Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

[stamperben]

Our dear friend GOPlifer is on vacation. For you libertarian types he has found your utopia in a tropical paradise. Or has he?

Imagine a place where government plays a negligible role in public life. Taxes are almost non-existent. Businesses operate free from the burden of regulation or bureaucracy. People lean on each other to establish and enforce standards of public behavior. Imagine a place with no Obamacare, no insurance mandates, no mandates of almost any kind.

Libertarians are often derided as dreamers whose vision of the world could never be made real, but that is not true. All over the planet there are places where the Libertarian dream of hyper-limited government is played out in daily life. We can learn a lot about the merits and pitfalls of Libertarianism by examining the shape of life in the world’s Libertarian strongholds.
​

Read more: Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

 

[dies-l]

Well, I guess that settles it. Bigger government = better government. Forget Belize; I'm moving to a big government paradise like North Korea. (Crappy arguments work both ways).

 

[grasping the after wind]

Our dear friend GOPlifer is on vacation. For you libertarian types he has found your utopia in a tropical paradise. Or has he?

Imagine a place where government plays a negligible role in public life. Taxes are almost non-existent. Businesses operate free from the burden of regulation or bureaucracy. People lean on each other to establish and enforce standards of public behavior. Imagine a place with no Obamacare, no insurance mandates, no mandates of almost any kind.

Libertarians are often derided as dreamers whose vision of the world could never be made real, but that is not true. All over the planet there are places where the Libertarian dream of hyper-limited government is played out in daily life. We can learn a lot about the merits and pitfalls of Libertarianism by examining the shape of life in the world’s Libertarian strongholds.
​

Read more: Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

Libertarian Utopia or Libertarian Paradise are nonsense terms. Libertarians, and anyone with any sense at all whether Libertarian or not, do no allow that there is any possibility of the existence of a utopia. the idea of a utopian society is simply a faith based fairy tale. Only perfect beings could fashion a utopia . To this point the world is inhabited by beings far from perfection and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood that it will ever be inhabited by beings that are closer to it. No matter how many of those imperfect beings are killed or reeducated by the true believers.

 

[South Bound]

Our dear friend GOPlifer is on vacation. For you libertarian types he has found your utopia in a tropical paradise. Or has he?

Imagine a place where government plays a negligible role in public life. Taxes are almost non-existent. Businesses operate free from the burden of regulation or bureaucracy. People lean on each other to establish and enforce standards of public behavior. Imagine a place with no Obamacare, no insurance mandates, no mandates of almost any kind.

Libertarians are often derided as dreamers whose vision of the world could never be made real, but that is not true. All over the planet there are places where the Libertarian dream of hyper-limited government is played out in daily life. We can learn a lot about the merits and pitfalls of Libertarianism by examining the shape of life in the world’s Libertarian strongholds.
​

Read more: Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

Never occurred to me that anyone would want to live in Belize until Jerry Jeff Walker moved there. He loved it so much he dedicated an entire album to songs about Belize.

My mother says she wants to retire there, but I'm still skeptical. I know they sponsor the Glenn Beck Show and Pat and Stu, but I'd still be worried about the government being taken over by a coup, which is common in those countries.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Our dear friend GOPlifer is on vacation. For you libertarian types he has found your utopia in a tropical paradise. Or has he?

Imagine a place where government plays a negligible role in public life. Taxes are almost non-existent. Businesses operate free from the burden of regulation or bureaucracy. People lean on each other to establish and enforce standards of public behavior. Imagine a place with no Obamacare, no insurance mandates, no mandates of almost any kind.

Libertarians are often derided as dreamers whose vision of the world could never be made real, but that is not true. All over the planet there are places where the Libertarian dream of hyper-limited government is played out in daily life. We can learn a lot about the merits and pitfalls of Libertarianism by examining the shape of life in the world’s Libertarian strongholds.
​

Read more: Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

Great read on the problems with Belize.

Seems worth mentioning that the founders of the US discovered that the articles of confederation invested too little power in the federal government. Their solution was a stronger federal government, but they also added the Bill of Rights.

Some here might still remember the Bill of Rights. It included such quaint and outdated concepts as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms and states rights. Good stuff, actually. Maybe someday we'll get back to a functional Bill of Rights.

