The question libertarians just can’t answer - By Michael Lind

[DonViejo]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

BY MICHAEL LIND

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

[JoePhilly]

1. Isn't Somalia close?

[Chan790]

2. That was my thinking.

Somalia is the model Libertarian nation-state.

[Rozlee]

8. Somalia failed as a libertarian state.

It now has a transitional federal government. Que triste. Even warlords get the blues and want the peace of sitting back and playing Plants vs. Zombies on their Kindles in peace. Hug a warlord today.

[navarth]

3. Haiti? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Google around and you'll find a lot of libertrians in love with...

Switzerland.

Granted, taxes are high, they subsidize agriculture and they bailed out their biggest bank, but the ron paul forum and other libertarian sites are fascinated with the place. One guy even went there to check it out.

It's the best they got-- mostly business friendly and they all have guns.

[Aristus]

5. 'Taxes are high' ought to be the end of it right there. Don't libertarians consider taxes to be

unlawful? And in Switzerland, even though all Army reservists are permitted to keep their weapons and ammo in their own homes in case of military emergency, they are regulated so strictly and enforced so strongly, that no American libertarian would permit it.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. That's why it's hilarious that it's the best they can do...

Face it-- extremes in governing just don't work. Every successful nation has various degrees of freedom and authority and mixes of economic theory to make it work.

Not everyone has the same mix, though, which is what makes it interesting if we could just learn from the successful ones and stop spouting dogma on all sides.

[IdaBriggs]

7. The folks who flourish in this type of environment are usually called "warlords" --

and the rest of the people are called "peasants"; Libertarians are scary, ignorant dreamers. The more you know about their "governing philosophies" the less you want them in positions of power to try their "grand experiments."

[bemildred]

9. Libertarianism is unstable, it decays into feudalism. nt

[Jamaal510]

10. Libertarianism is like sugar;

a little bit of it sprinkled in improves the taste, but too much of it is unhealthy. Under a 100% libertarian country, it would basically be a lawless land. While many American libertarians do hold a few stances that are sensible such as opposing federal drug prohibition and phone tracking, their views are extreme outside of that. Under their ideology, businesses would be free to discriminate, any random lunatic would be able to purchase a weapon or bring weapons on airplanes, and poor people would be disenfranchised and have little or no access to education. This is close to how it used to be in the Gilded Era and before, and we all know how that worked out for most people...

[freshwest]

11. Terrific, thanks.

[Psephos]

12. Answer: because demagoguery and agitprop are more emotionally appealing.

Kind of like asking why Beethoven and Gershwin don't outsell Justin Bieber and Katy Perry.