Which would you rather live under?

[CultureKing]

This is according to how they would work in real life, not how they are envisioned to function.

I am just interested in which people would choose.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Option 2, provided they allowed strip clubs and didn't censor media violence or "obscenity"

[MaC]

This is according to how they would work in real life, not how they are envisioned to function.

Why do people "envision" a libertarianism to be horrible dystopia where 99% of people are poor and major corporations rule with an iron fist?  Because they're morons that believe what their told in school.

We have not experienced a libertarianism, but if you look at the slave labor camps, gulags, torture devices, massive starvation, and poor central planning (as if central planning can be good) communism has a really, really bad track record.  Libertarianisms only track record is that which people "imagine" to be bad.  I say we might as well let the libertarianism have a chance.

[Speed of Sound]

Ehhh....mmm.....uhhh....I would just move to Canada, which I doubt cares enough to ever throw a revolution big enough to make either of these happen.

[Alcon]

Depends on the degree of libertarianism...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More details needed. Obviously Howard Dean over Josef Stalin, and obviously Tito over Pinochet.

[NDN]

Libertarianism, for extremely obvious reasons. Sure the working conditions, environment, etc. might be poor under Big-L Libertarianism. But they were also exceptionally poor under Soviet Socialism too, the difference being that you didn't even have the freedom or choice afforded by "capitalism run amok."

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Libertarianism

[Person Man]

Yeah, Libertarianism for me, so long as it was REAL libertarianism where there is no hand-outs to big corporations and they wern't more like paleo-conservatives mascarading as libertarians.

[John Dibble]

Option 2, provided they allowed strip clubs and didn't censor media violence or "obscenity"

In option 2, strip clubs wouldn't likely be around. First off they wouldn't be 'allowed' because the state would have to run them. Second, given that people might become discontent if their daughters are forced to work these establishments against their will, it's doubtful the state would bother. As far as the media goes, it's all state owned, so you can be sure that all reports will be slanted towards the state's point of view - expect censorship. However, you'll likely have plentiful alcohol as the government will want you to still have some method of distracting yourself from your real problems.

[AkSaber]

Libertarianism, plz.

[Padfoot]

I think the most ironic thing is that both of these philosophies essentially seek the same thing when taken to their ends: anarchist utopia.

[SPC]

I think the most ironic thing is that both of these philosophies essentially seek the same thing when taken to their ends: anarchist utopia.

What are you talking about? We had a libertarian government for about the first 80 years of our nation, yet we do not live in an anarchist utopia. Instead, we have moved in the opposite direction, a welfare state.

[DWPerry]

I think the most ironic thing is that both of these philosophies essentially seek the same thing when taken to their ends: anarchist utopia.

Anarchy is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of communism. Anarchy means NO GOVERNMENT; communism however, is GIANT GOVERNMENT.


PS
Give me LIBERTY or give me death.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the most ironic thing is that both of these philosophies essentially seek the same thing when taken to their ends: anarchist utopia.

Anarchy is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of communism. Anarchy means NO GOVERNMENT; communism however, is GIANT GOVERNMENT.


PS
Give me LIBERTY or give me death.

padfoot is talking about Marx's Communist ideal, not Stalinism.

[Hash]

Communism, although both options suck equally.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Give me death for both the anarchists(I include the LP in this definition) and reds

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Define Libertarianism for one thing.

If it's the style of Libertarianism shown by some of the posters here such as MaC and SPC then I would emigrate. The Quote in Straha's sig is actually quite true on this occasion.

EDIT: One thing is clear from reading this thread.. Not people actually understand what Communism is.

[John Dibble]

Define Libertarianism for one thing.

In the context of this thread, it would refer to a system of very small government where the only services provided by the state involve national defense, domestic police, control of currency production, and a few other very basic functions for the purpose of protecting individual liberties and maintaining basic social order. There would be few if any constraints on industry, but at the same time there wouldn't be any help for it either - for example there would be no subsidies. That's in theory anyways.

Of course keep in mind that this thread is asking about how it would actually work in reality, not in theory.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Define Libertarianism for one thing.

In the context of this thread, it would refer to a system of very small government where the only services provided by the state involve national defense, domestic police, control of currency production, and a few other very basic functions for the purpose of protecting individual liberties and maintaining basic social order. There would be few if any constraints on industry, but at the same time there wouldn't be any help for it either - for example there would be no subsidies. That's in theory anyways.

Of course keep in mind that this thread is asking about how it would actually work in reality, not in theory.

I knew that Dibble, what I was more wondering is what branch of Libertarianism.. A John Dibble\Bacon King-style Libertarianism would be pretty good, or are we talking about a Randian paradise and a return to the Gold Standard? If so I'll Pass.

[Padfoot]

I think the most ironic thing is that both of these philosophies essentially seek the same thing when taken to their ends: anarchist utopia.

Anarchy is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of communism. Anarchy means NO GOVERNMENT; communism however, is GIANT GOVERNMENT.


PS
Give me LIBERTY or give me death.

padfoot is talking about Marx's Communist ideal, not Stalinism.

indeed I am.  Also, to clear things up a little more, I once read an article in which the ideal libertarian state was presented as a society where there are only two laws:  Thou shalt not offend and Thou shalt not be easily offended.  The article went a little further than that but you get the basic idea.

Thus when I say that the ultimate goal of both libertarianism and communism is anarchist utopia the ideas above are the ones I am referring to.

[Gustaf]

Libertarian of course. It would be subject to change, both as a state because it is democratic and for me personally since I'd be free to leave if I wanted to. The Communist state on th eother hand would be hard to change in a good direction and I would have no personal choice. A free country i salways preferable to an unfree one for this reason.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Given how I'm not a black or a woman libertarianism is the only possible choice for me. Remember Libertarianism isn't only about regaining the right to own negroes its also about getting to own woman.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd take libertarianism over communism in its forms in today's world...

but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a large city at the time of transition...

[bergie72]

Libertarian government -- in a heart beat!!