I will tell you what I know of libertarianism.. So I have to correct you on one thing: a country being libertarianism doesn't mean that they have no government. The key quality is a limited government, but there is a governing body. If there was no governing body at all whatsoever, I don't see how that would not be considered anarchy. A lot of people confuse libertarianism with anarchy tbh, but there is a drastic difference in this single manner: anarchists want zero governing body at all whatsoever while the libertarianism wants some form of limited government.

The limited government's duties is to provide you the bare minimum requisites. That includes defense, some sort of order so it is not free for all (each state would probably hire their own cops like today but no FBI or any federal police bodies beyond the military for defense), court systems to settle disputes, and some sort of leadership. The leadership doesn't have a lot of power. The infrastructure would probably be privatized most likely along with things like environmental agency, scientific research, etc.

As far as economics go, the government is not involved in creating trade plans so literally trade is completely open. Government only gets involved to settle disputes if they arise. Otherwise, the government employs laissez-faire economics. Government also lets the private sector run however they want to be - if a company wants to discriminate based on ones skin color or race or sexual orientation, the government doesn't get to tell them to accept everyone. Hands-off economics for the most part. There is very little regulation across the board.

It is very difficult to have pure libertarianism in society tbh. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a true libertarianism system just like there has never been a true communist nation before. Soviet Union was close but not 100% communism - I don't even know if 100% communism is practical to the level Karl Marx saw it. Anyways, back to subject. You can argue the United States was once libertarianism throughout the 1700s and probably most of the 1800s based on the idea that governments are to be kept in check, but I don't know if you can say the US was 100% purely libertarianism. For instance, there were tariffs enforced by federal government. Tariffs are anything but libertarianism! The state governments were also pretty powerful. Not quite 100% pure libertarianism.

I don't even know what a purely libertarianism system would look like today tbh.. Would there be chaos and pandemonium or would people find ways to work together in unity?

I think the best bet is to have a nation that has a little bit of multiple systems. Some capitalism, some socialism, some libertarianism. A sprinkle of each of the positives because each of them have inherent pros and cons.

Iam reading that the closest country you could say is libertarian is Somalia when it comes to social and economical policies, lol. Can't really find anything about their country though that is a good source.

If you want to learn about libertarians google videos by Milton Friedman. Hes probably the greatest economic mind of the 20th century.

I know he wants to replace income with a consumption tax, but I think there are a lot of exceptions and no flat rate.

milton friedman is a jew though, don't trust jew with economics

I didnt watch the vid, but Johnson is dumb. 

I dont know if you can say that something is a libertarian "policy" because its kind of about personal liberty IE lack of policy. Privatizing social security isnt really libertarian. Its really about strong personal rights. 

Depends. You do need some semblance of law and order tbh. Knowing humans, I don't think there would be natural spontaneous order, at least not on the grand societal scale that nation-states tend to be.

For instance, can you imagine a nation as vast as the USA or Russia being successful without some sort of law and order? Even from looking at just the economics perspective if we temporarily place aside the social aspect. Perhaps on a smaller scale, there would be some success?

I see it being possible on small scale cities, but I mean vast empires and nation-states. No such massive entity has shown success in human history without law and order through some sort of governing body. 

Even when we look at cities, name me 1 ancient city that was sustainable with no law and order. , I agree that cities can be initially built with no planning upfront, but at some point you still need to setup a governing body or that city will not last.

It is the way of things when it concerns humans. We are good at building up things, but we have a natural tendency of breaking them, causing chaos. It might be a bit pessimistic way of looking at things but a governing body is like that cog in the wheel to protect us from ourselves. We just have to make sure that governing body is not too powerful that it becomes more than a cog in the wheel and actually imposes on the smooth wheel flow - America is almost at that destructive point now with how big the government has gotten in last 15-20 years.

You talked about spontaneous order, which is the belief that you can get order out of chaos, and cited ancient cities as example for why you don't require law and order. What I said was sure, you can create cities like that, but you cannot maintain them. Eventually, it would fall apart unless if you instill a governing body of sorts. Second, it is also very difficult to rely on spontaneous order for a massive entity like a nation. Those were my 2 main point - do you not agree with those?

So based on that article, my understanding is that they are not saying this as an argument against governments or against law & order, but rather that governments should not micromanage the market once it is set. That is a bit different from what you were saying about law & order. Essentially, this is arguing that once you set a market, you should let it self-evolve and take you where it will.

For the most part, is that not how the American stock market used to be before the 30s crash? I know you have the SEC overseeing shit since the 30s crash, but you do need occasional auditing of corporations/companies. The stock market crash of the 30s happened because there was essentially nobody auditing things to check for legality and fraud. Lack of all that didn't work out too well in the 30s. The 30s crash probably would not have happened or been anywhere as severe if there was SEC auditing companies throughout the 20s and 30s for fraud.

What would you have done in 08? Let it crash? We were very very close to another crash. So many people lost their houses and life savings because a bunch of douchebags were using fraudulent practices and scamming people out. You could argue that the SEC was there, and it still happened. What if there was no SEC auditing like the 30s? There would have been another crash, no? In fact, would we even know who was to blame for it without SEC and the Congressional committee being formed to look through the data & finding those culpable?

And what I am saying is you do need some oversight or you will have fraudulent practices that fuck everyone up. It cannot be free for all because humans are fickle creatures who easily corrupt and easily take up fraud when they see those dollars. The 30s crash is one such example when you had laissez-faire stock market system, and there were widespread fraudulent practices that screwed people over. , there were many other issues and reasons for stock market crash/great depression, but fraud was right up there. 

www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/10/fraud-caused-great-depression-and-this.html

That is literally what spontaneous order from that article you linked me is talking about -- money and the stock market. So I am guessing you are arguing not for spontaneous order as it pertains to the stock market but in much broader terms.

Lets toss aside the stock market and money for a moment then. Can that concept apply on the wide scale for other things where you have no top-down governing entity? . Can an entire government function based around such ideas like spontaneous order? . But it also raises the chances of things falling apart. Things are not always sustainable as we humans have a tendency towards chaos. I think you do need some governing entity that is there when such chaos is brought into fruition and/for occasional inspections. Fair?