A few have made comments about Libertarian ideas being akin to anarchy, wherein obviously it's impossible to get along without any kind of government. Examples of poor places in the world have been proffered to show how bad the plight of those people are because of the lack of government.
Of course, given what the powers that be tell us, it appears that this must be the case. Government, they tell us, is absolutely required to keep everyone in line. That right there should tell you something about government.
Unfortunately, the examples offered, in my opinion, are flawed. The governments in those places are not absent for the most part - they are completely corrupt and do everything they can to keep their people poor and ignorant. Where they are absent, yes, there is anarchy - no one to enforce the rule of law, property rights, and the right of people, as Steve says, to "act" in any meaningful way. They let the people alone until the encroach into those in power's fiefdoms. As I mentioned, look at Paraguay - certainly there is quite a bit of government there, so much so that the people can't even keep the president they elected.
Why? Because they are total powers over the people, not the opposite. They control everything in the country, including opportunities for people to advance, unless you are one of the fortunate to be in the class of people with money and influence. The only way anyone can take anything from those who "have" is at gunpoint as well, and it is difficult, not to mention dangerous, to do so and most people are not going to risk it, nor do they have sufficient resources, either knowledge or wealth, to organize and do anything. Thus, they suffer.
What would have happened if the US had not become so federally strong? The founders of the US specifically kept powerful states because they WANTED variety. They wanted a bunch of different experiments going on at the same time, competition among aligned, cooperating governments that shared a same basic legal framework. (Almost sounds like the EU experiment at its base...)
So what does that mean, that the individual states couldn't get together and defend themselves without a standing army, nor cooperate amongst themselves to defend against the country as a whole? They did a pretty good job of that against England in the latter part of the 18th century, actually.
The founders wrote about often the danger of a federal standing army. They were worried about both foreign "adventuring" and the use of force against US citizens equally. Strong state militias were encouraged.
Freedom, no matter what form it takes, requires individual knowledge to win and to keep.
I'm not suggesting that any country should try to embrace even moderate elements of Libertarianism without the very people who are to rule themselves understanding what they are doing. The government must take care of people that are ignorant and helpless - the idea is to change people from ignorant and helpless to knowledgeable and confident in their own abilities.
I don't buy that people are inherently ignorant and helpless. I believe that they are a product, for the most part, of their environment.
I don't buy that anarchy would break out if government were smaller and restricted from butting into things like regulation and even some of the criminal laws and the way to deal with them that are often mandated from a federal level. So many of the regulations put into place come about specifically after government intervention that allowed things to go wrong to begin with.
Let's go back to the concept of more powerful states and a less powerful federal government.
What happens if someone doesn't like how a state manages things? They move. A lot of that happens now. I think California is for the most part a beautiful state, but I would never live there by simple choice. I think people there have caught a mania, that in recent decades even drives the rest of the country as the concepts are spread by the federal government to other states in the form of federal mandates and laws which must be obeyed or lose federal funding at the least.
One thing I do like that California tried to do is legalize gay marriages and decriminalize marijuana. One was defeated by local referendum (not a great decision, I thought, but at least it was determined locally and not federally), but the other was quashed by the federal government.
In the meantime, how much money is spent on the "War on Drugs" and to what purpose? Has it made a bit of difference on the country? Yes, but not to the positive. It creates a huge black market because those who will partake, will partake no matter what the federal government says. Hell, Argentina with currency controls should show that to people living here and dealing with that stupidity. But drugs as a black market item are more dangerous because it brings in a bigger criminal element for a smaller group of people, and those criminals are dangerous. Hell, alcohol prohibition should have taught us a lesson.
In the meantime, marijuana itself is less harmful on the whole than alcohol.
Cocaine? Heroin? I have a hard time with those. As I said, I don't have the answers.
But why do you think that a lord, either private or corporate, would set up power in a particular state, as an example? Who would let them? That's why laws exist! I NEVER said there should be no government, just that it should be as small as possible. All of the states should have a basic framework they must adhere to (the federal constitution) and their individual state constitutions cannot contradict something the federal constitution contains.
Free market DOES take care of monopolies. I still challenge anyone to show me a monopoly that was not set up or supported by the government that maintained any kind of success? I can certainly come up with a list of monopolies that were created either by direct or indirect support of the government.
