The screwworm has been eradicated north of the Darien Gap (Panama) largely through sterile insect technique. The US has been shipping irradiated flies to there for decades for this purpose.

(This paper discusses some details and that weather could've played a larger role in the US, but not a stretch to think larger populations in Mexico would mean larger populations in the US. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6849717/ )

Screwworms are devastating to livestock, and eliminating it has probably saved ranchers and consumers billions of dollars.

In thinking about this, I was unsure if a problem like this is solved as readily by free market mechanisms.

What are your thoughts on how this may have been accomplished?

Just give me a lifeline

Sometimes, libertarianism at least in the USA presents as a pretty strong convergence on constitutionalism and originalism among libertarians, but that's a lot less obvious to me now. What, in your view, is the pattern here, sociologically? Do anarchistic libertarians tend toward natural law? Do the classical liberals lean more one way or another (Hasnas and realism vs Hayek)?

Lately, I've been bouncing around the political spectrum, not sure of where I fit, or if I fit anywhere, or if the notion of "fitting" itself is faulty. Originally, I was pretty staunchly left, a liberal or whatever. I believed in Capitalism, then I became a socialist and watched Second Thought, then after not watching his content for a while I drifted off to the center. Then one day I decided to leave the main sub that I engaged in for personal improvement reasons, and expanded out. And one day I found the sub r/Libertarian. At this moment, previously I had thought Libertarians were like incredibly biased, uneducated and politically unhinged, however at this point in time my views on all positions of the political spectrum changed. I no longer had any negative prejudices about any group or political ideology/philosophy. Anyone can be good, anyone can be bad, anyone can be reasonable and anyone can be knowledgable.

So then I spent time in the sub, and I found Libertarians, at least in this space, to be pretty moderate and reasonable. Lot's of criticism was never exclusive to one political party, and Libertarians recognized that both parties are corrupt and exist to work against their interests. One thing that I quite liked was the fact that Libertarians didn't believe in the political dichotomy that you can only vote for one party or the other, and that voting third party is a waste of time. Of course, I still was hesitant, but I was warming up to it. At one point I even thought to myself "Libertarianism isn't actually so bad, even if it's not the best or perfect." I even had minor arguments with my friends, who are incredibly progressive and pro-marxist/socialist/critical theory and what have you. However, I still had my doubts, and I was still really progressive, at least by most people's standards. And most of my presence on that sub was just me inquiring or arguing positions that would be considered leftist.

What I eventually settled on, however, was pragmatism. I don't know much about actual pragmatist philosophy, but here is one belief that I do have: that we don't really know anything, and I don't think really any does either, and that in our current world we should simply prioritize practical policies supported by sufficient scientific evidence. I also reject ideology, or ideological purity, which may or may not have something to do with pragmatism. I'm not sure where this would place me on the political spectrum, probably around the center somewhere. I'm not sure if capitalism, or crony capitalism is the best economic system, I don't know, but I don't know if any of these other economic systems are good either, Libertarianism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Anarchism, Georgism, whatever else there is. I reject them all. I'm not against them, each has some good ideas cause ideas always have some merit. Essentially, the idea is that we incrementally change the status quo, toward no particular direction of any proposed theoretical political system, and society will change for the better all by itself.

Now here's where things start to get relevant to the title:

1. All of these theoretical political systems have to meet an extremely high burden of proof that current limitations on economic science cannot meet.

This is one of the biggest reasons why I am a pragmatist, or at least lean somewhere around that camp. From my understanding or knowledge, which I admit is very limited, the science of economics has lots of limitations when it comes to the scientific method, and general scientific research and analysis. The impact or effect of a given policy is a lot of times not clear, or sometimes isn't predictable due to how incredibly complex everything is. The main reason why this is, is due to human behavior. Sometimes it just can't be predicted on large scales. The more you scale the impact of a policy, and the more multifaceted the policy is, the less certain the scientific viability of the research of the given policy, and it becomes harder to stay true to the scientific method.

Translating this to theoretical political systems- our economy is endlessly complex and multifaceted. So many systems, people, behaviors, actions and transactions and so on. When a person goes up and says that they have a perfect theoretical system that we can replace our current system with, and that this new system will do everything that this person says it will, I just simply have massive doubt. You're saying that you will be replacing or changing an endlessly complex society, with thousands of systems, feedback loops and people, and that everything will go according to how you say it will? Even when we sometimes can't even predict simple policies or figure out the main cause to some issue in the economy?

