Has libertarianism ever been tried?

much like communism

Something will always go wrong so ancap heaven is impossible. But small government, balanced budget, low taxes and so on have been tried of course and hopefully they will be more and more common.

>you need to think for a second why a stateless society can never exist

Libertarianism isn't anarchism

I think there needs to be a government, just keep in on a leash, and if need be, a noose

No

Spotted the marxists!

Of course not.

Do you mean anarcho-capitalism?

The problem with libertarianism, is that if the people vote for politicians that expand government, then trying to stop big government goes against the will of the people.

And supposedly the will of the people is the foundation of the republic as defined by most libertarians.

Yeah you're living in one right now. You don't like playing your rent to Government Inc? Move somewhere else.

>tfw you relise all this shit was made for the government because of its military uses against the soviets
>tfw you relise that communism made the modern world.

Your assuming that voting and democracy in general results in the will of the people. There is a reason why libertarians are usually republicans, not democrats.

Republicans are usually more authoritarian than democrats, except for guns. Democrats just think more spending and more taxes, but also are for more liberal social policy. But also are more authoritarian on guns.

Libertarians are liberal on everything. The reason why so many libertarians are for the republicans over the dems seems to be almost entirely over guns. The Republicans sure as hell don't cut spending, just taxes, and usually are for more military spending.

As an independent, I can relate to the libertarians having to pick between two sides they don't agree with.

I don´t remember people calling themselves "libertarianists" ever being in position of power.

But there was plenty of liberals.

How do libertarians not understand this? I realized it when I first started reading about it.

I dont mean the political parties. Libertarians usually embrace constitutionalism, a republican (government-type) idea. This is opposed to flat-out, free-for-all democracy which libertarians would claim violates natural rights with their desicion. Libertarians believe in low taxes, not people having a vote on the tax rate.

which is why they should read Rousseau. The only possible defense for this Lockean bullshit is theological.

I'm sorry, but a republic without democracy is the Chinese style republic. Where the government decides who gets to be in the government rather than elections.

If there is no democracy, than how do you make as government accountable to the will of the people?

You can have a democracy, but some things can't be voted away

Wait. Are we talking about Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalism?

Closet is probably the Paris Commune

democratic elements provide a counter balance to the elite,its not some absolute principle. American government has been set up on that premise since the beginning of the republic. It was also present in the English system

Libertarianism

as in limited government

Well this then. Because somehow they are always that guy who asked for more regulation and law because some guy do something that hurt his feeling.

>Democrats just think more spending and more taxes, but also are for more liberal social policy. But also are more authoritarian on guns.
That's changing with Trump in office, liberals are literally arming themselves against an expected Trumpstapo.

>limited government
You mean basically all of them?

Not all of them. According to Libertarian, government only handle the security body such as police and army to protect citizen from harm. Think Golden Rule as the Constitution.

Thats miniarchism, which is probably how must people think of libertarianism but its a broader movement than that

I think it can really only work in small community or city-state, full of like-minded people who understand the dangers of a large government, and know and trust each other enough to not need a whole lot of it.

Once the population and of the nation grows, your liberties will shrink.

if government spending started it, government regulation ended it.
look to shenzhen's technological explosion and its lack of intellectual property enforcement.

computers and smartphones do better when government butts out.

is it opposite day?

The US between its birth and the civil war (and perhaps even right up until WWI) is a pretty decent case for it.

The civil war ruined everything

I don't like slavery but Lincoln was a fucking tyrant

This. Literally every single society that is at least semi civilized tend to organize into states, independently of one another. The Europeans, the Chinese, the Incas, even butt naked niggers in Africa, everyone prefers a state to non state.

>non state

libertarianism isn't anarchism

Considering how prominent Austrian thinkers are in mainstream libertarianism and they're almost all ancaps, the association isn't wrong.

I guess that's why the movement never gets anywhere.

No one can seem to actually agree with that libertarianism is

>Lincoln was a fucking tyrant
If he wasn't he would've let the south go, which is a shit tier outcome. There was no other way.

Not really

Yes. They are called tax havens.