 

[dies-l]

Great read on the problems with Belize.

Seems worth mentioning that the founders of the US discovered that the articles of confederation invested too little power in the federal government. Their solution was a stronger federal government, but they also added the Bill of Rights.

Some here might still remember the Bill of Rights. It included such quaint and outdated concepts as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms and states rights. Good stuff, actually. Maybe someday we'll get back to a functional Bill of Rights.

Let's also not forget such quaint things like Amendments 9 and 10, and the idea that the Federal government doesn't have any authority except that expressly granted it. Or, how about the idea that the government doesn't have the right to pry into my private life without a warrant based on probable cause. If we could get these things right, I probably wouldn't be a libertarian.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't understand why some people think 'big government' is always anti-liberty.

Of course it depends what you mean by big government. By it I mean taxes, public institutions, regulation, and long term investment. I don't mean a government that bans you from doing things that don't harm others.

Well, I guess that settles it. Bigger government = better government. Forget Belize; I'm moving to a big government paradise like North Korea. (Crappy arguments work both ways).

It said:

"Governments can potentially interfere with property rights in ways that dampen economic growth and harm liberty. That’s a reason for care and involvement, not a justification to destroy them."

There is a middle ground between authoritarian dictatorship, and chaos. Bigger isn't always better, but nor is smaller.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Great read on the problems with Belize.

Seems worth mentioning that the founders of the US discovered that the articles of confederation invested too little power in the federal government. Their solution was a stronger federal government, but they also added the Bill of Rights.

Some here might still remember the Bill of Rights. It included such quaint and outdated concepts as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms and states rights. Good stuff, actually. Maybe someday we'll get back to a functional Bill of Rights.

Maybe the tooth I lost playing hockey will regrow too. Some things, once lost, or in the case of the Bill of Rights, given away, will never return. Thomas Paine ,Benjamin Franklin and a host of others can all say "I Told You So." . The only course is for one to function the best one can without the thing they have lost.

 

[Oafman]

Libertarianism and society are not mutually exclusive

 

[NightHawkeye]

Maybe the tooth I lost playing hockey will regrow too. Some things, once lost, or in the case of the Bill of Rights, given away, will never return. Thomas Paine ,Benjamin Franklin and a host of others can all say "I Told You So." . The only course is for one to function the best one can without the thing they have lost.

Many believe there is another solution: Convention of States Brochure

What is the Solution?
Did you know states have the power to stop the federal government’s overreach? Article V of the U.S. Constitution says that states can call a Convention of States during which delegates propose amendments to the Constitution to halt the federal government’s abuse of power. Forbes called the Convention of States an “emergency cord” embedded within the Constitution that permits citizens to seize power from a runaway government.
​

 

[variant]

Libertarianism and society are not mutually exclusive

Most of our seemingly absolutist libertarian friends are actually just singing a song. When it comes down to what laws they actually want to see enforced, few of them want to live in an anarchocapitalistic setup.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Libertarianism and society are not mutually exclusive

Did someone say they were?

 

[Oafman]

Did someone say they were?

I gets implied all the time. Maggie Thatcher famously did so.

 

[dies-l]

I don't understand why some people think 'big government' is always anti-liberty.

Of course it depends what you mean by big government. By it I mean taxes, public institutions, regulation, and long term investment. I don't mean a government that bans you from doing things that don't harm others.

It said:

"Governments can potentially interfere with property rights in ways that dampen economic growth and harm liberty. That’s a reason for care and involvement, not a justification to destroy them."

There is a middle ground between authoritarian dictatorship, and chaos. Bigger isn't always better, but nor is smaller.

I agree with most of what you say here. You're right that big government need not repress liberty. But, I do believe that government can become too big to be able to be effective and respect liberty at the same time. I'd be happy with state and Federal government that abides by US and state constitutions.

 

[dies-l]

Most of our seemingly absolutist libertarian friends are actually just singing a song. When it comes down to what laws they actually want to see enforced, few of them want to live in an anarchocapitalistic setup.

