What you propose is begging for the anarchy you claim you don't support. I don't understand how you can speak out of both directions. It is like saying "abolish the EPA", and then saying "I do not want pollution" while somehow expecting companies regulate their waste themselves. A small government means the big corporations will be your warlords.

I also didn't say that EXC claimed no military, roads, or police. He said he wanted them all privatized. Not public. Are you saying you are okay with the rest of the things listed being privately owned instead of public?

No, it just implies that in the face of all the evidence you still stubbornly believe capitalism, by means of magic dust, will never threaten your personal liberty. What can I say, You must be pretty young, I guess.

Weak government equates to anarchy in a capitalist economy. So yes, you are implying that you want no government.

Perhaps I should clarify my post by saying that the Swiss army is extremely outnumbered, by ctizens with guns, yet no anarchy.

The militia are led by them. They still have police also, in their socialist state.

The citizens are not professionals. I don't see your point still.

Are you trying to say Switzerland has a strong military (militia)?

So, only Solmalia, would be considered a "libertarian utopia"?

As implied in my first post, wouldn't North Korea be a "Socialist utopia" seeing as the government controls just about everything?

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the more Libertarian it is. The more government programs it has, the more socialist it is. So Solmalia would be considered Libertarian and North Korea considered Socialist.

I don't really see anything in Libertarianism that consitutes no government programs, or no government [which would be anarchism]

So pure anarchism [no government] and pure socialsm [government controls everything] don't work.

Once again Libertarianism is not anarchy.

 [edit]

The question in Libertarianism isn't "Do we need government?" it's "Do we need so much government?"

[/edit]

That quote took all my room.
English
Noun
socialism(uncountable)
1. Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-makingand public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.

Explain how NK fits this description.

I see, some people in the thread have replaced their god delusion with a government delusion

Yourself perhaps?

Your questions have been answered several times already. Somalia is the only country with no functioning government, that would appease all the libertarians that want the government to do NOTHING For them.

North Korea is not socialist. There is a high degree of inequality in that statist nation. How does the public own the public resources in their country? How do they vote out their dictator?

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is. According to your own list. Unless you are trying to tell me that Switzerland, which you are championing as libertarian somehow, is a "free market paradise" with private ownership over public services.

The definition of libertarianism goes from minanarchist to anarchist.  Both lead to anarchy, directly or indirectly. This has already been discussed. Do try to keep up.

Did anyone claim that government needed to control everything? Socialism is not authoritarianism either by the way.

Once again libertarian obviously leads to anarchy. A small government will be pushed around. Public services need to be publicly owned, not handed over to private interest. The conflict of interest is too great, when someone has to choose on a daily basis between personal gain and public welfare.

I'm not the one claiming the socialism leads to anarchy or a deprived government.

So in other words as long as it's a democracy, then no anarchy? What in Libertarianism negates democracy?

For fuck's sake, just because countries on those lists have socialist programs, doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian. Once again, pure Libertarianism and pure socialism don't work.

Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

Once again, Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. We NEED government, the question is do we need so much?

And "weak government" Weak in what way? The government will still have a military/police under the Libertarianism.

What ARE you claiming? Please, tell us. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Are you claiming that Switzerland is ran by libertarians?

The only thing I can seem to understand from your writing is that you don't comprehend what socialism is.  Pro tip: public or direct worker ownership. The government works for you.

Libertarianism IS minarchist to anarchist. Privatizing  and deregulating everything leads directly to this. Even if you decide that "the free market" doesn't work for military/police, it will simply change who orders them by who has the money to lean on people that have control over them. That is what happens when industry gets too powerful. People shouldn't be forced to choose between personal and public welfare over public goods. Look at Lieberman in the U.S., where the constituency of his state overwhelming supports the public option. He said he would support it, until the insurance industry put 3 million into his campaign. His wife works for Hill and Knowlton, advising pharmaceudical and health insurance lobbyists. When they are powerful enough they can buy what they want out of a weaker government. Our government in the U.S. is growing weaker and weaker, and is unable to provide adequately for most of it's citizens today. This has nothing to do with military power. This has to do with signing away of public rights to private companies, for profit.

If it is a private good, by all means it should be allowed to have a place, regulated, in a mixed economy. But this is not what libertarianism asks for. Libertarians want reduction of government, or abolishment of government. This includes regulation, and public services. Abolishment of public schools is one big easy example. It is a public service that is needed by society, and should not be limited to being a for-profit enterprise.

I am a social democrat, and a liberal. I believe capitalism and socialism are needed. However, they are NOT opposing forces as you seem to be thinking. This is why I did not bother responding to your thread this summer, because I didn't want to waste my time. Just because there is a public availability of something does not mean private industry is banned from it. 

There are thousands of ways to build a government. Libertarianism is designed on reducing or removing all of them. That is it's very ideology. It ends up leading to the free market through deregulation, so that is why that is so embraced along with it. 

