Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisbennet | Hacker News Reader

“It’s great to be around people who understand. I don’t get how the left won’t just admit that income tax is theft. Who cares if it’s for a good cause?"

Can someone give me an example of a government where Libertarian principles have been successfully implemented? It doesn't have to be perfect (nothing with humans ever is) but at least something that is non-imaginary would be helpful in making their case.

View on HN

USA 1776-1915 - Went from 3rd world to 1st world, fastest time ever, despite a civil war and many other challenges. India 1980-2000 - Not a libertarian country at all, but went from hard socialist to more moderate and doubled the average income of a billion people China 1990-2010 - Again not a "perfect" country, but by allowing capitalism, which is another way of saying reducing regulation, produced a massive economic boom and a massive increase in prosperity.

You're correct to recognize that it is a scale of grey. Historically, countries that are more libertarian (e.g.: economic and social freedom) have better outcomes than countries that are more authoritarian.

If you're counting the slave holding United States as a 'libertarian' society you're rather stretching the term. Beyond that, there are countless ways in which even white protestant Americans were subject to the state in the US, both locally and federally. I don't think it should count.

Since the basis of your response is several lies about what I said, your argument is nil.

> USA 1776-1915 - Went from 3rd world to 1st world, fastest time ever, despite a civil war and many other challenges

There are so many errors here that its hard to know when to start. But lets start with this--at no time that the US existed did it bear a relation to the more developed nations of the time similar to those of a modern LDC; it was a set of reasonably wealthy colonies of the world's dominant power that was almost immediately upon independence the dominant economic power of its region.

Your description confuses being born on third base with hitting a triple.

Because the state has taken up ALL the arable land on the entire planet. There is no where for them to go. If you show me a place that is exempt from laws and people can willingly go to peacefully make their own state, then by all means, we'll show you a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society.

Let me just say this again, because it needs to be said over and over again. All the arable and usable land has been taken over and controlled by the state. All.

This is kinda devils-advocate-y, but it's worth remembering that if the world is a certain way, there's probably a reason for it. The fact that pretty much all of the livable land is either controlled by relatively powerful states, or occupied by tribal people with beliefs entirely incompatible with libertarianism, tells us something about how the world works.

If you want to form a country, or some entity with sovereignty over a decent-size plot of land, then you're going to need a military. That military will have to actually be loyal to the government/leadership and the population of that place. If you don't have that, then some other more established country will come take over, or at least have such strong influence that they are de facto in charge.

That's why I don't think pure libertarianism is tenable - if you don't have some sort of powerful state, then some other powerful state will come take over your society. There's still plenty of room for debate on exactly what the role of that state is, and how the leadership is chosen and laws are made, but I don't think you can ever get around that. It's kinda like claiming that total pacifism is the best philosophy, but it never had a chance because all of these other big meanies keep squashing it. Like it or not, those big meanies are part of the world too, and if your philosophy can't handle them, then it's no good.

Failed nation states are places without laws. Laws require someone to exercise control. Governments just don't do that for free.

I can see the appeal of being left alone in peace.

Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated?

The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants.

"Certainly you can see the appeal of being able to live on a river that isn't polluted, or being able to drink water that isn't contaminated?" That's called damage to property (my body, or my section of the river), or possibly an act of aggression. Both are covered by anarcho-capitalist and libertarian philosophies.

"The only reason you can do that is because big brother uses those ("taken by force") taxes to keep the poor factory owner (who just wants to be left alone) from dumping his mercury where ever he wants." Ah, yes... I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

I cannot because I am under the impression that for the most part Libertarian philosophies haven't been implemented on a wide enough scale in any country to satisfy people who believe in them.

This may be part of the appeal to some people to see such a system attempted. And it is definitely a common reason used against such a system.

Ask yourself should we (as human beings) be against systems which have not been implemented yet? And if so how do new systems come into existence if we are?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com