Libertarians should start their own Country "Libertaria"

[Captdon]

Wait, business is business unless there's a possible enemy? Then business is business unless someone else is involved. National interests is one thing, one the government has proven itself to be terrible at, democrats and republicans. So, by your standard, business should only be conducted in country, and not always then.

No, not at all. You can't seriously believe Saudi Arabia is going to be in a war with us, are you? Poland isn't and neither is South Korea or Taiwan. Any nation that starts to become a threat we would cut off. It's not like we will continue to sell up to date weapons if things start going south.

That's my standard and it is workable. We have been doing it for 73 years and not been fooled. National interests rarely change that quickly. We haven't had a problem with it so far. We aren't as stupid as we act at times.

That it is about Yemen is on someone else. It's not in our interests to allow Iran to control that area.The Saudi's will do the fighting and we should let them. Yemen is just one example.

We sell to Taiwan to keep China on it's toes. We know they aren't capable of invading the island but we don't want them doing anything. They aren't exactly our enemies but they are not our friends. We don't, and won't, sell to them. (They steal the blueprints and make their own)

We should sell to anyone who is not, and likely won't be, our enemies. It's just another business. We have done well with that.

[Captdon]

Some. Some, following Hoppe, would advocate all property be private and that each individual or group owner decide who can and cannot cross his borders.

That doesn't work. I have to have access to my land no matter what.

[Captdon]

Show us where these things are said so we can join in the discussion there. I don't read every thread but I just don't see these things being said or would jump in to argue.

It is extremely odd that all the libertarians who have joined this thread are not among these phantom libertarians who advocate corporatocracy.

Oh, come on. It's phantasm.

[Chris]

That doesn't work. I have to have access to my land no matter what.

That would be negotiated among neighbors. Cooperation is key. And trust. But strangers would be limited or restricted.

[ripmeister]

The early United States government didn't exist? Interesting. Iceland also did have one, until the king of Norway invaded (from the late 800s to late 1200s).

I'll have to check into those although I really wouldn't refer to the early US government as such but maybe I'm wrong. I have a cursory understanding of Libertarianism so like others a discussion on the fundamentals of libertarian thought would be great. I'm sure like with most political philosophies there is a continuum but there certainly must be some bedrock principles.

[Chris]

I'll have to check into those although I really wouldn't refer to the early US government as such but maybe I'm wrong. I have a cursory understanding of Libertarianism so like others a discussion on the fundamentals of libertarian thought would be great. I'm sure like with most political philosophies there is a continuum but there certainly must be some bedrock principles.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...Libertarianism

[donttread]

No, not at all. You can't seriously believe Saudi Arabia is going to be in a war with us, are you? Poland isn't and neither is South Korea or Taiwan. Any nation that starts to become a threat we would cut off. It's not like we will continue to sell up to date weapons if things start going south.

That's my standard and it is workable. We have been doing it for 73 years and not been fooled. National interests rarely change that quickly. We haven't had a problem with it so far. We aren't as stupid as we act at times.

That it is about Yemen is on someone else. It's not in our interests to allow Iran to control that area.The Saudi's will do the fighting and we should let them. Yemen is just one example.

We sell to Taiwan to keep China on it's toes. We know they aren't capable of invading the island but we don't want them doing anything. They aren't exactly our enemies but they are not our friends. We don't, and won't, sell to them. (They steal the blueprints and make their own)

We should sell to anyone who is not, and likely won't be, our enemies. It's just another business. We have done well with that.

Concept again. No one nation could begin to take us down, you are right about that. Yet we are asked to support constant war and operations through fear that they might? Odd?
Another thing to remember is that we aren't just pissing off one country. We've pissed off many . Even our allies are often bullied into supporting us as Tony Blair was. Empires typically have many enemies and empires tend to fall.

[Captdon]

Concept again. No one nation could begin to take us down, you are right about that. Yet we are asked to support constant war and operations through fear that they might? Odd?
Another thing to remember is that we aren't just pissing off one country. We've pissed off many . Even our allies are often bullied into supporting us as Tony Blair was. Empires typically have many enemies and empires tend to fall.

While all that is true it doesn't change what i said. We aren't going to sell weapons to future enemies. Interests change but no overnight. We always have time to stop selling to some almost an enemy.

It doesn't matter if we piss off some nation or group of nations. As long as we have nukes, what are they going to do?

Selling weapons doesn't mean we are being asked to support constant war. South Korea hasn't fought a war for 65 years. Taiwan has never fought a war.

Empires fall when they lose the ability or will to defend itself. Rome hired mercenaries to defend her borders. The barbarians figutred out that 2+2=4 and destroyed the Eastern Empire.

The British Empire fell because we wouldn't back them and that had been bled dry by two major wars in 30 years. I don't see us in that position as long we can control the liberals.