A Question for Libertarians

[Accountable]

Go back 150 years and look at US history and you would be pretty close IMO

Generally speaking, without the civil rights atrocities, yes.

 

[edgray]

Go back 150 years and look at US history and you would be pretty close IMO

Thanks, going to look in it.

 

[Accountable]

No ambush, I'm genuinely trying to understand the purpose, if any, of libertarian beliefs, and what a libertarian world would look like, how it would function and so forth.

I think it would look pretty close to your brand of anarchy, except that some of the institutions would be formalized in a minimalist government, while others, such as social programs would primarily be more organic.

 

[edgray]

I think it would look pretty close to your brand of anarchy, except that some of the institutions would be formalized in a minimalist government, while others, such as social programs would primarily be more organic.

It does sound quite similar. I have to say I like the idea of social programs being more organic - I take it you would see these coming from and servicing within a local community, perhaps charity based, and based on the local needs? Or a more national type of program?

On a slightly different note, would you see it functioning best with a representative democracy or a direct one?

Going further afield now: Given that the govt is minimal, would their necessarily be a point in this being a democratic society at all? I mean, the govt be taking care of what could be seen as quite mechanical tasks (running the armed forces, for example, maintaining the rule of law etc) so it could perhaps run under some kind of technocratic system?

Thanks for the answers so far.

 

[Accountable]

It does sound quite similar. I have to say I like the idea of social programs being more organic - I take it you would see these coming from and servicing within a local community, perhaps charity based, and based on the local needs? Or a more national type of program?

I personally like things kept as local as possible. Less overhead, greater accountability, and promotes a greater sense of personal responsibility.

On a slightly different note, would you see it functioning best with a representative democracy or a direct one?

"It" being government? As much as I like the idea of direct democracy, and while it would work in smaller towns, direct democracy is simply not practical on a large scale, and so a next-best representative republic model should be used.

Going further afield now: Given that the govt is minimal, would their necessarily be a point in this being a democratic society at all? I mean, the govt be taking care of what could be seen as quite mechanical tasks (running the armed forces, for example, maintaining the rule of law etc) so it could perhaps run under some kind of technocratic system?

Thanks for the answers so far.

Things that can be mechanically run, and I would hardly call keeping a military a mechanical task, should not be run by a government. I'm not versed in technocracy, but from the extremely little I know, it promotes less accountability rather than more.

Ours is a very large country - third largest in the world. There is precious little that can apply to all areas all the time all across the USA. That precious little should be the responsibility of the federal gov't and no more. I don't see a use in a standing military.

More later. Gotta run.