a large scale.

Especially since, as you've admitted, people in general don't like Ron Paul's ideas that they see as crazy (ie: Getting rid of the Department of Education)

As such, the pragmatic solution for people of your ilk is to get together as a movement and decide on a single location where you then move and are able to elect people at the local level, and move up in time if the experiment is successful.

Without that type of sacrifice (And it'd be a sacrifice, people giving up jobs, homes, friends, essentially, their lives) for a social experiment, I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

But then again, can you really expect what many see as a radical political movement to succeed without some sacrifice on the part of the people interested in seeing it succeed?

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you guys really want change, there has to be a way for the rest of the country to take your ideas seriously. Right now, no offense, but the economic libertarian dreamworld you guys espouse in thread after thread doesn't exist anywhere, and hasn't ever existed in the modern world..

So it's theory vs practice, and without showing that the system works in the real world, no one (and by that, I mean, not enough people to make a difference) will ever take it seriously enough to allow it to be given a chance on a large scale.

Especially since, as you've admitted, people in general don't like Ron Paul's ideas that they see as crazy (ie: Getting rid of the Department of Education)

As such, the pragmatic solution for people of your ilk is to get together as a movement and decide on a single location where you then move and are able to elect people at the local level, and move up in time if the experiment is successful.

Without that type of sacrifice (And it'd be a sacrifice, people giving up jobs, homes, friends, essentially, their lives) for a social experiment, I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

But then again, can you really expect what many see as a radical political movement to succeed without some sacrifice on the part of the people interested in seeing it succeed?

I'm almost thinking of leaving a positive rep point for that. And I hate rep points.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you guys really want change, there has to be a way for the rest of the country to take your ideas seriously. Right now, no offense, but the economic libertarian dreamworld you guys espouse in thread after thread doesn't exist anywhere, and hasn't ever existed in the modern world..

So it's theory vs practice, and without showing that the system works in the real world, no one (and by that, I mean, not enough people to make a difference) will ever take it seriously enough to allow it to be given a chance on a large scale.

Especially since, as you've admitted, people in general don't like Ron Paul's ideas that they see as crazy (ie: Getting rid of the Department of Education)

As such, the pragmatic solution for people of your ilk is to get together as a movement and decide on a single location where you then move and are able to elect people at the local level, and move up in time if the experiment is successful.

Without that type of sacrifice (And it'd be a sacrifice, people giving up jobs, homes, friends, essentially, their lives) for a social experiment, I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

But then again, can you really expect what many see as a radical political movement to succeed without some sacrifice on the part of the people interested in seeing it succeed?

There is no place that this can be done, unfortunately. I've researched the issue many times and the only way it could be done, barring a colony that is offworld (I realize this is technically impossible at the moment), would be a forcible takeover of some real estate.

However, there is an interesting phenomenon known as gulching (I'm not advocating it, as it doesn't address the underlying problems) that is incredibly interesting to read about. Google it, it's some good reading.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

There is no place that this can be done, unfortunately. I've researched the issue many times and the only way it could be done, barring a colony that is offworld (I realize this is technically impossible at the moment), would be a forcible takeover of some real estate.

However, there is an interesting phenomenon known as gulching (I'm not advocating it, as it doesn't address the underlying problems) that is incredibly interesting to read about. Google it, it's some good reading.

Wyoming has lots of open real estate, and only some 400,000 people...you could THROUGH THE FREE MARKET, overtake the state

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Wyoming has lots of open real estate, and only some 400,000 people...you could THROUGH THE FREE MARKET, overtake the state

And after I did that and turned it into the most free state in the union (I could just go to alaska and have a lot less work to do, by the way), we would immediately have the DEA and Secret Service investigating the state because of the people who would move there so that they could have a currency that is worth something, and because people would move there to avoid persecution because they want to smoke weed or whatever.

The federal government makes the sort of change I'd like to see, completely impossible within the borders of the US. There have been experiments conducted on small scales that kind of fly under the radar; but even those tend to attract negative attention depending on the situation.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

And after I did that and turned it into the most free state in the union (I could just go to alaska and have a lot less work to do, by the way), we would immediately have the DEA and Secret Service investigating the state because of the people who would move there so that they could have a currency that is worth something, and because people would move there to avoid persecution because they want to smoke weed or whatever.

The federal government makes the sort of change I'd like to see, completely impossible within the borders of the US. There have been experiments conducted on small scales that kind of fly under the radar; but even those tend to attract negative attention depending on the situation.

Like I said, don't have the balls are the means.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Like I said, don't have the balls are the means.

