Power tools ? With no electricity ? See what I mean ? Even YOU , in a hypothetical / dream world, can't fathom reality. The true / valid consiquence of going to some barren ( pristine ? ) place, to form a new Libertarian nation, haved failed, right out of the box, to imagined what those foolhardy and delusional to attempt such a thing, would face.
This is sillier than a " MONTY PYTHON " sketch ! Whether one could mass 200 or 2,000, or 20,000 people to go off to some "new " land, it would be an utter disaster in less than a week. LOL
But it's the best way to establish the credit of a new nation as we saw with the United States.
Since there aren't enough Libertarians, the " new country " would be impecunious from the start.
What ConservativeDude and I were talking about wasn't the hypothetical Libertarian takeover of a state, it was the hypothetical founding of a new nation based on constitutional principles. In any case, it's hypothetical, so don't go off half-cocked, like I've seen you do on many occasions. You've shown a habit of being very intolerant of contemplative discussions. In other words, loosen up a little. The great philosophers enjoyed contemplating hypotheical stiuations. It's not evil. LOL
Libertarians, like Objectivists, aren't philanthropic; hence, not a one would bankroll such a demented ideda.
It was done in 1776, were the founding fathers demented?
Why should they ? Don't Libertarians claim that self sufficancy is the ONLY way to go ? Wouldn't a single ( or even a few ) " moneymen ", then demand to rule ?
I'm going to ignore your references to "Libertarians" and assume you are referring to the foundation of a new nation of conservatives, I would not help in establishing any nation of anarchy. Moneymen care about money. A lot of business owners feel the same way about freedom as we do, they are not socialists like Soros and Buffet. A lot of business owners support the Republican Party, those are the ones that would be of benefit to us and themselves in the framework of freedom.
That's human nature ; you know, along with consequences, something Libertarians refuse , utterly and completely, to ever take into consideration.
If it's human nature, why didn't Washington demand to be emperor? There are a class of people in this world that understand freedom and would not work to undermine it. Freedom was preserved in this country for 150 years until the election of FDR when people began voting themselves other people's money. The problems this nation has experienced began when that genie was let out of the bottle. Since we've started on that path, there's been no turning back yet. Reagan slowed it down, but that's the best we can hope for. We need to look at what started us on that path. Too much unselective immigration in the early 1900s? Maybe so. The seeds of the Federal Reserve being sown? Maybe so.
Power tools ? With no electricity ?
Power plants are impossible to build nowadays? The greatest men remembered of the last 300 years were men that did not go on a power grab. They were men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. They were moderately wealthy men who contibuted to the founding of a nation. The same could happen again. A rich man who has everything always wants that little something extra, fame. That's why they go on these ill-conceived philanthropic adventures that don't really help anyone. What if they had a chance to establish their names by sponsoring a new nation renewing a commitment to freedom? There may be some takers. What else have they got to do? There've been thousands of rich men in the world since 1800. Most are forgotten.
See what I mean ? Even YOU , in a hypothetical / dream world, can't fathom reality. The true / valid consiquence of going to some barren ( pristine ? ) place, to form a new Libertarian nation, haved failed, right out of the box, to imagined what those foolhardy and delusional to attempt such a thing, would face.
Yeah, you're right, it certainly didn't work on the North American continent, did it? Henry Ford bascically built himself a small country in Michigan. Just one guy did this. You get enough financial backing and it could be done.
This is sillier than a " MONTY PYTHON " sketch ! Whether one could mass 200 or 2,000, or 20,000 people to go off to some "new " land, it would be an utter disaster in less than a week. LOL
No it couldn't be done with 20,000. How much longer before it becomes necessary though? Like I said before, every year more and more people either work for the government or become otherwise dependent on a dwindling percentage of producers in the private sector. There must be a breaking point somewhere. Where is this breaking point? Will it be one guy producing and 280,000,000 million people living off of him? No it won't go that far, so how far will it go? Grab a Rand McNally Road atlas book, look at how much property the government now owns out west. They're trying to own it all. At what point will they stop these land grabs? Where's the breaking point there? I remember reading in history that the government would obtain land and then turn it over to the people to develop. When did that process reverse? What principles still exist now that existed pre-FDR? Not very many.