Rebellion in Libertarianland

But that IS what is being said by you...

Try again.

I'm not Boimler trying to keep the holosim running, mate. 100% is 100%.

You can't address what I've said and have no counter argument. Got it.

Sure, champ. Night night, sleep well little Prince.

Again and again until you get it right.

lemme make it simple for you

you know on the political compass quiz where it asks you to rate the claim "the freer the market, the freer the people"?

it's no coincidence that the age of colonialism and laissez faire came about at the same time.

Was that your Dad's philosophy?

My dad died when I was eight so my memory of him is fading, but he did teach me to ride a bike. From what I remember, he encouraged me to keep trying, but he wasn't militant about it.

I was thinking more of your eighteen siblings.

Then you thought wrong.

Fallacious post is fallacious.

Now apply that to the lefties on the board who use the same tactics.

Sorry. I forgot you don't talk about Bruno.

An obvious answer is that far fewer people capable of actually setting one up are inclined to do so vs inclined to give themselves power (for the sake of the people, hopefully vested in democratically-accountable institutions; very often not though). If you've got the resources and wherewithal to overthrow or successfully secede from your current government, odds are you're not particularly interested in not giving yourself power, if for no other reason than that you don't trust the people who helped you do so to not seize power for themselves (this even happened in the American Revolution, with people accusing George Washington of wanting to become a king) but often nothing so benign.

Contrast with communist, fascist, or theocratic (or generally dictatorial) revolutions: there's an inherent compatibility between using violence to overthrow or secede and continuing use the same tactics to maintain power. So of course you're going to get more of those. You're going to get more of them than liberal revolts too, same reason.

And then within existing democratic countries, not enough people want it enough to make it happen at a national level. For the masses, there's the risk of loss of services they rely on, and those in power generally try to maintain or expand that power, not reduce it.

No, likely the most likely ways to see an example are probably via experimental enclaves specifically set up to be libertarian and given dispensation to not follow lots of the laws of the enclosing country. Something like a more libertarian version of a ZEDE in Honduras or SEZs in China. Or by ideological migration into a democratic area, a la the Free State Project but much more complete. These are considerably harder to make happen than ordinary revolution or secession. Intentional will to create the former that you (as the setting-up government) think might work better which risks your own power if it's successful enough, takes quite the commitment. And of course the issues of the Free State Project just to get enough people to make a place a little more libertarian illustrates the coordination and commitment issues that route entails. I think either of these routes CAN work, but there have been orders of magnitude fewer attempts to do so than revolutions and secessions and conquests that created the international system we have today.

Fitness to come about in the manner governments nearly always do is maybe not a good measure of the quality of the governmental system itself. Otherwise some sort of dictatorship would be considered the best.

I hope it'd be more liberty oriented than either of those.

The ZEDEs seem to be of great concern to workers, and indeed Honduran sovereignty

Not so sure about the SEZs other than they look to be more than regulated, but controlled like a lab experiment under the auspices of the Chinese government.

The whole thing sounds a little too much like concerns we have here about TPP deals that allow for foreign resource extraction without the limitations placed on domestic companies.

Do you know how big Mexico is? Sorry, it's simply not a "failed narco state". That's just blatant and dishonest hyperbole on your part

No half truths here bud - unless you're denying that low taxes, low tax collection rate, very little regulation, decriminalized drugs, free trade, zero foreign policy, dominance by the private sector and free market are not some of the more revered and important tenets of libertarianism?

The fact remains that Mexico has engaged in many of the things that are important to libertarians and generally speaking is a pretty successful country. Yet for some reason you don't like the result. What's the matter, you don't like beaches?

"Many of the things "

It also appears to fail at many of the things. Chief among them being the security of person and property. That is a failure of the basic function of a society. Like the USA, only further along with the deterioration.

So you’re still not taking up Bailey’s challenge? I really am interested in your answer.

I'm sorry, will security of person and property be 100% across the board in a libertarian society? I hadn't heard that before

I thought that's what private security forces were for.

When was the last time any of us advocated running this country the way Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea are run?

I thought it was pretty clear that most liberals want to run things more like Norway. (Which I do want to visit sometime.)

We have a guy who constantly posts memes about how horrible the country is and how horrible capitalism is. I can only assume he favors a different system of government and and a different economic system.

I thought that's what all the guns were for, armed societies being polite societies and all that.

Of course. I was describing the origin structure, not the governmental structure.

Peter Theil has backed at least two projects to create a Libertopia, and then pulled out of them shortly after they started. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept or of Theil.

Libertarianism and trickle down economics are two of the greatest examples of mental in human history. No amount of contrary facts or examples will sway the true believers, although I do believe that the trickle down advocates are mostly just flat-out lying as opposed to the Libertarian types who are textbook zealots.

There is and never was such a thing as trickle down economics.

Yeah, but that hasn't stopped Republicans from making it the centerpiece of their economic worldview.

Nah, people are smart enough not to bother arguing with a goalpost-mover like you...