Damn right. Libertarians just claim any successes without any actual proof that a concrete Libertarian society ever existed. It's easy for Libertarians to sit there and jab at socialist projects in certain countries, but at least socialists have actually tried to set up and sustain a working society whilst 'Libertarians' have never done jack but sit behind their computer screens and preach.
The godord system in Iceland lasted for 290 years undisturbed. To put things in perspective, the US - which is the absolute model of political stability by modern standards - only went about 80 years as an independent nation before descending into our first (and still only) civil war.
"Sure, we've gone bankrupt every single time and have ruined countless lives with our blind worship of the state, but at least we tried!"
How large was Icelandic Godord?
Each individual godord was fairly small, but there were dozens of them throughout the country, and their size in terms of population depended solely on how many people the ruling chieftain could convince to follow him. A complicating factor is that people were totally free to pledge allegiance to another godord if they didn't like the chieftain in charge of the one they were living in, without even physically having to move. Basically, they were like primitive versions of modern states/provinces that weren't based on geography.
They also had voluntary taxation, a basic respect for private property rights, a privatized court system, and no executive branch or kingship. It wasn't a perfect system - for example, after nearly 300 years, it finally dawned on people that having the chieftancies be for sale could be exploited, and five families bought them all up and left the people with only the illusion of choice. But I think these flaws can be forgiven considering how primitive the society was and how long it lasted. They certainly had a far better run than socialism has ever been able to manage.
And you see a similar system working here in these United States?
I don't see the exact same system working here, but the republican system of government that the Founders intended, with its combination of centralized and decentralized power and limited government, has its roots in primitive societies like the godord system and the similar xeer system in ancient Somalia while being able to scale better and being more modernized.
I'm pretty sure you just googled "has a libertarian society ever existed" when I asked.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ha...-ever-existed/
plagiarize much bag?
Using Iceland as an example
Damn, you are really emotional. If referencing an article is "plagiarism" then 95% of posts about politics on the Internet are plagiarized. And for the record, I actually learned about the godord system from this article:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ha...-ever-existed/
plagiarize much bag?
https://mises.org/library/medieval-i...nce-government
That's right, I actually read up on things and learn something new from time to time. Sure beats reading the latest way to phrase "LOL, Red Team is stupid for doing the same things that Blue Team does" that DailyKos came up with today.
290 straight years. Meanwhile, socialists' crowning jewel - the Soviet Union - flamed out after only 69 yearsUsing Iceland as an example
You're claiming Iceland as some sort of massive success that shows off the brilliance of Libertarianism? A hobo with a couple of sticks and water could run Iceland today and it would've been even easier in more primitive times.290 straight years. Meanwhile, socialists' crowning jewel - the Soviet Union - flamed out after only 69 years
Comparing Iceland to the Soviet Union as if they're just as difficult to sustain
The Soviet Union may well be socialism's 'crowning jewel', but what is Libertarianism's then? Iceland? ing Liberland?
The Soviet Union had the kind of technology, land, and military that medieval Iceland could only dream of, and they couldn't even crack the century mark before collapsing under their own weightYou're claiming Iceland as some sort of massive success that shows off the brilliance of Libertarianism? A hobo with a couple of sticks and water could run Iceland today and it would've been even easier in more primitive times.
Comparing Iceland to the Soviet Union as if they're just as difficult to sustain
The Soviet Union may well be socialism's 'crowning jewel', but what is Libertarianism's then? Iceland? ing Liberland?
And it's far from the only libertarian success story. Last I checked, there's a country in North America that was founded on the ideals of liberty and property that's kind of a big deal.
Seen a lot of post since boutons ran off and not a single example of socialism working in a large country.
Currently Somalia, Yemen and Libya.
Add others as you like.
We don't need no get dem rules.
Libertarians can't claim the USA. 'Liberty' is so broad and general that anyone can claim it. Republicans, Liberals, or anyone else who has 'ideals of liberty' (lots of groups).The Soviet Union had the kind of technology, land, and military that medieval Iceland could only dream of, and they couldn't even crack the century mark before collapsing under their own weight
And it's far from the only libertarian success story. Last I checked, there's a country in North America that was founded on the ideals of liberty and property that's kind of a big deal.
