Post

Vecherd wrote:

Yeah, it's a huge issue. In a world without the welfare warfare state immigration would be viewed as exactly what it is, moving.
Also TLT, Liberalistene did well.. A bad a election one might say, but better than their predecessor. They got 458 votes in the Oslo municipality, translating to roughly 0.16% of the votes

Apparently they got .5% in another poll:

"Liberalistene får 0,5 % i gårsdagens meningsmåling i Aftenposten. Den bekrefter de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på stand, det økende medlemsantallet, og de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på e-post og sosiale medier.

Det er stor feilmargin på slike målinger, men vi har en gradvis økning på meningsmålingene hvor vi har blitt inkludert."

James mccosh wrote:

It is often forgotten how limited civil liberties actually are in the world.
For example how many nations have a clear statement such as the First Amendment on freedom of speech?
Plenty of places have something that looks (on first glance) to be like the First Amendment - but when one looks at the wording, it because obvious that that the legislature can ban speech (and publication) it does not like.
Americans, quite rightly, condemn the vast growth of government (and to say "the rich" or "the corporations" control the government is Marxist drivel - in reality they pay most of the taxes and many rich people and many enterprises are moving out of the United States), but the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are not to be undervalued.
Sure, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are under constant attack - but still they are there, and can be defended, most nations in the world have nothing like the First Amendment (freedom of speech) or the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms).
The rise of "social democratic economics" would inevitably mean a society where such real civil liberties were destroyed.
By the way......
If you want to see a contrast between a big government society and a less big government society - you do not have to leave the United States.
Go to South Dakota (which has the lowest State and local government spending in proportion to its economy) and compare it the Indian Reservations in the State (or elsewhere.
The land under the control of the collective (Tribal Councils) and lots of welfare and "free" health care.
Places like Pine Ridge Reservation are what America would look like under socialism - they are islands of semi socialism.
Prisons are also.
Free food, accommodation, health care...........

Yes but, these "islands of socialism" as you call them, are they explicitly against the tenants of libertarianism? From a philosophical standpoint, welfare and such could be defined as just compensation for the governments mistreatment towards Native Americans. Of course, it's not the best form of restitution (probably worse than hard money), since it merely creates a cycle of dependency, but I am not going to toss out the idea that the First Nations should not be afforded any restitution at all, if not for the actions of their ancestors than at least for the troubles and difficulties they suffer today due to their position.

Plus, they add a further decentralized model to the US, and what's wrong with that?

Also, I think it was Russell Means that said Native American reservations could be a great way to experiment with a truly stateless society, since these reservations are fundamentally treated as a nation within a nation.