If Libertarians had been in power in America for the last 50 years . . .

[TheWizardOfMudd]

. . . would 9/11 have ever occurred?

Of course, I'm referring to their platform of nonintervention and non-entanglement with foreign countries and affairs.

I don't know.

[MrChupon]

1. possibly from a poor person on the inside

In a pure capitalist system like that, there would likely be have-nots in the US with no chance at moving themselves upwards, thus turning to radical measures to get attention

[TheWizardOfMudd]

3. You mean like now?

[MrChupon]

6. meh

am i forgetting any major terrorist events that came from poor people expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo? It seems to me most are duped into voting against their economic self interest.

[NMDemDist2]

2. it would have been a heck of a lot less likely

but then we'd mostly still be living on farms, and no Social Security and no Medicaid, school lunches ....

[TheWizardOfMudd]

5. I don't think so

I totally disagree with the pure libertarian philosophy, but what makes you think there would be no neighborhoods, suburbs, free standing homes, or apartments?

Most of us living on farms? Are you kidding?

[NMDemDist2]

9. ok trade would have probably been supported

in a libertarian government

[NuttyFluffers]

4. we would have collapsed into feudal fiefdoms.

the Libertarians, as in the party right now today, would have barely helped us survive against WWII, and afterwards we'd collapse into little fiefdoms. Then the rest of the world, as they are recovering, would snap up the more valuable fiefs. there wouldn't have been an america as we know it to even worry about 9/11.

now if you are talking about the political philosophy libertarianism... then maybe it wouldn't turn out as bad. but i have no faith in their philosophy. history doesn't bear it out as a successful method. Locke ideal, but that society was his ideal, not reality that i've ever come across in history.

[leftistagitator]

11. I agree

Anarchy may be cool in high school, but it just doesn't work applied. Imagine a world with no enviromental laws, no social safety net, no regulations of any kind to curb corporate power, and no public works or even public education. And the more extreme Libertarians want personal nukes and elimination of the concept of law. For the most part I like their positions on social issues, but I find the rest to be completely unworkable.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. Our infrastructure would look like Haiti's

not a pretty picture.

[qazplm]

8. libertarianism

is a lot like communism, an extreme position which has appealing ideals, but is absolutely unworkable in practice, but ALSO you can take some of the most moderate elements of each theory and use it to good use (communal values from communism, individual responsibility and liberty from libertarianism).

Neither however is achieveable as a workable practible philosophy for a country the size of the US.

[Robin Hood]

10. Who knows? What I do know is,

That I would be smoking some awesome legal pot right about now. Sigh...

[amjsjc]

12. 9/11 not necessarily unlikely...

While we wouldn't have supported Israel so intensively (which'd give us more street cred in the middle east) the US would probably still be a major military power (since the Soviet Union existed, and national defense is one of the few areas of govt spending Libertarians support) and we'd still need lots of gas and have major corporations pumping it in the middle east. I suspect that the US would still stick it's nose in other people's business, and there'd be a lot of people who'd still be mad at us. SO something like 9/11 might very well have happened.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

13. Your answer assumes Libertarians would compromise their principles.

That could happen, but that was not my question. You are also assuming alternative fuels would not be developed more quickly. You are suspecting that the U.S. would still stick its nose in other people's business. That's not what I asked.

You changed my question to suit your answer.

[thebigmansentme]

14. i believe that

the question was not about libertarianism, but about a single aspect of their policy which is - do not meddle in other countries business unless we absolutely have to. which means - not taking any sides in ANY conflicts, unless our country is directly attacked, no foreign aid to anybody, and so on. would that be a better policy.

it is an interesting question because there are plenty of anti-bush conservatives, like buchanan and constitutional party that want exactly that.

[amjsjc]

15. Yes, I am assuming they'd compromise their principles...

I'm merely telling you what I thought would have happened. As a practical matter, political realities generally require parties to at least partially compromise their core beliefs in order to realize policies and please various constituencies. Considering the realities of American politics, the libertarians would probably have turned into something like the current Republican party, which theoretically supports a small government, but actually increases govt spending when it winds up in power (politicians have to bring pork home to constituents to be re-elected, etc). Frankly I suspect that if the libertarians did wind up in charge, they'd be awfully tempted to use the government to remake the world in the image they see fit. Power corrupts, after all. Really staunchly sticking to principles is a bit of a luxury reserved for those actors who never have to put those principles into reality.

[Swamp Rat]

16. My answer...

There would be potholes the size of Rush Limbaugh in every major city.

Sorry, to change your question, but there would be NO "foreign affairs" to speak of.