Do you believe that a functional stateless society might work?

A society where the laws and protection would be provided by various agencies (while military protection might be a single payer sistem) etc etc, read up on it.

Would you live in one if you had the chance?

Take your country's infrastracture, possibilities and wealth into consideration. Disregard the invasion by another state scenario.

A stateless society technically is anarchy. I absolutely would live in it, but keep in mind that there are many possible flavors of it. Some vastly superior to what we have now. Others, not so much... case in point, Somalia. I wouldn't live there for any amount of money.

Also keep in mind that even the best case scenario would never work for long, limited to a single nation. You can't really disregard the threat of invasion by another state because the lack of an organized government with a military force would leave the country vulnerable to invasion by more organized states. Look what happened to the Spanish Anarchists, who would have had a good shot of pulling it off, had not the Spanish Civil War ended their efforts.

In order to work, the shift would have to be world-wide. And organized community groups would have to fulfill many of the roles currently filled by the state and corporations. Corporations would have to be dissolved as well, lest they all-too-happily usurp the state's role in oppressing the people.

It can happen, but it would require a large scale social movement, with a well planned voluntary community-based infrastructure ready to carry on once the institutions are dissolved.

A minarchist state with direct democracy as its primary interface would be more practical, as this could coexist with yet protect itself from other nations.

I think right/left libertarianism works well if living in your parent's basement and eating hot-pockets is your idea of "society".

So, according to Ike, who presided during the golden age of America so we might want consider what he had to say a little more seriously than someone who presided during its decline... which is pretty much any President since the mid-60's onward, the basement-dwelling "man child" comes closer to the opposite of libertarianism than libertarianism.

I like Ike. People really do not get Libertarianism...Just because government has a reduced role does not mean people will not socially interacting with people. It basically is the idea that the private sector can do a better job then the public sector in most areas and government intervention in the social lives of it's citizens in too intrusive.

I have always loved this story and analogy...about a pencil

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

I'll have you know I was at the first Tea Party, and we were nothing like that.

Those people weren't even dressed as Indians!

What you describe looks like anarcho-capitalism to me, so my answer is definitely no. It's too social-darwinist to me.

I would _LOVE_ to live in a truely Libertarian society and would do so in heartbeat.

But in order for one to exist on this planet, it would have to be armed to the teeth, both the citizens who would all carry firearms and be willing to use them instantly, and the entire country with nuclear and other advanced weaponry ready to be used to keep the hordes of humanity and thier governments, who would crush it in an instant, at bay.

I don't see that EVER happening on this world, as we still have too much baggage left over from the past, just for starters.

One day, possibly, if interstellar travel is developed, it could come to pass on other systems of planets, however.

That sounds like it would descend into chaos quickly. Libertarianism driven to its extremes would lead to anarcho-capitalism since hyper libertarians argue that the state is coercive and thereby violates the non-aggression principle. Contrary to popular belief among libertarians, the completely unchecked free market is not the best checks and balances system. On the contrary, lack of state intervention and the free market have and still do lead to socially undesirable results. It's little more than social darwinism where the strong succeed and the weak perish.

I'd take market socialism and some measure of dirigisme over libertarianism any day of the weak. Libertarianism does nothing but destroy social security (as it is currently doing in my country).

That. Was. Awesome. And so very, very true!

Libertarianism, as you know it now.

True libertarianism would require people to be fairly to highly intelligent, educated, working people and be willing to defend themselves, and the state at a moment's notice, since police and military would be very strictly limited in their powers, unlike the black clad goons who wear badges, that we see now.

Most people could NOT live in a free society, and most choose not to do so, as they have been conditioned to view the strong governments that exist now as a "necessary evil" at best, and a nanny-state at worst.

Fact is, most people on this planet live under the illusions of "safety" and "security", when they truly don't really have either one, regardless of how many laws they pass, or what type of government their county operates as, currently.

True freedom is not for everyone, but for someone like me it's everything. Yes, it's a risk, but life is a crap-shoot anyway, and I'll take my chances on depending on myself, not others. As for the state being coercive, yes they are but they would be very limited, just like the police would be, under a libertarian-style government.

We would have no need to have a full-time congress, who pass one law after another, often with dire consequences. There would be no social security either in a truly free state, where taxes would be very low, since the government would be very small, with no army of paid leeches living high off the public dole for decades, unchecked and unpunished for their high crimes and treason.

The options here are ridiculously biased. Anyone who wants to live in a stateless society can move to Juarez, just across the border from me. Or if you want a sneak preview, read God's Middle Finger: Into the Lawless Heart of the Sierra Madre.

Nonsense.

There is a difference between a lawless society and one where everyone is like minded as a true libertarian state would be. The violence in Mexico simply wouldn't happen in such a society. Comparing Juarez's lawlessness to a true libertarian state is a useless argument that has no meaning.

All citizens of a libertarian state would be compelled to stop any such occurrence, since they violate the use of force imperatives inherent in such a system of self-government.

The question was about a stateless society, not a libertarian society. A libertarian society isn't one where everyone is like minded, that is called an ant colony. A libertarian society requires a state in order to prevent violence.