Libertarianism and ultra-capitalism will never take full hold over America, despite how much I’d like them to.
The reason why is in the observation of libertarians, themselves. I’ve not looked hard enough to find an extensive study, but the general consensus I’ve found through a simple Google search seems to be, via sources like MENSA and the Triple 9 society, that libertarian ultra-capitalists (like myself), have the highest IQs, followed by left-leaning voters, and then Republicans.
–Republicans tend not to be so smart, but emotionally strong and wise.
–Left-leaners tend to be smart, but neither emotionally strong nor wise.
–Meanwhile, ultra-capitalists tend to be a combination of all three.
The problem, though, is in even if libertarian economists are technically correct within the realm of their theory, it is only them/us who would thrive in that world or kind of country.
We don’t exist in high enough quantity for a population to build an army capable of suitable defense. We would likely build higher technology that could decimate populations of enemy soldiers if they violated the NAP (such as the nuclear bomb). However, understand how that threatens *all* life on the planet.
Meanwhile, even if we’re never attacked, almost everyone else (with the exception of a handful of Republicans) would perish in the country.
Left-leaners would make terrible business decisions and end up in abject poverty without government assistance. Or, they’d be rendered obsolete as human beings by the advancing technology people like me would create.
Meanwhile, the Republicans of lesser talent (separate from the Republicans of higher talent) would be surpassed in much the same way. They’d likely last longer than the left-leaners through sheer hard work. But, that would only get them but so far.
They’d each break into their own communities. The beauty, culture, etc. (or lack thereof) of those communities would reflect their beliefs and extent of the human capital that forms them.
Democrat communities would seem the “ugliest” by conventional standards, as a combination of indiscriminate empathy and diversity for diversity’s sake would lead to all sorts of violent conflicts, ghettos, etc. They’d have technology that (mostly) the ultra-capitalists would create and deal
Meanwhile, because of this, the ultra-capitalists would be criticized as elitists for their economic efficacy. There would need to be private military organizations formed and contracted for security so that the (primarily) poor of the democrat communities don’t begin raiding the country for their survival. This would ultimately lead to the democrat communities being quarantined in different districts, no-mans-lands.
Lower-talent Republican communities would become something akin to less-restrictive Amish communities. They’d be based on religion, peaceful, beautiful, and homogenous. Though, they’d be slow to advance on their own merit, if at all, after a certain point. They’d need to strike commerce with the ultra-capitalists for many things.
Higher-talent Republicans and ultra-capitalists would likely live together. Though, they’d debate against each other for many things.
In the end, if libertarianism or anarchic ultra-capitalism took hold over the country, it would not be a utopia. The libertarian communities would be utopian, sure. However, the rest of the country would become something akin to The Hunger Games not because the libertarians were wrong, but *because* they were right, and no one else would be able to keep up with them in a world of totally free economics.
There are 3 comments
I think you’re being a little excessive in your conclusions here. Take away the machinery of the state and a whole bunch of people who currently fall on the Left would be similarly capable as their right wing equivalents of shaping up and becoming productive. There are differences in average mindset but there’s also a lot of overlap between the demographics. If leftie communes formed it seems unlikely that the average middling Dem voter would actually want to live there, putting them in the same position as more right wing types, choosing to repress certain parasitic tendencies and emphasise more productive ones, unless they were particularly idealogically fixated.
You probably would get some low-productivity ghettos forming with people who can’t or won’t compete tending to lump together and basically scratch out a living, but we already have that in some 3rd world countries for similar reasons so it’s not really a new evil there or even much of a change, just more organic.
As for libertarian super high IQ types becoming the elites, surely that’s not much of a change either – entrepreneurial tech guys are already massively successful and influential. It would be similar, except the parasitic route to power of politicians and cronies would disappear, and with higher turnover of elites as bailouts and regulation based monopolies would be less common (harder to organise).
IMO it’s entirely possible that a post-state society could look recognisably similar to current society but with far fewer parasites and a more morally robust system of trade and dispute resolution. Not a utopia but a re-ordering of society minus one rotten unnecessary piece.
All valid arguments. What would you call America before the welfare system, social security, the Federal Reserve, and the unconstitutional income tax?
A free country. One that took the shape of its best people.