>Posting your own post again
>The same post that got trashed the first time around

Even if he is shilling his own post what difference does it make? It's not like he's a self-promoting tripfag so all it's really doing is keeping him from having to spell it out for you right-wingers every single time you try to argue that the government only makes things bad for everyone and is incapable of redistributing wealth in ways that benefit the nation

Yes, Congo Free State.

>communist warlords destroy african states like somalia
>"hurr durr libertarians BTFO lmao"

Nice try at defending yourself as someone else. You might have a leg to stand on if the image raised valid points.

you're being too obvious

Nice try, faggot. Next time spare yourself the embarrassment and actually try refuting his points instead of shitposting like an inarticulate moron

what is to stop someone from becoming a communist warlord in a libertarian society?

>what is to stop someone from becoming a communist warlord in a libertarian society?
muh non-aggression principle

Congo Free State was a free and privately owned territory, however. Not that I expected a libertarian to know anything about History, or anything at all.

>anything at all.
They all know a lot about the same 4 or 5 writers and how to pass off their writing as something with broad appeal outside their narrow demographic of affluent right-wing white male 'intellectuals' (a term I use extremely loosely)

Statism was already tried in the form of the Khmer Rouge regime.
This is basically your argument.

You're just being vague using the term "statist". All modern societies are technically statist, what he is referencing is the fact that the Congo Free State technically fits the definition of a society where the government is literally some asshole's private property and there is no public government to speak of.

It was a place where not meeting your daily work quota got the hand of one of your relatives removed.

I know about Leopold's Congo, thanks.
Me being vague about the statism term is on purpose, considering you tried to argue Congo as being "free". By this definition every slave state was also a libertarian society, but that is false and disingenuous. It had a government appointed by Leopold btw.

Classical liberals and libertarians don't include each other under the same umbrella(s). I tell my libertarian friends that they're retards all the time.

No they're not. They made a lot of hot air about that, but are still scared of guns and utterly ignorant as to how to get one.

these are people who will actually ask for an except to go to a gun store and buy pepper spray, because gun stores are intimidating.

Ongoing sales are a direct result of the usual crowd getting in on the MAGA sales (every fucking LGS had them) as well as price hikes in anticipation of hillcunt winning being reversed.

Classical liberalism has been tried. It brought most countries from aristocracy/monarchy to liberal democracy through the 19th century and early 20th century. We could very easily be living in a world like that in the past where every country was a brutal autocracy of some sort.

There has been some societies which can relate to libertarism in some ways in the past, but they would not be example of "libertarian societies" in the same way cavemen tribals can't be described as communist societies.
There has been some modern attemps, but most (all?) has been foiled, I think mainly due to actual states not liking some foreign people settling what they see as their own.
Liberland is still going I think, it'll probably collapse from internal struggles or Croatia putting a stop to it

>but that's (synonym)
Fuck off will you?

>I hate people using adequate terminology in humanities
Perhaps you'd feel yourself home over at /pol/ arguing about "SJW" and "alt-right" all day.

>considering you tried to argue Congo as being "free
So the answer is "obviously" to the question that the Khmer Rouge was statist, but with the caveat that literally every other society on the planet at the time was "statist".

But in 1908 not every society was a place ruled as the personal property of a single man.

>By this definition every slave state was also a libertarian society, but that is false and disingenuous.
Well a slave owning society is a place where property rights are so strongly enforced that you can make a legal claim to another person's labor as your personal property.

And consider how the Confederate States of America was an even smaller government than the United States, with no provision to provide for the general welfare and states rights so strong that it totally gimped their ability to wage war, it seems like there's a direct correlation, that the more "libertarian" a society is, the more that it is a place where it totally sucks to be part of the workforce.

>It had a government appointed by Leopold btw.
And therein lies your conundrum: in a true libertarian society, where government is either non-existent or small enough to drown in a bath-tub, what's stopping a consortium of the wealthiest individuals from banding together and imposing an authoritarian state on the working class that rigs the system so that they stay in power? What's to stop a silver tongued demagogue from provoking a race war? What do you do when the richest and most organized militia in the neighborhood are the religious whack-jobs burning down any school that doesn't teach strict scriptural literalism and harassing women who aren't dressed like prudes?