What I mention related to states adhering to the US constitution but having their own set of local laws is actually pretty much how things are supposed to work now. But the federal government has grabbed an enormous amount of power in its ability to tax, borrow and raise and keep a standing army. Right now, the distribution of federal money is the biggest hold that exists on the States, if one puts aside the fact that if any states try to secede, the federal government will send troops to stop it from doing so.
The federal government is the "lord" you all fear.
The US constitution is a list of things that are supposed to provide a framework. Things that are not specifically mentioned are not to be considered errors of omission that need eventually to be legislated, but rather rights left to the people.
A good example of government force, in my opinion, is the federal government now telling the US population that it must buy health insurance or suffer the wrath of the powers that be. Who do you think profits from that? Do you all REALLY believe that the health care plan that passed a while ago and just now allowed to be implemented fully by the jokers on the US Supreme Court is going to make things cheaper and give better access to everyone and that there will be no corruption and no one is going to profit overly much, that only the good of the people are served?
I know the answer to that from many, because of course a lot do. Nearly blind faith in government (at least government run by YOUR side), that if they tell us so, it must be. But that may be one of the things that ends up causing the US government to actually default on its loans under the cost and burden of such a monstrosity. If the US doesn't default but prints more money to cover the debts, the only thing that will do is completely ruin the US Dollar and cause other countries to lose what little shred of trust in the dollar that currently exists in the world.
I mean damn, we are financing all of these programs by loans! Our debtors won't continue to support our insanity much longer.
Even if you really thought that the health care bill would be a good idea - what about the way in which it was passed and then the excuse used by the federal government to the Supreme Court to approve it? Do the ends justify the means? Does everyone out there really think that only the hardcore "right" opposed the bill and that was why there was such a problem? Even if it WAS only the hardcore right, what RIGHT did the Left have to push such a thing on people who didn't agree with it?
After 8 years of GWB, doing things like invading Iraq on the slimmest of excuses and bringing a war that brought a ton of debt, the PATRIOT Act and other blindly obvious ways to take more freedom from the people of the US, after all the bitching and moaning that Democrats and middle of the road folk did about the way Bush handled his presidency, they elected Obama, who swore he wasn't like others in government. His presidency, by damn, would be open and transparent and would unite the country.
BS.
Look at the way they ended up passing the health care bill. They cheated. They used a technicality to get the bill passed. They used cronyism and pressure politics and then used a technicality to avoid another vote which may have lost them the bill, because a staunch supporter of theirs in Congress died at the wrong time and a Republican got his old seat.
And then, after States sued the government's ability to force US citizens and corporations to buy something whether they wanted to or not, they changed their tune and called it a tax, and the illustrious members of the Supreme Court said "oh, snap! OK!"
Is that REALLY the kind of government you want? If you answer "no", you must realize that it wasn't always that way. The size of the government grows and grows and it becomes more and more powerful.
I'd be tickled s**tless if the US did nothing more than got rid of the Fed, reduced the government by half and restructured the tax system. Reexamine federal programs with an honest eye to what works and what doesn't, including health care. If you want to implement something for poor and indigent people to ensure they get equal health care, OK, let's talk about it. I don't like it, I think like any other program it will fail and not provide what is intended, but rather will cause unintended consequences, but I'm not a dictator to say everyone should think like me.
But I'd rather by far it were decided on a State-by-State basis so I have the freedom to move to a State where health care is not forced.
I happen to love the fact that Texas doesn't have a state income tax, for example, and if I ever move back to Texas and they implement a state income tax, well, I'll move to Florida or another state that does not have a state income tax.
Of course, huge changes will most likely never happen until something like a default on US loans happens, or something even more severe. Too many people think that money is just created out of thin air and that that's OK, and that the government, for the most part, knows what it's doing.
If the US were to default on its loans, it would make Argentina's problems in 2002 look tiny by comparison. If it were to devalue its currency enough to pay off those loans (since those loans are made in US dollars as well), industry and commerce in the US will look like Argentina. And so on.
Can't keep writing a free ticket when you don't have the money. Can't borrow to pay back outstanding loans and keep going. So many things that we just can't do, but the federal government is trying to do so anyway.
