This post is primarily aimed at : Curiosis, lpetrich, Mrnaglfar, Ebonmuse

I was not keen to post this but I believe my viewpoint has merit.

I am a White, Male, South African now moving to the UK - where I have lived for the last 18 months. I lived through a peaceful regime change and have witnessed some truly spectacular rhetoric in the name of freedom. No more so than displayed here.

I believe that the view expressed on Libertarianism have all left one particular factor unexplored.

CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH and SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Why does this have such important value. Let me outline some key points.

Role of Government in a fully Libertarian State.

1. To provide each citizen individual liberty.
2. To only engage the citizen at his bequest or in the protection of individual liberty.
3. To provide said liberty the governments requires a method of resisting attempts to interfere with individual liberty
4. To gather these funds - taxes will be required.

This is the ultimate in negative freedom. The very founding root of Libertarianism, minimal interference. I argue that in a fully established, educated, small community this is clearly sustainable.

However as the size of the citizenry grows, the physical distance between citizens grows and the difference in wealth grows so does the apparatus necessary to govern the populace. As the factors mentioned above grow so does the risk of outright anarchy or separation into microstates.

Examples : South Africa - Population ~48 Million, one of the 50 Biggest countries in the World, with massive difference between rich and poor.

1. One of the most forward and Liberty enforcing constitutions in the world today.
2. A predominantly free market
3. A massive underclass
4. Insufficient jobs for the uneducated
5. Moderate Taxes.
6. Minimal public housing
7. Minimal public healthcare
8. Are not engaged in any foreign disputes (Wars/etc)
9. Are surrounded by slightly unstable countries
10 High immigration.

The result of these factors is such that the government requires a massive outlay of funds just to provide basic governments functions. Distances being the size they are it is near impossible for a central body to efficiently handle all the distributed regions in any coherent fashion.

The poor rise up against the rich taking by force what cannot be gained by labour. The police are overcome by numbers. Private security firms guard property against theft and murder. And hi-jackings at gun-point are common.

There is no self defence against crimes committed with military precision.

We claim negative liberty and are heading progressively towards a libertarian state, however in this case socio-economic factors lead to Anarchy. Right by might.
Even the wealthy would rather use their wealth outside of the country as it is too risky to use it here. It has becomes a dog eat dog, exploitative state where only the strong survive.

Even though I have liberty. I am completely free to do many things. I have almost no choices to make as it is a race to the bottom of choices. Choose the lesser of evils.
In the end the only alternative is to leave.

The point most people miss here is that massive funds are required to offer an attractive alternative to crime. Desperate people will do desperate things and a no social-safety-net creates more desperate people.

Now most Libertarian discussion is being made from the the view of the US or UK.

And my point comes down to this: Assuming 100% efficiency and an accurate enforcement of Game Theory, Libertarianism WILL win. If all were fully invested to make the best of themselves and strive for the betterment of the state the outcome would certainly be favourable.

However Libertarianism is an extreme doctrine, it makes assumptions that given observable human behaviour are not valid.

As an ATHEIST site, I would assume that all here are fully aware that using extensive scientific data, and observation of the environments and the interaction between the elements that make up a culture would be paramount.

When the dichotomy is as stark as it is now and growing the expectation of people to improve in the fashion you expect is as idealistic as Communism. Working for the betterment of all among 220+ Million people is statistically improbable. The poor do not work to make the rich richer. When there are more lucrative alternatives. There was a reason for the various revolutions of the last century.

So, fundamentally to avoid a revolution or regime change you need to convince the populace that you are at least TRYING to keep them safe. And that even the weakest member will be protected from the wealthy. That the poor supporting the wealthy will result in some of the funds of the wealthy supporting their social support structure which they alone could not afford due to education or financial situation.

Simply put Libertarianism has a week social-contract and none of the protections offered to protect the wealthy from the poor and vice versa. Game Theory forces the wealthy to maximise the value from the market which is forced to exploit those who cannot defend themselves - the poor. It breeds a new aristocracy which leads to greater dichotomy which leads to 2 possible outcomes.

