Theocracy w/ Single-Payer & Free College, or Libertarian w/o EPA, public school?

[Blue3]

Christian Theocracy (say Catholic or Episcopalian) that has elements of martial law, with
-Single-Payer Healthcare
-Public funded College
-Public funded Childcare
-Public funded electoral campaigns
-Carbon Tax
-Financial Transaction Tax
-High Taxes on Corporations and Millionaires, with Buffet Rule to prevent loopholes
-Paid Family/Medical Leave
-$15 minimum wage
-Strict gun laws
-no death penalty
-massive investment in clean infrastructure, and research
-massive investment in a healthcare-based approach to mental illness
-massive national programs to end homelessness and hunger (such as the Utah homelessness law)
-public schools include mandatory Religious Education classes, similar to today's Catholic schools
-illegal abortion

OR

Libertarian society, extremely minimalist government that's very socially liberal and fiscally conservative, without
-environmental laws (ex: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act)
-public schools
-food, safety, traffic, building codes, or other consumer protection laws
-labor laws (ex: weekends, minimum wage, lunch breaks)
-Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, other social services
-public prisons
-income/estate/corporate tax
-gun regulations
-public investment in infrastructure, research





Where would you rather live? Why would you prefer that political system?

[RFayette]

No food safety, labor, or environmental laws?  Lmao.  I don't really see how this is a tough choice for anyone, even the most socially liberal amongst us.

[DC Al Fine]

No offense Blue, but you may have weighted it a little to steeply in favour of the Socialist Theocracy. Like RFayette said, food safety is a bridge too far for most folks.

Christian Theocracy (say Catholic or Episcopalian)

Episcopalian theocracy. Now there's a funny thought.

[Mr. Smith]

Opt 2

@DC: Once again, Utah thwarts that. We Mormons and our storehouses take issue with it being "too far".

[Santander]

Option 2 would more accurately be described as borderline anarchy.

[Mr. Smith]

Option 1 would more accurately be described as borderline anarchy.

FTFY

[Kleine Scheiße]

Option one is my dream state.

[RFayette]

Opt 2

@DC: Once again, Utah thwarts that. We Mormons and our storehouses take issue with it being "too far".

Wait, you prefer a libertarian anarchist utopia over what amounts to a Christian social democracy?  I'm confused.

[Mr. Smith]

Opt 1

@DC: Once again, Utah thwarts that. We Mormons and our storehouses take issue with it being "too far".

Wait, you prefer a libertarian anarchist utopia over what amounts to a Christian social democracy?  I'm confused.

Whoops, confused the options for that FCSL/FLSC one in the IP board (in which the - E, +S opt was the second).

[Goldwater]

Even I have to go with option 1. Yuck.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Even I have to go with option 1. Yuck.

[dead0man]

This version of libertarianism that lies only in the minds of lefties is weird.  Do you guys actually know a libertarian that wants to get rid of traffic laws?

[mvd10]

Both are terrible. But is the theocracy like Saudi Arabia without the death penalty or just Santorum style social conservatism combined with socialism? I voted option one btw. I would take president Gary Johnson over option 1 even though I don't like the Libertarian party, but option 2 is just too extreme.

[Goldwater]

Both are terrible. But is the theocracy like Saudi Arabia without the death penalty or just Santorum style social conservatism combined with socialism? I voted option one btw. I would take president Gary Johnson over option 1 even though I don't like the Libertarian party, but option 2 is just too extreme.

Option 2 isn't Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party, it's anarchy pure and simple.

[mvd10]

Both are terrible. But is the theocracy like Saudi Arabia without the death penalty or just Santorum style social conservatism combined with socialism? I voted option one btw. I would take president Gary Johnson over option 1 even though I don't like the Libertarian party, but option 2 is just too extreme.

Option 2 isn't Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party, it's anarchy pure and simple.

True. I meant to say that even though I would rather have a Libertarian president than a social democratic theocracy, option 2 is just too extreme. A Libertarian president probably would come up with some terrible ideas (also some great ideas) but I can't imagine Gary Johnson trying to scrap pretty much every single regulation.

[ingemann]

Both are terrible. But is the theocracy like Saudi Arabia without the death penalty or just Santorum style social conservatism combined with socialism? I voted option one btw. I would take president Gary Johnson over option 1 even though I don't like the Libertarian party, but option 2 is just too extreme.

