jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (7 posts)

If Libertarianism is so great, why hasn't it been tried yet?

  1. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    The question itself displays a lack of understanding of Libertarians' argument. The Libertarian says that the state is attractive to special interests, as it allows them to thrive at the expense of others.

    So what you are really asking is: "How come those special interests are not so keen on giving up their power?"

    . . . and that's kind of like asking:
    "If rape is so bad, how come there are rapists?"

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Nope, ideologies are systems for competition for the hearts and minds of the populace. Libertarianism is one of the oldest modern ideologies, the reason it has never been tried is because it doesn't appeal to people, they had more free market systems which were perhaps not perfectly libertarian but close enough and rejected them in favor of better systems which were less free market.

      1. innersmiff profile image87
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is still an is/ought fallacy. The Nazis may say: "Germany in the 1930s rejected freedom for fascism, therefore, freedom is invalid."

        The amount of people that subscribe to an ideology says nothing about the value of that ideology, and this is even truer in the case of governments because governments are thieves - they do not represent the general values of the populace.

  2. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    I'll also expand on that: the negative effect of the state and special interests is spread out amongst the population, and is not easily seen, whereas the benefits to the state and its special interests are concentrated and massive. The direct effect of the state on the individual is mostly seen in taxes, which are for most an inconvenience only. The negative effects on the market are not so easily seen, and can easily be blamed on capitalism, and the crime of military interventionism is not seen as such because its happening in some country on the other side of the world. Add in to that government welfare, healthcare, etc. and there is little incentive to start campaigning for state reduction.

    In short, the reason why we haven't seen a mass libertarian uprising in any of these countries is that the state is a snake in the grass, and even when people wake up, it is extremely adept at retaining power.

    The "why hasn't it been tried yet?" is an is/ought fallacy.

  3. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Because, by the time it appeared as an actual ideology, it was too late to compete against Democrats and Republicans.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Check out Somalia...

    1. innersmiff profile image87
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Healthier, safer and richer since statelessness arrived there.