I have gotten this question, in different forms, over the years and it has a buried assumption built in. The problem is that it assumes that libertarianism is a binary proposition. It's all or none. A government or society is simply libertarian or it is not. I don't see how this would ever be true as most ideas seldom are expressed in idealistically pure form.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of non initiation of force. This happens all the time. It's happening right here on this forum. Any time people do not force each other to do something it's working. It only can be viewed from a perspective of 'purity' from an interaction level. So I think this is a flawed question.
Let's say we have a nation filled with libertarians that have fully accepted and try their best to live by the philosophy. There will always be people that decide to use force. They are not libertarian in action or philosophy so do you discredit the whole society now as 'not libertarian' or it 'does not work' because of this single failure?
Libertarianism is all around us. People participate in it all the time even if they are unaware of the philosophy or even if they do not accept it. Really the run-away idea of using force is the abnormal interaction. That is where failure lies. When we decide as individuals and groups in society that we must force people live by our demands. That is where it doesn't work.
We consider it unjust to steal even a $1 bill from our neighbor. Yet when government comes in play as an agent on our behalf then it suddenly becomes okay to take from others. By government action we give assumed authority over to do things we would never do as individuals because it creates an easy abstraction to behave in such a way. The "someone ought to do something" becomes a rationalization to let go of guilt and responsibility for something we supposedly care about and only empower our mechanism for blame when it is not done.
Not using force works all the time. It is when we force each other that the failures come into place and beget further failures when we don't recognize that is the core problem.
Congratulations @amthomasiv! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard World Cup Contest - Semi Finals - Day 1
Participate in the SteemitBoard World Cup Contest!
Collect World Cup badges and win free SBD
Support the Gold Sponsors of the contest: @good-karma and @lukestokes
Congratulations @amthomasiv! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
I actually do consider that, but we live in the reality of how it works and not how we wish it would. In the US, the voting system is the majority that shows up. I recognize we basically never get a true majority of those registered to vote much less of people in general.
It would be far more meaningful if those who actually wanted to protest turned in blank ballots. At best non voting is an ignored abstention at at worst simply recognized as not caring enough to even have a voice in the process.
People who do not vote are absolutely not "casting a vote against democracy". They lack of participation doesn't damage it one iota. Making a statement involved action. Not non participation and acceptance.
I think there is great irony in telling me what I am inferring from peoples votes :)
The reality is... no one cares and its not talked about except at the rare dark corner of the internet.
If you want to be counted take an action that can be. :) Thats my point.
Thats why its ironic. You are accusing me of inferring when im simply pointing out that you don't know. You are assuming everyone not voting is a protest. You simply have no clue.
And if you don't know how many non participates it would take to theoretically "stop the game" then you don't know that either.
You are making massive assumptions about stuff that you have no actual information on or limit.
Clearly some percentage of the population will keep on voting. You plan is so extreme as to be meaningless. Also you haven't recognized that your protests aren't even recognized because again, you are assuming everyone that doesn't vote is a protest. False.
I thought that libertarians live by the NAP rules. So if someone uses force, then it's okay to use force on them, strip them of their freedom. As long you are not the initiator of force, or better said, not the one who breaks the NAP rule, then it becomes unethical to use force on you.
What I'm trying to say is, yes there will always be people who try to force others to do stuff, but there should be rules in place to deal with those who are dangerous. When are they dangerous, when they break the NAP.
I don't approve of democracy. For the reasons you gave. If the majority wants to attack you, yes, in a democracy it might be ethical, but it breaks the NAP. The NAP should be the supreme rule, not the majority. So I do agree.
I am a capitalist, so I think people should rather vote with their money.