>And consider how the Confederate States of America was an even smaller government than the United States
Also had literal slavery regulated by a government and imposed by force by it. If this is an argument against reduction of the role of government, you'd better rethink that.

>And therein lies your conundrum: in a true libertarian society, where government is either non-existent or small enough to drown in a bath-tub, what's stopping a consortium of the wealthiest individuals from banding together and imposing an authoritarian state on the working class that rigs the system so that they stay in power? What's to stop a silver tongued demagogue from provoking a race war? What do you do when the richest and most organized militia in the neighborhood are the religious whack-jobs burning down any school that doesn't teach strict scriptural literalism and harassing women who aren't dressed like prudes?
Here lies yours. Those things aren't exclusive to any type of government and are an everyday complain in our democraties. A politician is caught with corporate money in his pocket Far-right parties are on the rise everywhere. In a world where most people don't have the mean to defend themselves, what's stopping the army to do a military coup and then throw dissidents from helicopters?

Small government > big government

Capitalism > socialism

Liberty > all

Classical liberalism and libertarianism aren't the same thing.

Fuck, their end goals are completely opposed to each other.

Literally "Useful Idiot for the Rich: The Ideology"

t. marxist cuck

>Also had literal slavery regulated by a government and imposed by force by it. If this is an argument against reduction of the role of government, you'd better rethink that.
They certainly didn't see it that way, nor do most neo-confederates who are invariably libertarian or hardcore conservative economically.

It was their "sincerely held belief" that blacks are technically inferior so imposing slavery on them is not an act of coercion or force since you're not doing it to a full human but more like a draft horse

>Here lies yours. Those things aren't exclusive to any type of government and are an everyday complain in our democraties.
The difference is that with a democratic system which "imposes force" solves its differences at the ballot box. In a system without a sufficiently capable force monopoly, violence

> Far-right parties are on the rise everywhere.
because a transnational global corporatist oligarchy is pilfering nations of their money and have utterly stymied leftist movements of any kind and people are turning to whoever is promising them results.

>what's stopping the army to do a military coup and then throw dissidents from helicopters?
In the U.S that possibility is insanely remote because the government was crafted from the ground up to specifically prevent the army from accumulating too much power, to relegate generals to the level of upper-middle class bureaucrats totally subservient to civilian command.

Elaborate, please.

>They certainly didn't see it that way, nor do most neo-confederates who are invariably libertarian or hardcore conservative economically.
>It was their "sincerely held belief" that blacks are technically inferior so imposing slavery on them is not an act of coercion or force since you're not doing it to a full human but more like a draft horse
Good for them. I honestly don't know what is the point you're trying to make here. You wont find a libertarian advocating for slavery, because those belief are opposed to one another. Much like I'm certain I could find somebody thinking himself a communist, while advocating to exterminate inferior races, who are obviously not relevant to the white classless utopia. Many white supremacists are very socialist in their views relative to wealth redistribution, that doesn't make for a compeling argument against socialist policies anyhow.

>The difference is that with a democratic system which "imposes force" solves its differences at the ballot box
Unless it isn't anymore because somebody usurped the power. Which happened quite a lot in history.

>because a transnational global corporatist oligarchy is pilfering nations of their money and have utterly stymied leftist movements of any kind and people are turning to whoever is promising them results.
So a democracy is still at the mercy of demagogues turning the mass against minorities or other scapegoats? Good to know

>In the U.S that possibility is insanely remote because the government was crafted from the ground up to specifically prevent the army from accumulating too much power, to relegate generals to the level of upper-middle class bureaucrats totally subservient to civilian command.
Yes, a government which designed to limit himself is a service to the people, glad we're in an agreement.

t. corporatist shill

>gets all his opinions from a book written 200 years ago

I've formed some of my opinions on writings from the BC era

Your point?

You're retarded

does it sadden anyone else that the Gadsden flag is synonymous with the LOLbertarians?

I think it's a pretty badass flag with a lot of history behind

Libertarians are typically utterly opposed to government regulation in all forms, regardless of circumstance.

