The question libertarians just can’t answer

[winston53660]

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.
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com

 

[lizzie]

Why aren't there any libertarian countries? Probably because there are so few people who can live within the expectations of a libertarian society, which imply that they must meet a basic standard of decent behavior, in relation to their fellow man, without needing the threat of force to insure it.

 

[Spriggs05]

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society.

Who's saying that? No one best knows how to organise modern society. It is too diverse and there is no straight one answer.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The United States was supposed to have been a libertarian society. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

Governments are instituted in order to preserve our rights.

The problem is, some people love power, and others have not been vigilant enough in keeping government to its original purpose. That's why there aren't any truly libertarian societies: Governments have been allowed to usurp power that should reside with the people.

When the power of love supersedes the love of power, then we'll all be free.

 

[Fisher]

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?

You just more or less described Afghanistan pre- 9/11

 

[Thrilla]

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.
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com

plenty of countries are libertarian in a whole plethora of issues... no country is libertarian on every issue.

no country is < insert any political ideology here> on every issue.

 

[SBu]

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-g
overnment 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.
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com

I think you've answered your own question. Not all libertarian views are bad, but they are only realistic if incorporated into more practical systems.

 

[iacardsfan]

Not sure why anybody would write a post about this. Who doesn't want to support at least in some fashion a party that truly stands up for individual rights. Probably just an angry citizen who believed Gary Johnson drew Romney voters and that's why he lost the election :/

 

[LowDown]

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.
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com

The OP is chock a block full of false premises which reflects an inability to think outside of the government-is-all box.

We do have examples of libertarian governments that functioned quite well. The best example is the USA prior to the Civil War. Those were years of unprecedented and never to be repeated growth and increased prosperity. Alas, but it's hard to fight a war that gobbles up all of your resources and remain a Jeffersonian democracy. Lincoln, bless his heart, concentrated a lot of power and authority in the Federal government in those years. Once the government has that power it doesn't give it up.

Libertarians don't pretend to know how to organize society. They think that people know how to do that, though, and that they should be free to do it.

Libertarians have no illusions about creating utopias. What they hope for is the least bad form of government which is the least intrusive form of government. Is there really any argument about that? Who besides the takers thinks it's a good idea to have high taxes? Who besides bureaucrats really benefits from large government?

One would think that on the eve of a military attack on a country that represents no real threat to us that the slaves to big government would be more humble about the virtues of big government and overweening executive power. But they can't connect the dots, I guess.