A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

Re:A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) by tome on Sunday January 11, 2009 @01:21PM (#429364)

My hypothesis is extreme and doesn't necessarily correspond with the real world, but proposing it and modifying it as others come up with criticisms is one pedagogical tool I would like to apply in this situation.

To answer your points:

* yes, Libland could buy Food from alternative sources. To extend the discussion I would need to adjust my hypothesis.

* no, the other states would not come to Libland's aid. If they were libertarian, they would not get involved in other states' disputes, and in any case they would know Libland would never come to their aid, so why should they reciprocate?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) by gaius on Sunday January 11, 2009 @01:56PM (#429399)

But the other states don't matter! If Libertarian country A is in trouble (from an aggressor, not of its own doing) and free citizens from Libertarian country B want to get involved, they are free to do so. It's none of B's government's business! It would not even occur to a Libertarian that he or she might require the government's permission.

Tho' given that the Libertarian value is long-term freedom, it's unlikely for a Libertarian nation (not the same thing as s state) to be caught napping. A Libertarian country is likely to have a well-trained and well-armed militia, but not much equipment or experience or inclination for expeditionary warfare.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) by sfg on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:54PM (#431018)

Indeed, people do go abroad(independently of government decree) to fight for causes they believe in. Just look at the Spanish civil war.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) by gaius on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @01:00PM (#432362)

Or American pilots joining the RAF in WW2.

[ Parent | on HN ]