I stopped reading after the first sentence where the writer think it’s 1955 out there.
If you want to know what a libertopians utopia looks like read “Brave New World”
Libertarians, “”give me full term abortion, gay marriage, crack and hookers, weak nation defense, and open borders today, and I will gladly pay you small government and a return to traditional America on Tuesday.””
I think if you wanted to build a “new nation” you would be almost better off making it a subterranean country that you basically dig out somewhere under the heartland.
Pros.
Constant Temps
Safe from most Natural disasters
Once you are sealed up the government would have a hard time getting at you.
Access to clean water via directly accessing aquifers.
Might be able to use some sort of geothermal power as a power source.
Access to plenty of minerals and hydrocarbons for manufacturing needs.
Cons.
Not earthquake safe
Need a power supply
No sunlight
You might run into Mole people...
Challenges.
Would need to find a way to grow food
Need to Recycle the air/human waste/ trash garbage/ etc..
Need artifical Lighting system and day/night protocol.
Tech that would be needed.
Thorium Salt reactors with closed Loop Cycles for energy production.
Air reconditioning tech possible hydrolysis tech to use underground water to generate air.
Underground infrastructure that could be expanded using mining technology.
3-D Printing to make parts and equipment.
i think you could make an “underground colony” a Whole lot easier than a Moon colony and make it self sufficient a LOT easier.
Plus it could be used to generate the tech needed FOR a moon base later on.
‘Ayn Rand’s Objectivism contained a ‘fatal flaw’, says Shimek. She confused capitalism, a system that gives wealthy owners control over workers, with free markets, which depend on individual autonomy. ‘Capitalists are always in favour of keeping their piece of the pie through political power,’ Shimek told me. ‘When General Motors screws up, it has enough power to convince the government to bail it out.’
There’s plenty to criticize with Rand, but that misses the mark. This guy apparently hasn’t read her magnum opus, which is very much concerned with “capitalists” buying political influence. She captured that pretty well.
These people sound a lot like anarchists, whose utopian visions are just as absurd as those of the communists. The only difference is that their vision didn’t murder hundreds of millions of people last century. There are legitimate purposes and roles for government, few though they may be. The U.S. Constitution gives a very nice outline. Some country should try it.
Yeah, it’s called Hell.
LOVE IT! My kinda chefs!
The lack of government is called 'anarchy'---the poor dear is quite ignorant.
>> Article: A good thing about working with libertarians is that no one expects to coerce you into participating in something you don’t approve of.
This might be the case for the classic libertarian; however, many of those that belong to the modern Libertarian movement are more than happy to embrace law that forces individuals into complying with behavior and policies Conservatives consider immoral. I emphasize these Libertarians promote such laws. That’s not libertarianism.
Too many Libertarians accept the killing of nascent life as a right, and welcome law that forces citizens to support and service homosexuality. This is a fact, and it contradicts the author’s statement about the goodness of “working with libertarians.”
The modern Libertarian is often a Liberal coward that fears what it helped the Left to create.
Libertarian-theme threads—always such fun to read!
‘All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.’
Some interesting points in there.
The thread so far has 181 comments. At least eleven individual FReepers on this thread are at ease with and even in agreement with the small-l libertarian philosophy of smaller government.
At most five individual FReepers on this thread, dominated in posts very heavily by one individual, accuse small-l libertarian thinkers of supporting, advocating, and enabling heinous moral abominations, and by extension grievously insulting the honor and integrity and basic human decency of .. well, ELEVEN FReepers at least, not to mention countless lurkers.
FIVE measly people who willfully indulge in false witness to "support" their arguments, versus ELEVEN level-headed patriots who understand, as does Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, that small-l libertarian principle is the foundation of limited government, which is in turn the foundation of living MORALLY.
Jim and Admin Mods, how is it that you have deleted posts and chastised Yours Truly for doing MUCH LESS than the one hysterically anti-libertarian poster on this thread has done here and over many months past.
How many FReeper donations aren't you getting because of newbies who come here looking for kindred spirits -- which more than doubles the non-kindred spirits on this thread in REAL numbers -- but who are made to feel so unwelcome by what looks like more than a few guys accusing said small-l libertarians of wanting to enable and legalize child porn and abortion?
Hullllo?
"By some accounts" conceals a lot. Déjacque wasn't the first person to call himself a libertarian by any means, and given all the vicissitudes of a word like "liberal" down through the years, maybe she shouldn't imply that an obscure figure like the anarcho-communist Déjacque somehow owns the word "libertarian."
Ping.