People are happy being socialist looters, period. As long as they've got someone to loot, they are happy to do so. The fact is, the government didn't take our rights away, we gave them up freely. Can't really fight an armed revolution against a government that was just doing what the people wanted.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You know, democrats have been elected a lot of "new generation" Democrats...people like Jim Webb, Jon Tester...there is a chance they may just get it right...just because the GOP revolution failed doesn't mean a Democratic revolution HAS to fail

I hope one of them pick Webb as a running mate.

I think Webb is a solid person. Don't agree with him on everything, but I do a lot.

I think it would help the Democratic ticket a lot to get a centrist on there with them, Hillary and Obama are both far, far left.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Can't really fight an armed revolution against a government that was just doing what the people wanted.

Exactly, all you have is your lip service to a failing cause.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Exactly, all you have is your lip service to a failing cause.

At least I'm not hopping on the socialism bandwagon like you're willing to do

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

At least I'm not hopping on the socialism bandwagon like you're willing to do

At least I'm not going to let the worst come by supporting a dying cause. I'll help ease it, you're to statistically insigificant to anything but usher its coming.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

At least I'm not going to let the worst come by supporting a dying cause. I'll help ease it, you're to statistically insigificant to anything but usher its coming.

I never seek to protect a society that doesn't seek protect me

[Thorgrim]

gold standard is not central to libertarianism...currency markets are fine...if you could have the libertarian paradise while using US dollars...i mean cmon, that'd ruin everything?

Truth is, when 500,000 libertarians got there, and took over, the 500,000 libertarians would all disagree on what to do, and thats why its never done

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I never seek to protect a society that doesn't seek protect me

Little quips like this don't change reality my friend.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

gold standard is not central to libertarianism...currency markets are fine...if you could have the libertarian paradise while using US dollars...i mean cmon, that'd ruin everything?

Truth is, when 500,000 libertarians got there, and took over, the 500,000 libertarians would all disagree on what to do, and thats why its never done

who says it needs to be pure libertarianism?

I'd settle for a government that doesn't punish me merely because I produce more than others, a government that isn't out to restrict everything I do under the assumption that criminals will follow their law that has restated the rule once again, and a government that doesn't make us look like idiots to the world.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Little quips like this don't change reality my friend.

what? It's not a quip. Why should I help to mitigate the effect of socialism on you when you're going to just keep compromising it away?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I hope one of them pick Webb as a running mate.

I think Webb is a solid person. Don't agree with him on everything, but I do a lot.

I think it would help the Democratic ticket a lot to get a centrist on there with them, Hillary and Obama are both far, far left.

I like Jim Webb alot too, I would vote for him over Romney or Huckabee. However, I don't see him agreeing to be Hillary's running mate, he is still fired up over Vietnam.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

who says it needs to be pure libertarianism?

I'd settle for a government that doesn't punish me merely because I produce more than others, a government that isn't out to restrict everything I do under the assumption that criminals will follow their law that has restated the rule once again, and a government that doesn't make us look like idiots to the world.

State constitutions can be changed...most criminal rights are given under state constitutions, if you had 0 state and local taxes that'd be pretty good for a lot of people, with all that you'd have a radically different society, probably one that would so different from American you'd be "state on a hill"

the only thing you'd HAVE to do is pay income taxes (which really are not that bad alone considering all the deductions and exemptions) and accept paper dollars from travelers...anything else you could have libertarian world

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

Just wait...it will come...

...the real question is, will people be financially prepared when it does come? The answer to that question is "no" for about 95% of the U.S. population.

Fed Up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

And after I did that and turned it into the most free state in the union (I could just go to alaska and have a lot less work to do, by the way), we would immediately have the DEA and Secret Service investigating the state because of the people who would move there so that they could have a currency that is worth something, and because people would move there to avoid persecution because they want to smoke weed or whatever.

The federal government makes the sort of change I'd like to see, completely impossible within the borders of the US. There have been experiments conducted on small scales that kind of fly under the radar; but even those tend to attract negative attention depending on the situation.

Sounds to me like you're making excuses for not really wanting to try. I don't mean that as a slam on you personally, more of the idea of "We might run into obstacles, so lets just forget it!"

The problem is there isn't really a core set of ideas that describe a majority of libertarians, which is really integral in the concept of the political ideology, people being free to do / believe what they want about various policies, etc.. compared with the other political parties that have enough smaller issues that are central to their beliefs that people rally around them (ie: pro-life vs pro-choice, etc)

Because of that fracture, it may be unrealistic to expect enough people to be willing to move somewhere, but that to me says they don't have enough confidence in the power of their ideas (or the power of their specific ideas in a free market of similarly minded folks) to be willing to sacrifice anything to do it.

If you guys moved somewhere and set up your city the way you wanted, and eventually were able to take over the state, and the Federal Government did something you think is unconstitutional, then you could take it through the court systems to challenge their authority.. so it's not like you'd be without recourse.