You cannot guarantee personal freedoms without a government strong enough to protect them. Abandoning the public to the wolves of the free market for things necessary to society, is not something to praise. It does nothing but harm that society.

The opposite to libertarianism is authoritarianism. I am in the center of this spectrum in my beliefs. However, my beliefs have no influence on the problems with libertarianism that I have described in this thread.

Libertarianism WISHES for economic freedom. That is the goal. However, in practice, according to Pineapple's list of countries, socialist states dominate that list.

What I was pointing out was that, if libertarianism (free market) gave economic freedom, shouldn't all of the top countries be far from the socialist states most of them are? Shouldn't the list be filled with countries with entirely deregulated industries?

The free market destroys itself. Eventually you end up with nothing but monopolies or oligopolies. This isn't rocket science.

I don't see how anyone could support this idea. Capitalism is fine, but not laissez-faire.

If you read the OP in that topic, I said that I support universal health care, but it should be opened to competition just like any other government program.

I can't start my own public transit company [from points to within the city, not something like Greyhound which is from city to city] because the government owns the public transit and stomps out competiition, which means they can charge whatever they want, run whatever routes they want and not have to worry about losing customers, because even if they did, tax dollars will subsidize them.

Rofl, make that three times, since you've confused socialism with communism.

Your descriptions of both fall far short of the mark. For the THIRD time in A ROW, I direct you to the dictionary.

Communism (from communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Socialismrefers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on

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

"Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production."

Sounds like NK to me. Some socialists want total state control of the economy. Like the socialists running NK.

"Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production)."

Seems like the communist countries are considered a form of socialism here.

"Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society."

Another communist socialist.

"Many termed the Soviet Union "socialist", not least the Soviet Union itself, but also commonly in the USA, China, Eastern Europe, and many parts of the world where Communist Parties had gained a mass base. In addition, scholarly critics of the Soviet Union, such as economist Friedrich Hayek were commonly cited as critics of socialism."

More communist socialists. The states that called themselves "communist" were socialist states. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has a 100% centrally planned economy. You can't get any more socialist than that.

I thought that it was clear that centrally planned economies (like NK or the old USSR) were socialist. I thought that a centrally planned economy is the hight of socialism. Do Canadians use a definition of socialism that is contrary to the US definition?

Weak representation.

You're definitely on your own in here on believeing that Cap. Jormangunder and EXC do not agree with you that extensive socialism in the state is harmonious with libertarian captalism in the economy. You seem to be the sane one that recognises Switzerland as strong evidence flying in the face of that, good. But don't think they'll agree with you.

Just to be clear, I mean weak in democratic representation. Democracy requires, more or less, equal power distribution. For example take Hong Kong, a successful experiement in capitalism run economies - the public owns all the land, which gives the people strength over the corporations they house which they don't have to take in taxes, but even with that they have still expanded their state to cover gaps in representation.

A strong representative state is necessary where capitalism is allowed to run, Why? because capitalism generates power classes, not just freedoms as some libertarians would like us to believe.

Yes. I believe if you business is going to use a lot of land, you should pay a user fee to the rest of society for this priveldge. Because if one makes the land private, then it is not available for use by others. So essentially you pay off everyone else to leave you alone on your land. But this discourages waistful use of the land and monopolization of the land.

But this is why I'm not in sync with most libertarians and conservatives that think owning land and doing with it as you please it their "right".

Are capitalists putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for things you don't want or need? How are they trading in blood? Are you talking about arms merchants?

"Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development"

Soviet Russia was neither communist nor socialist. You're allowing propoganda to define terms. By definition, NK is statist, and a dictatorship, which means it is incapable of being socialist or communist, both of which are PUBLIC ownership of all things, including the government. A dictatorship precludes the possibility of any form of socialism.

"Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production)."

Socialism is more than just an economic policy, it is a social one as well (I'd have thought the word alone would tip you off). If you take away half of something, it no longer fits the definition of the whole.

Lies and strawmen, thanks for your lack of contribution to the topic.

What libertarians in the wild may actually look like. 

Apologies, you are correct. I have edited my post accordingly.

OK let's talk about that.

Profitable businesses and high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes - they pay their lawyers handsomely to keep that from happening or they stash money offshore (which really doesn't help the economy of the country they're in).

Why does their freedom have to sit on my back?

This is probably where you ask me why I don't hire my own high-powered tax attorney instead of answering my question.

Love to be proven wrong here.

As far as "pay as you go" - great idea unless someone prices essential services out of the range of average people. Then everything stops.

Sitting on someone else's back? Not with my income - I work in education.

Personally I think that Obama's mistake is trying to save capitalism aka reanimating a corpse.

LMAO, I guess you didn't understand the maths then. I said the relative use of resources by the poor in comparison to the wealthy was so low that it approached zero on the scale. Basically, the consumption of resources by the wealthy can be orders of magnitude larger than that of the working class, so that a single unit of wealthy consumption dwarfs an entire sum of impoverished consumption.

Well, aren't you just a fluffy ball of humanity, then. Wow.