No self respecting classical liberal follows such an idiotic worldview. A properly run and controlled government is NECESSARY to protect the freedom of the common man, which is all a classical liberal cares about. Maximum personal liberty for the maximum number of people. If that means telling coca-cola that they can't buy all the freshwater in the country, so fucking be it.

Libertardians, however, would happily sell their and everyone elses lberty, so long as it meant the rich and the poor were 'equally' 'free' to coerce, oppress, and enslave each other. They'd literally defend Coke buying up all the water and demanding you become an unpaid intern 20 hours a week in exchange for freshwater rights as "liberty."

Libertarians, for all their talk, are corporatists at heart and want to replace the government boot with a corporate boot. Classical liberals wish to remove the fucking boot entirely, and only bring it out when somebody is trampling people.

Every classical liberal government will turn into a regular state down the road because it still possess the competence to expand its own competence, which it will invariably do.

Depends what you mean. If you mean An-Cap/Minarchism then no, because the former is impossible to sustain and the latter simply cannot function.

Classical Liberalism has been tried such as in the early US, but power creep is a very real thing.

"I, the Teacher, was king of Israel, and I lived in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to search for understanding and to explore by wisdom everything being done under heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless—like chasing the wind.

What is wrong cannot be made right.
What is missing cannot be recovered.

I said to myself, “Look, I am wiser than any of the kings who ruled in Jerusalem before me. I have greater wisdom and knowledge than any of them.” So I set out to learn everything from wisdom to madness and folly. But I learned firsthand that pursuing all this is like chasing the wind.

The greater my wisdom, the greater my grief.
To increase knowledge only increases sorrow."

That's about 3000 years old, maybe a little older

Does it still not ring true today?

Nah it's American.

>every classical liberal government will turn into a regular state
They are a regular state. Not every political ideology is special snowflake level bullshit like libertarians/commies/ancaps.

I just want the government to respect their constitutional limits, the states to not step on their own people, and the corporations that are fucking us over to knock their shit off and have their political influence destroyed.

You don't need a special government to do this. You need a reasonably educated populace that holds their politicians accountable and votes them out when they overstep their bounds or shit on our rights. I won't get those at this point, so now I just vote for whoever will do the least damage.

Libertarian =/= Ancap.

>I just want the government to respect their constitutional limits
Which it can still change on its own without consultation of the population

>You need a reasonably educated populace that holds their politicians accountable and votes them out when they overstep their bounds or shit on our rights. I won't get those at this point, so now I just vote for whoever will do the least damage.
If the common man was responsible then you could roll with a libertarian society that would autoregulate anyway. The point is, he's not.

Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

>Good for them. I honestly don't know what is the point you're trying to make here.
the inevitable conclusion of a fully realized libertarian society is commodified labor, whether in the form of chattel slavery or in the form of legalistic domination

>Unless it isn't anymore because somebody usurped the power. Which happened quite a lot in history.
One of the problems that perplexes every society, democratic, authoritarian, or libertarian is that a privileged class gradually emerges which stifles the economy and monopolizes political power and necessitates a revolution. In ancient times this problem would become so acute that vast swathes of the population would starve in widespread famines which would throw the entire country into civil war

>So a democracy is still at the mercy of demagogues turning the mass against minorities or other scapegoats? Good to know
when the strength of the democracy is eroded that can be the case but when they are robust these problems are kept to a minimum and political upheaval does not require violent revolution, but gets played out through electoral politics

>Yes, a government which designed to limit himself is a service to the people, glad we're in an agreement.
No, it's a government strong enough to suppress individualistic power-grabs through careful balancing of power.

The difference is thinner than my dead grampas hairline, user.

No it's not. Libertarian still need the central government as law enforcer to protect themselves. While AnCap is feudalism without the monarchy.

Well I guess it'll come down to this: feel free to think that.

>corporatists
Don;t insult us like that, libertarians are corporatocrats.

We already have that term. It's called Plutocrat.

Yet in the US classical liberals are considered economic conservatives and libertarians, because political labels rarely fit into neat definitions

That then, corporatism is something else entirely.