Until there is a modern day 1st world example of Libertarianism sustaining an economy they can argue nothing against socialism/
Socialism certainly can't claim it. Liberty and theft are incompatible.
Hmm, blue guy needs some work, probably should be larger, have a beard, be carrying a Remmington in the other hand whilst wearing an "I stand with Rand" visor.Socialism certainly can't claim it. Liberty and theft are incompatible.
..socialism..
Thomas Jefferson....the US socialist....Activists argue that capitalism leads to a significant loss of political, democratic and economic power for the vast majority of the global human population, because, they believe, capitalism creates very large concentrations of money and property at the hands of a relatively small minority of the global human population (the Elite or The Power Elite), leading, they say, to very large, and increasing, wealth and income inequalities between the elite and the majority of the population.[3] Corporate capitalism and inverted totalitarianism are terms used by the aforementioned activists and critics of capitalism to describe a capitalist marketplace – and society – characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic, large corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit without concern for the social welfare. Corporate capitalism has been criticized for the amount of power and influence corporations and large business interest groups have over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns. Many social scientists have criticized corporations for failing to act in the interests of the people; they claim the existence of large corporations seems to cir vent the principles of democracy, which assumes equal power relations between all individuals in a society.[4] As part of the political left, activists against corporate power and influence support a decreased income gap and improved economical equity.Economist Branko Horvat stated: "... it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."[2]
The rise of giant multinational corporations has been a topic of concern among the aforementioned scholars, intellectuals and activists, who see the large corporation as leading to deep, structural erosion of such basic human rights and civil rights as equitable wealth and income distribution, equitable democratic political and socio-economic power representation, and many other human rights and needs. They have pointed out that, in their view, large corporations create false needs in consumers and, they contend, have had a long history of interference in, and distortion of, the policies of sovereign nation states through high-priced legal lobbying, and other almost always legal, powerful forms of influence peddling. Evidence supporting this belief includes, in their view, invasive advertising (such as billboards, television ads, adware, spam, telemarketing, child-targeted advertising, guerrilla marketing), massive open or secret corporate political campaign contributions in so-called "democratic" elections, corporatocracy, the revolving door between government and corporations, regulatory capture, Too Big To Fail (also known as Too Big to Jail), massive taxpayer-provided corporate bailouts, socialism/ communism for the very rich and brutal, vicious, Darwinian capitalism for everyone else, corporate welfare, and, they claim, seemingly endless global news stories about corporate corruption (Martha Stewart and Enron, among many other examples). Anti-corporate-activists express the view that large corporations answer only to large shareholders, giving human rights issues, social justice issues, environmental issues [and other issues of high significance to the bottom 99% of the global human population] virtually no consideration.[5][6]
David Schweickart wrote that, in capitalist societies,
]"ordinary people are deemed competent enough to select their political leaders-but not their bosses. Contemporary capitalism celebrates democracy, yet denies us our democratic rights at precisely the point where they might be utilized most immediately and concretely: at the place where we spend most of the active and alert hours of our adult lives."[7
Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the United States, said "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country".[8] Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an April 29, 1938, message to Congress, warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:
[...] Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."[9][11][T]he liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[9][10][11]
Thomas Jefferson, the opposite of a socialist.
"The laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
"What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Thomas Jefferson , Source: Note in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson
“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”Thomas Jefferson
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Thomas Jefferson
TSA, GFY
not pure socialism, but social democracy, like Western Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
And social democracy, like all types of socialism, is a failure. It's proven to be woefully inequipped to deal with the pressures of globalization and immigration. Jobs and wages are stagnant and living conditions are declining. The welfare state has become so unaffordable that social democracies have to implement austerity, angering populations that are accustomed to getting fat and happy off of government handouts. Social democracy has gone from being the government of choice in 13 out of 15 EU countries to losing election after election.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