I can't speak for "our seemingly absolutist libertarian friends", being somewhat of a moderate libertarian myself, but I would be inclined to think that anyone who wanted an anarchocapitalistic would prefer the term anarchist or anarchocapitalist over libertarian.

I identify as a libertarian, because when I look at the state of our nation and the direction we are heading in, I realize that we are very swiftly headed in a dangerous direction of decreased individual liberty and greater control by the government (State and federal) over individuals and smaller institutions. Certainly, it is feasible that, under a libertarian government, we could move too far to the opposite direction, but until that happens libertarianism makes more sense to me than the statism embraced by the GOP (and try as they might to convince us otherwise the Tea Partiers are no exception) and Democratic party.

 

[variant]

I can't speak for "our seemingly absolutist libertarian friends", being somewhat of a moderate libertarian myself, but I would be inclined to think that anyone who wanted an anarchocapitalistic would prefer the term anarchist or anarchocapitalist over libertarian.

Having known many anarchocapitalist libertarians I am inclined to think they do use the term.

The Utopian setups favored by such types are generally the ones being discussed in this criticism of libertarianism, so it would not apply to the more moderated varieties. The problem of course comes from the same absolutist sounding language that most libertarians use.

I identify as a libertarian, because when I look at the state of our nation and the direction we are heading in, I realize that we are very swiftly headed in a dangerous direction of decreased individual liberty and greater control by the government (State and federal) over individuals and smaller institutions. Certainly, it is feasible that, under a libertarian government, we could move too far to the opposite direction, but until that happens libertarianism makes more sense to me than the statism embraced by the GOP (and try as they might to convince us otherwise the Tea Partiers are no exception) and Democratic party.

The society is always going to be trying to balance the need/benefit of social organization and control, with the will for freedom and the benefits there of.

There are always going to be people consolidating power in any system so the trick is how we work out living together regardless.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Anarchocapitalist? Contradictory term. Capitalism does not function in a chaotic situation. Anarchy is as much a fairy tale as utopia. Neither can possibly exist as long as there are at least two human beings.

 

[dies-l]

Having known many anarchocapitalist libertarians I am inclined to think they do use the term.

I can't argue with your experience, but that's not consistent with my own. I do wonder, if these "anarchocapitalist" types would agree with that designation.

The Utopian setups favored by such types are generally the ones being discussed in this criticism of libertarianism, so it would not apply to the more moderated varieties. The problem of course comes from the same absolutist sounding language that most libertarians use.

Fair enough. But I don't think that this is anything peculiar to libertarians. Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, etc. all seem to have their very vocal idealists who tend to drown out the more moderate voices within their ranks.

The society is always going to be trying to balance the need/benefit of social organization and control, with the will for freedom and the benefits there of.

There are always going to be people consolidating power in any system so the trick is how we work out living together regardless.

The problem of the day, however, is that the majority, at least in the US seems to either support or be apathetic towards increased security and control at the expense of individual liberty. I don't see either of our major political parties voluntarily relinquishing any amount of control any time soon. Instead, I see government that will consistently push the envelope as far as the courts (you know, the courts whose judges they appoint) will allow when it comes to recognizing the inherent limits places on them by the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights and the 13th and 14th Amendments. The proper response to this trend is, I believe, the libertarian one. However, unlike many of my libertarian friends, I can see how even libertarianism could be taken to such an extreme that a more statist response would be in order.

 

[kermit]

One common trait that I see among almost all libertarians is a refusal to see how the commons enables entrepreneurship. Roads that enable commerce, power grids and communication lines that are reliable, sources of abundant fresh water... these and others are critical to economic success. All the entrepreneurial spirit in the world can't overcome a lack of infrastructure to support it.

Most of us agree that hydrogen cars are future. They have all the benefits of a gasoline or diesel car without any of the detrements. The problem is that we have no infrastructure to support the delivery of hydrogen. It's likely that hydrogen as an alternate fuel source for cars will fail, not because it isn't the best option, but because of lack of infrastructure to support it.

 

[variant]

Anarchocapitalist? Contradictory term. Capitalism does not function in a chaotic situation. Anarchy is as much a fairy tale as utopia. Neither can possibly exist as long as there are at least two human beings.

Hasn't been shown to work, but I'm not the theorist.