Corporate Feudalism (Corporate mini-states) or Revolution into Anarchy. Neither of which offer any incentive for the lofty goals of global emancipation from poverty and universal education.

Please remember that this is a multi generational plan. Something humans are (to my knowledge) unique in achieving.

As long as the Greater Freedoms exists - Freedom to life, expression and association from which all other freedoms stem then paying the price to raise the lowest common denominator so that the weakest members of society are forced into basic level of capability until their age of majority. Through adequate food, education, housing, health and social support until they are ready to take part in society in a contributory fashion you extend the society and increase the potential for contribution later. Over very few generation this society would be well placed to improve humanity as a whole.

To the zealously Darwinian this may appear counter intuitive. Libertarianism would be fine if we were tigers or bears, animal that after birth are equipped to survive with rudimentary support from our elders showing us the basic of survival and then leaving us to roam free (negative liberty). Allow for us to exact from the environment as much as life can provide. Brilliant - but tigers and bears though individually powerful suffer horribly under rapid environment changes they have no social-security-net.

I simply advocate extending the human tendency to band together and extend on that in an intentional fashion. Success through raw competition is no longer viable - Game Theory and Corporate Collusion have already demonstrated that in a truly free market the rich will get richer a lot faster than the poor will emancipate themselves.

Pardon the long ramble and this is where I may become slightly inflammatory. Quite often the ones advocating Libertarianism are from one of two backgrounds.

1) A wealthy established family, hoping to perpetuate there wealth through minimal through reduction in the taxes.

2) A poor neighbourhood, where cunning, skill and exploitation of there peers have made them a founding member of background 1.

Although I was lucky enough to be a 3rd generation of background 2, through some hard times and some exposure to people living through all manner of hardship I have come to realise social responsibility will be undermined by Libertarianism.

Rant - Over

But as for Libertarianism...
Republican economics is NOT an accurate portrayal of Libertarianism, even if it borrows the term from time to time. Libertarianism is alot less simple that that. Libertarians prefer to avoid Governmental intervention not because of morals and political theories, but because it's usually economically inefficient.

If an interventionist policy is not inefficient, not all Libertarians are going to oppose it. For example, governmental correction for externalities is economically optimal. And, as the post said, good health is a positive externality.

Perhaps I'm agreeing with the original post, which (despite the title) drew a distinction between true Libertarianism and conservative economics.

Furthermore, there's a common anti-immigration argument to the effect that immigrants want to stick their snouts in the public trough and live off of welfare.

Oh pah-leeze. Why is half the Earth trying to imigrate here then? We have not become a nanny state like the UK and most of Europe, at least.

A combination of lingering hype and the fact that things are worse in many ways where they live. So what? Why does the fact that things could be worse here excuse them not being better?

Personally my health coverage is just fine.

It must be awfully lonely being the only person on the planet.

Universal health coverage is NOT a right. Face it, the Canadian model is broken, just ask them or read their papers. We do not want to go there, no matter what the Democratic presidential candidates say.

Evidence, plsthx.

Stumpy thinks anything run by a government is a failure.
i wonder if he thinks our roads are a failure? would he privatize police and fire departments? the military? city parks? or public education (thus educating only those who can afford it)? would he abolish the weekend, the 40 hour work week, etc?

O and the UK's NHS may not be the best example of government run healthcare, being a treatment centered system, unlike the prevention centered systems in Denmark, Germany, and elsewhere.....but it works, and delays in optional surgeries are no longer than insurance-imposed delays in the USA. besides, Stumpy, you may have to face up to the fact that the brits may not be as good with social policy administration as the the swedes, the danes, the french, the italians.

Curiosis apparently thinks poor people are dumb. the difference in stories Cur, is sometimes intelligence, sometimes the breaks, sometimes friends helping out. there is no such thing as a person who 'made it on their own', since all things are contingent.

taxes are not theft, they are the rent you pay to live in a community. but then, libertarians seem to have real difficulties with community.