Is the Libertarian Dream possible?

[Marginal]

Unfettered self-interest is evil...or it leads to evil. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is not libertarianism, at least not according to what I posted in the OP. Closer to the mark is, "if it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Big difference. I think an entire society could be based off of that principle alone.

The problem is people have proven time and time again that given choice #2, they'll take #1 instead. Market forces do not keep greed in check.

 

[mrhnau]

That sounds like something a dictator might say.

Indeed. It is difficult to strike the proper balance of freedom vs totalitarianism. While I'm in support of market freedom, I would not relish total abolishment of all law or market restraints. One needs to find the proper medium, and I don't think libertarianism is that balance, nor will it ever be accepted as such.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Indeed. It is difficult to strike the proper balance of freedom vs totalitarianism. While I'm in support of market freedom, I would not relish total abolishment of all law or market restraints. One needs to find the proper medium, and I don't think libertarianism is that balance, nor will it ever be accepted as such.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. Anarchy is that abolishment of all laws, not libertarianism.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Libertarianism is having the government due as little as it needs to do so that society can function. Anarchy means "without leaders" not "without order"

 

[mrhnau]

Libertarianism is having the government due as little as it needs to do so that society can function. Anarchy means "without leaders" not "without order"

Read carefully. I did not say Libertarianism is anarchy.

 

[Makalakumu]

How happy are you with the superstate? Maybe everyman for themselves is preferrable to the ubernanny?

 

[mrhnau]

How happy are you with the superstate? Maybe everyman for themselves is preferrable to the ubernanny?

I'll assume that was directed towards me. I do believe your original question was centered around that possibility of libertarianism every being accepted. My answer would be a resounding no. Does that mean it is bad? I honestly tend to share certain principles with some of their ideals.

As to your specific question, do I prefer a superstate? no, I do not. I think neither party has the fortitude to create a form of government that I personally would be content with. I don't think the "every man for themselves" is the way to go either. Let there be minimal laws, IMHO. As a country, we have become way too litigious... I dislike much of the "nanny state" principles, such as Social Security, Welfare and a large percentage of other social programs. Social Security was perhaps needed at the time of its inception, but that need has passed (at least IMHO). Other such entitlement programs are near impossible to eradicate once established.


Now, in an unrelated tangent, you mentioned earlier: ""if it harm none, do what thou wilt." Gee, that sounds wonderful! But what on Earth does that mean? You mean, if I want to smoke crack, I should have that right? Great! Sorry if I die, and leave my child w/out a father. Or perhaps I won't die, but I'll lose enough brain cells so that I won't have the earning potential I once had. I might not be able to hold a job! I might become addicted, and start having to spend increasing amounts of money each month! But thats OK. I did not harm anyone, did I? Surely my family won't care. It's my body, and I can do what I want to with it, right?

Or how about sex? I should be promiscuous if I want, correct? If I practice safe sex, I'm fine, right? Even the best birth control can fail. It's still possible to get STD's, even though the odds are greatly decreased. There is also NO chance of your partner getting emotionally hurt, or you getting hurt, right?

Maybe we can just fudge a little on a legal document, lets say taxes. No one will know, right? No harm done. Until audit time rolls around.

Also, what is "harm"? Are you talking physical? How about financial? Emotional? Spiritual? How about directness? If you don't harm anyone directly, but your actions have unanticipated side effects, is that OK? Since you don't directly see some of them, is your conscious soothed enough?

"If it harms none" sounds wonderful, but its near impossible to accomplish. Every decision we make has some form of consequence. Normally, people spouting that kind of rhetoric are trying to defend some action that is considered marginal. Most of these by nature have some kind of negative consequence, or at least the potential for one. Hard to escape that...

Anyways, rambled enough...

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, its hard to escape the negative consequences for some decisions, but that's part of life. You should be held personally accountable for that. Smoke in your car for 40 years with no one else around and destroy your lungs? Whose fault is that? You pay the piper.

"If it harm none, do what thou wilt" is a pagan law. It's directed both ways, inward and outward. Individuals should do things so that they don't hurt themselves or others. Yeah, there are a lot of things that would be banned that we do today, but there are a great many more things that we do and are not allowed to do now that are allowed.

 

[zDom]

Combine it with "Escape from New York"-type prisons and it just might work