How do we get to Libertarian Government? [Paul]

[COLMustard159]

In a previous thread, someone came to the conclusion that libertarian government (or minimal government) would become most feasible when everyone became more responsible (more evolved) then they are now.

See "Is Libertarian Government Equipped to Meet the challenges of the 21st Century" for a heated yet somewhat fruitful exchange.

HOW do we get to this state where the majority of humanity is ready to be governed a la Libertarian style? What kind of culture/prevalent mindset would be necessary? What institutions/policies would have to be in place before the Libertarian Utopia became a reality? What would the transition phases look like and what would be both the good and bad consequences?

Bonus question: Under what circumstances would the Utopian framework have to revert back to previous forms of government if any?

Please refrain from touting the virtues of libertarian government. The point is to provide an outline of FEASIBLE plan to get there. This is an exercise in governing, not cheering.

[ronanburtens]

Libertarian government would not work in societies at this moment in time. I will justify that statement.

Modern society has gotten progressively fairer in terms of civil rights decade on decade, century on century since the Dark Ages. However, the wealth gap has risen. While a king only ever owned his castle and his lands, modern kings in fields of enterprise and finance own vasts suedes of the modern equivalent in tens of countries. They have Empires across more corners of the world than the British king or Roman Emperor could have dreamt of. Globalisation has changed the playing field now, with wealth less tangible, more based around money than physical grandeur. While the kings have got far wealthier, the peasants have been outstripped. Their perspective gain has been from dwelling to abode, from rural labourer to urban worker. They have benefited through education and better sanitation but they now find themselves further behind the kings than before. Please note I used the terms kings and peasants figuratively and demonstratively there. This is a problem spotted by leftist philosophers in the 1800s and spawned Socialism and Communism. They placed more emphasis on closing the wealth gap than the gap on civil rights, which they felt just facilitated the working class being made happier so they would work more freely in the upper class' world. In practice, they got this disastrously wrong and ended denying people the most basic civil rights.

My point on Libertarianism in this context is, in essence, as follows. Human greed is inherent. It is the rot in the woodwork that breaks down all of these great political philosophies. Communism was corrupted by greed and hijacked sinisterely to oppress the people. It would work, in some ways, in reverse for Libertarianism. Libertarianism offers little or no safety net to the poor because it removes most of the government's involvement in civil society. While this stems from noble ideals, its effects could be catastrophic. What Libertarianism can encourage in practice is an "every man for himself" mentality. It would rely on people getting together from their own volition to help the vulnerable. History has taught us that human greed prevents this. When people are broken of all restraints and free to strive lustfully for the top of the financial pyramid they will inevitably begin to forget those at the bottom. It will leave a society where everyone looks for someone else to help because they feel that it is not their job to do so. It's like, say, if the local government now were to want to build a new help centre for drug addicts. Everyone thinks this is a good idea in the area because drug addiction happens to be a major problem in that particular locality and there are many kids involved in it and they're vulnerable and need help. However, which neighbourhood community is going to want it at their back door? It's a great idea in principle, but in my area? No, sir.

That is what would be allowed to happen to the poor and the vulnerable in Libertarianism. If no-one was mandated to help, then self-service and greed would override the sense in most people that something should be done to help others. It is natural, not necessarily a criticism of modern people. I would, quite probably, be the same in the given circumstance. The total freedom Libertarianism offers would destroy the fraternity of society, its founding stone. This would result is chaos as the rich-poor divide widens to an unbearable level for the disenfrancised. This would spark division, resentment and possible revolution.

So, in concept, bravo to Libertarianism for its complete agenda for civil rights and liberties. But, in practice in the contemporary world, it would be doomed to the most awful of failures. And one that would destroy the egalitarianist society many of us envisage.

[Mike_115]

In the previous thread I wasn't saying that we as a species would need to evolve for libertarianism to work. We would need to evolve for all violence to end, and to reach utopia. For libertarianism to work right we would only need a societal evolution that would take exponentially less time. For example on our current trajectory the government does more and more and rely on them more and more. All we need to do is reverse that trend. If the government slowly starts to scale down we will as a society slowly start to take more responsibility for ourselves. If all the changes to a libertarian government happened like you flipping a light switch it would throw us into chaos.