How Much Freedom Leads to Chaos?

I can't help notice that the more free a place is, the more stable and successful it is. Yet I'm told anarchy will be complete chaos. Really? That seems like a shot in the dark of a guess. I imagine anarchy is neither achievable nor the best system, but I do think it is dramatically better than what we have now.

Also, I often hear the argument that libertarian government leaves poor people dying in the streets. Well, the more libertarian an economy is with free-market capitalism, the better off its poor seem to be. The "Live Free or Die" state of New Hampshire is the both the most free state and the least poverty stricken state. This seems to directly contradict what socialists believe. Like most libertarians I'm not an anarchist but I also am not particularly offended by the idea like I am by the current system.

Source: lfb.org... and prntly.com...

What I'm wondering is just how capitalist a place has to be before "all chaos breaks loose"? Personally I will be moving to New Hampshire as its an obvious choice for someone who is a libertarian and is tired of being in a weak economy with neighbors and co-workers or friends who will tell you "that doesn't work in real life". Are you kidding me? No, your socialist joke of a system isn't working and the most libertarian places are working better in real life. I have every confidence reaching New Hampshire I'll see ample job opportunities based on the contacts I've made there. Apparently 20,000 people have decided to move there for the Free State Project so I do expect the economy there to remain strong there into the foreseeable future and better survive any collapse if that really does happen.

a reply to: wayforward

The freer people are from government regulation and bureaucracy, the more they can capitalize on opportunity.
Entrepreneurship begins at the bottom, by ordinary folk.

All the bureaucratic regulations in the form of tax, permits, zoning and licensing is designed to thwart the little guy so big business becomes ever immune to competition.

The system supports the biggest clients at the top, the monopoly is won.

a reply to: wayforward

You are correct....we as a species do not know how to reel ourselves in to truly benefit from freedom. For some freedom means shooting up some dope on a street or smoking weed in a public area...some use incendiary language under the guise of free speech to simply infuriate others. Some people use their freedom to challenge authority not because it's the right thing to do but because they get a rise out of it.

It's seems like a simple premise but freedom can be quite complicated..

The definition of anarchy is 'no leaders' not chaos.

Yeah, some people will choose to shoot up heroin and sleep on the street. Darwin will take care of them.

Others will use their ingenuity to answer a need and get fiat currency or barter in return for it, thus keeping some semblance of an economy going.

The problem with capitalism is everything takes second seat to the profit motive. And we end up with 20 minutes of commercials for ED medications and laxatives interspersed with shows about how you need a new kitchen to show off to your friends and neighbors, and if you're not in debt up to your eyeballs, you're not being a good citizen and reaching for the American Dream, etc. Either that, or teevee shows portraying all manner of violence and flash bang stuff, because a certain segment of the society really likes violence, especially if they can partake of it from their crumb-infested sofas.

Meanwhile, the planet is gasping for air to breathe and clean water to drink because Consumerism is God.

I dont think NH is a particularly good example to prove up your point. NH works because of demographics. suburbanstats.org...

93% white and mostly college educated.

The problem with unregulated capitalism without a social safety net is that it fails to address the problem of the sizeable portion of the population that lacks the intelectual capacity to function in the modern economy.

a reply to: TonyS

The problem with unregulated capitalism without a social safety net is that it fails to address the problem of the sizeable portion of the population that lacks the intelectual capacity to function in the modern economy.

That begs the question, is the safety net there because of the intellectually incapable, or does the safety net enable people to be intellectually incapable?

The problem with anarchy is that it leads to a power vacuum which inevitably leads to strong armed rule, thus without peacekeepers there is no order and no law. This means, that if everyone is allowed to do what they want when they want, then you WILL get someone who abuses the system at the expense of everyone else.

a reply to: rockintitz

"That begs the question, is the safety net there because of the intellectually incapable, or does the safety net enable people to be intellectually incapable?"

The existence of the safety net in no way "enable" people to be intellectually incapable; I think you mean, does it encourage intellectual laziness? Lack of intellectual capacity is an "effect" caused by many different things. I've personally witnessed an entire population group that had interbred to the point that the average I.Q. had been reduced to 80. But it can be caused by many other factors including childhood trauma, malnutrition, emotional deficits caused by chemical imbalances and exposure to environmental contaminants such as lead paint during the developmental childhood years.

Going forward, this problem is only going to get worse for a wide variety of reasons.