(04-29-2015 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 10:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Which is precisely why I made a distinction between "theory vs practice" earlier in this thread. I'm completely cool with your notions about how libertarianism can thrive in a nation state. You'll never see a "pure" form of classical liberalism practiced though just like a pure form of capitalism would never become a reality. There is a security component that would need to be considered first off that would have to be balanced out. Next, you're going to have to factor in that people who are poor and disadvantaged will have to be accounted for somehow so there will be some level of wealth transfer occurring. And finally, there is a hypocrisy component that everyone has to varying levels where it will creep into the system. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many of our most freedom cherishing founders who many would consider kindred to the modern libertarian ideals owned slaves.

I probably put this thread in the weeds, and I apologize for that. All I was trying to point out in all this is that an "essentially" libertarian gov't would be great, but it will never live up to the ideals of libertarianism. There will be some components of it that will not or cannot be libertarian simply because not everyone will play by the same rules.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, but I think the fact is that EVERY political persuasion works in an ideal world, but the world isn't ideal so you adapt to the reality. If you think about it, Communism and Socialism are essentially the same thing, where everyone is fundamentally equal (a perfect world)... and 'republican' and 'democrat' is merely some compromise in an attempt to adjust to this. Libertarianism is no different, although it takes a far different approach to reaching those compromises. The key determinant is not 'whether or not something is good for you' (today's generic liberal position) or 'whether or not it is popular/traditional' (today's generic conservative position) but is instead, whether or not you are hurting someone by doing it. If you are, then it gets regulated. If you aren't, then it doesn't. The question of right or wrong (what both libs and cons ask) is thrown out.

The libertarian ideal that you describe is fundamentally no different from the idealistic views of communism or socialism... but not many people actually believe in that for the reasons you mention. The same reason why communism and socialism don't work in reality. 'pure' libertarianism wouldn't either... You still need the government to arbitrate disputes.

I think we are stating essentially the same thing, so I'm not sure where our disagreement is aside from you assuming that I think libertarianism can only work if it's in a "pure form". I don't subscribe to that belief, but I know a number of libertarians who have, will and want to push a more pure version of libertarian belief than I think would be practical.

Regarding your comments on socialism vs communism, I don't think that they are essentially the same unless you're referring to everyday people who mistakenly viewed the USSR as a nation that runs on a communist economic system as opposed to a state that has a political party that was known as the communist party that had a socialist economy.