Somalian pirates we!

We get that. We understand that no man is an island that that we all rely on a large societal support structure to survive. No part of being a libertarian means that you are anti-society or anti-social responsibility. I don't see what your statement has to do with libertarianism at all.

Libertarianism is wanting a relatively small government, low taxes and high degree of personal and economic freedom.

Somolia has a few governments. Different autonomous regions exist in parts of Somolia. Each region has its own warlord or set of people controlling it. Some of those governments, such as the recently defeated Islamic Court Union, were extremely oppresive and were the exact opposite of the kind of government that a libertarian would want to live under. There is also the officially recognized (by other countries) central government that controlls a bit of Somolia and functions similarly to western governments. So, I would not say that Somolia is a libertarian utopia. For one thing libertarians want a small government and a high degree of personal freedom but they do not want to government at all. For another thing Somolia isn't in a state of anarchy. It has governments. I would say that it has way to many governments that are all at war with one another. Somalia's warring factions and mutliple different small oppressive governments are not something that a libertarian would want.

So, are you trolling clockcat? Or do you really believe that libertarianism is based of a rejection of society itself? Can you show how "small, limited government that affords a high degree of personal freedom" neccessarily leads to libertarians "ignor[ing] that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work."

A Socialists paradise

Where the government controls everything!

There is nothing socialist about NK. That's a mix of dictatorship and statism.

sooo... whats the crux of the problem? X is bad, X does Y, therefore Y is also bad?

Both. A bloated government and a small but extremely oppressive government are both bad. To use the Somalian example: your local warlord may be the only thing resembling a government official in your region, but if he oppresses the hell out of you, takes a lot of your money and goods and kills those who resist him, that is still an oppressive government.

Libertarians do not want power consolidated into the hands of one person. A libertarian tyrant sounds like an oxymoron and would probably just be a regular tyrant. North Korea's extremely oppressive government is obvious not the kind of government libertians like since it does not afford its citizens a high degree of personal and economic freedom.

So

1) a large, powerful, government

2) a large, useless government

3) a small, powerful government

are governments you do not like.

What then is left?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17695

Lmao. Why would libertarians like that? It's more important how much power the government has, not just how many people are in it.  

Actually, I should qualify that statement. It's better to distribute power to a large number of people because it's dangerous to give a lot of power to only a few people. Ideally, I think I'd prefer a large government with a moderate amount of control.

Thanks for the information, people.

Most of the people calling themselves libertarians around here (Indiana) stop at Ron Paul.

So you think farming, food delivery and grocery stores should all be taken over by the government? How would that grow more food or put more and cheaper food in the grocery store? How does a government take over a health care produce more doctors and nurses and cause inventors and entrepreneurs to create more, better and less expensive cures?

But this is ridiculous because people will only work, invent and invest in new technologies if there is a "personal gain" in it for themselves. How can work ever get done if there is not a "personal gain" in it for the person doing the work? So you want to take our most vital services and create price controls which will lead to shortages. How insane.

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

Farming is heavily subsidized already. Tax money pays for your food. Yes, the stuff you buy in the store. 

Just because a government is running the health care system does not mean it has any influence on production of doctors or nurses. That is a red herring and you know it.

It also has no bearing on cures. Medicine is a public good, and research today is largely funded as such. This is why I donate to institutes researching respective areas.

Your assumptions are ridiculous as usual EXC. No one said personal gain is thrown to the wayside, simply on public matters the public welfare is the priority over it.

Inventors and corporations will not suddenly vanish. I do not see how you equate priority of public welfare on public issues, to there being no private industry. 

Please think before you start to type. You are wasting your own time, the time of anyone that reads the waste you write, and the time of anyone that responds to it when you post without obviously giving any thought to the matter.

The health care in Iceland is owned by the government. In fact this is true for many of the countries on the list.

SOCIALISM! Wait, you mean looking at public services, as public and not private...doesn't impact ECONOMIC FREEDOM?

/gasp

I feel so lied to.

Seriously? I thought I made it clear that libertarianism is not anarchy. We don't want a warlord calling the shots. We want a small, restrained government that affords a high degree of personal and economic freedom. There is a huge difference between a government that takes a light touch when regulating businesses and personal affairs and no government at all. I get it that no government at all means that the strongest get to do whatever the hell they please. Please don't think of libertarians as anarcho-capitalists.

And economic freedom also apparently has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Funny that.

And Hong Kong has needed to expand it's government invervention over the years to keep it that way.

Note that:

And consequently...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2747.htm

Most of the top 5 have extensive social health and welfare programs in place, so....

Capitalist utopias provide short-lived slightly better economic freedom than mixed economies? Not very impressive.

We have way too many farmers. We could let a some of them go out of business or we could pay them all to farm a bit less. We have chosen to pay them all. So rather than have fewer farmers that each produces a lot of crops, we have a lot of farmers that each produces less crops and subsidies covers the rest in terms of their finances. Another side effect of paying them all to farm less is that food prices are sometimes artificially inflated. One problem that farmers face is that if they all farmed without subsidies being payed to them to limit their yields, then crop prices would drop and food would be more plentiful. I would personally rather have the cheaper food, but instead we pay them to not farm and that artificially decreases the price of some crops. But then other crops have their prices artificially decreased from subsidies so that cheaper South American crops can't easily compete in the US. Subsidies work to mess up all crop pricing either to keep too many farmers employed, or to try and shut out South American crops from our markets.

Basically, I wish we had the 'screw you' system. Some farmers should be out of business but I would rather not have the adverse consequences or cost of subsidizing them to farm less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

So you just set up a strawman of Libertarian.

Funny that.

The problem with Libertarianism is that there is no cohesive internal or external defence against threats that don't utilise Libertarianism. What little defence there is takes too much time to respond effectively. Somalia is an example of how internal forces could usurp local freedoms and power. All a warlord needs to do is organise a group that wants power to begin the process of taking it. First a town, then a county, then the nation. The only defence likely to resist effectively is another warlord, since the government is so limited.
The solution is what Butterbattle said: diffuse power, don't concentrate or belittle it. Democracy as we know it is a step, but it doesn't go far enough. Individuals are still imbued with significantly more power than other individuals. Enter the socialist democracy, where the power of the state is distributed through the electorate. The odd individual will still have to make decisions from time to time, so base those positions on merit and accomplishment, and rotate

A libertarian government would not be so weak as to be helpless from bands of thugs. No part of libertarian ideology requires that a government lack an effective military. I wish that the US military focused more on defending our borders and less on assualting/meddling in the affairs of third world countries.

A relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom to its citzens would still have a defensive military. Come on people. Do you really think that libertarians want a government that can't protect them from thugs or foreign enemies? Some libertarians even advocate what they call a 'night watchmen' government that's primary goal is national defense and protection against violent crime. Where are you people getting your conceptions of libertarianism from? Is there some libertarian wacko making you think that we are all kooks who want to live in anarchy and be helpless to thugs and foreign enemies?

So anything that doesn't go with EXC's view isn't libertarian?

Why do you think it's not you who is implying anarchy?

Jormungander, the critical flaw in your response is that if the military is more powerful than the government, there's nothing to prevent the military from taking over itself.