Option 2 isn't Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party, it's anarchy pure and simple.

Not really.

If we look at it, we can see it have prisons, even if they're private run. This means that there's a judicial branch. We can also guess that the state still have a army and police force. Fundamental it's a state made so small, that the only things it enforce are property rights, contracts and a criminal code, likely funded through VAT and tariffs. While pretty much a hell hole by any reasonable standard, this isn't Somalia or another stateless society.

[Enduro]

Option two isn't a libertarian society, that's a lack of society as seen on the walking dead.

[Blue3]

Both are terrible. But is the theocracy like Saudi Arabia without the death penalty or just Santorum style social conservatism combined with socialism? I voted option one btw. I would take president Gary Johnson over option 1 even though I don't like the Libertarian party, but option 2 is just too extreme.

Option 2 isn't Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party, it's anarchy pure and simple.

There's still a military and ambassadors for the outside world, police and courts to enforce laws on violence and property, and a treasury department to manage the budget and currency. Basically, the United States government from 1789.

[dead0man]

Which would make sense if it was 1789.

[Blue3]

My point is it's not anarchy, it's a minimalist libertarian society, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[dead0man]

And my point is it's NOT POSSIBLE IN 2016 to NOT have traffic laws in a nation with 210 million drivers.  (and I'd also mention you technically said we wouldn't have food either but I assume that's just an extra comma that fell out of the comma bag when you were typing)  You don't have to have a lot of the other things on the list, you could certainly have private prisons and do away with several layers of tax, social security and consumer protection sh**t...it might not be the best way, but it's plausible.  You have to have environmental laws and most libertarians agree.  You can't dump toxic waste in a creek, that literally harms other people.  That's a big deal for libertarians.  It's why we mention it so much.  You've got to fix roads and bridges and that has to be paid for.....a use tax of some kind makes perfect sense.  Energy, miles, tolls, others probably....some might work better than others here, another way might work better there.

You can call it "a minimalist libertarian society" if you want, but you'd be wrong.  Any place without traffic laws that allows someone to dump nuclear waste in the local stream is anarchist, not libertarian....no matter how many qualifiers you dump in front of it.

[Blue3]

And my point is it's NOT POSSIBLE IN 2016 to NOT have traffic laws in a nation with 210 million drivers.  (and I'd also mention you technically said we wouldn't have food either but I assume that's just an extra comma that fell out of the comma bag when you were typing)  You don't have to have a lot of the other things on the list, you could certainly have private prisons and do away with several layers of tax, social security and consumer protection sh**t...it might not be the best way, but it's plausible.  You have to have environmental laws and most libertarians agree.  You can't dump toxic waste in a creek, that literally harms other people.  That's a big deal for libertarians.  It's why we mention it so much.  You've got to fix roads and bridges and that has to be paid for.....a use tax of some kind makes perfect sense.  Energy, miles, tolls, others probably....some might work better than others here, another way might work better there.

You can call it "a minimalist libertarian society" if you want, but you'd be wrong.  Any place without traffic laws that allows someone to dump nuclear waste in the local stream is anarchist, not libertarian....no matter how many qualifiers you dump in front of it.

What in the world are you getting so worked-up about?

And anarchy is lack of any government.


In that bullet, I'm saying there's no regulations on food. Or safety. Or traffic. Or building codes. Or any other type of consumer protection. Etc. And yes, it is possible to not have traffic laws. Not wise, in my opinion, but possible.

What are you going on about? Both sides are taken to an extreme, that's the point, but it's not as extreme as totalitarianism or anarchy. Which would you be closer to? I know it's not the ideal choice for anyone, that's the point. If you can't have a reasonable discussion, then don't participate in the discussion.

[DavidB.]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

[Blue3]

Inclined to say option 2. Being a Jew in a Christian dictatorship... nah. Unless there would be very good rights for Jews (including education rights) + a culture in which Jews are respected, so that these rights are guaranteed to stay.

I never posted that non-religious people wouldn't have rights in the first one?

I just said they ban abortion and have religious ed in public schools.

[Indy Texas]

No offense Blue, but you may have weighted it a little to steeply in favour of the Socialist Theocracy. Like RFayette said, food safety is a bridge too far for most folks.

Christian Theocracy (say Catholic or Episcopalian)

Episcopalian theocracy. Now there's a funny thought.

I assume the whole country will be run like some WASPy New England boarding school.