2. The glaring lack of evidence

Again, this applies to pretty much all theoretical political systems, but yeah. They all lack a substantial amount of evidence, or rather I say proof, that they would actually work. And yeah I'm sure there are some studies and whatnot, but here's the thing with science and economics in particular, nothing is really concrete. Not to mention the fact that, some studies aren't really proof that this economic system would actually work. In case you don't know already, but I'm working with the presumption that all of these theoretical systems have to meet an incredibly high burden of proof, that the current limitations of science can't meet. Or at least, there needs to be substantially more research on these things in order to reach anything conclusive.

3. Transition theory

How exactly would we transition from the status quo to any of these theoretical systems, or Libertarianism specifically. Like yeah I know, implement, or in this case, get rid of a bunch of policies and change the system to how you see fit. But there's one thing, how exactly would this given policy affect the economy and society, and how would the current function of the economy and society affect the impact and implementation of these policies? Even if the idea is good, and would actually work, there is a problem. Society can't just randomly spawn into being a Libertarian society. A lot of Libertarians propose to abolish this, or ban this, or repeal this, or get rid of this. Like for instance, some Libertarians propose that we should ban Intellectual Property Rights. But the entire growth of our economy has been centered around, or heavily depends on, Intellectual Property Rights. The entirety of society has been built around this one single thing, but then that single thing no longer exists. It's like removing a foundational pillar from a building. Wouldn't that cause a lot of chaos? And yeah okay, some would say that the solution to all of this is to make the implementation gradual, which is reasonable. However, some issues still remain, like what if a specific policy ends up hurting someone or something.

Lot's of Libertarians believe that the initial action toward Libertarianism would hurt us in the short term, but benefit us in the long term, like getting rid of Social Security and Medicaid. But when we cut those things a lot of people will suffer, a lot might even die. And we're doing all of this for something that really hasn't even been proven to work, or proven that it will work. I've not really seen any online Libertarians, really at all, talk about transition theory, or how exactly we can transition to a Libertarian society without crashing and burning or harming a bunch of people.

Edit: Also there's something else I'd like to add regarding Libertarianism and transition theory. The United States is controlled by all of these large corporations who have a stronghold on policy, society and the economy. How exactly would we be able to transition to a Libertarian society, when there are certain groups with an inherent major advantage in the market already? Like for instance when it comes to banning Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property would get rid of issues with monopolies, but smaller businesses in the market would be blown out because they have nothing to protect themselves. You got rid of one of the problems, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are all of these large companies with a substantial amount of resources. What are you gonna do about them?

So yeah, that's what I think. Let me know what you guys think. I would like to say that I lack a substantial amount of education myself, and you guys are probably more knowledgable about all of this than me, because quite frankly I'm intellectually lazy and using brainpower is a lot of work. But essentially these are all of my ideas and what I think, and I've spend the last 10 minutes on reddit diligently searching for posts about this, about how Libertarians and theoretical political systems in general lack a lot of scientific evidence, and how they need to meet an incredibly high burden of proof, along with the limitations of economic science itself. Which led me to this sub to instead ask the question myself rather than searching for someone else who's asked it. I need to go to bed now so I can get up for school tomorrow, so I'll probably see the response late in the afternoon, but thankfully it's gonna be the weekend and all I have is debate practice so I'll get here sooner than usual.

As far as I could tell. These are the 2 things that the US is built for and has even led to some other countries follow the same thing.

Edit: and doesn't Switzerland have a republic democracy?

Why are they bad? Give examples of it happening and failing.

It is ruled by a king and the people who live reside it is considered that monarchist subjects.

The USA is actually founded to escape the British rule of monarchy from England.

It is well known for its constitution from creating a presidential republic democracy

I came across this very good video (9 min) on the Matthew Principle of game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfjEZ5Gljvg

Essentially, the math seems to suggest that inequality, and massive inequality at that, is inevitable for basically anything (money, power, fame, etc.). Which is to say that if the possibility of ANY inequality in something exists, then it is basically guaranteed to result in massive inequality, barring some kind of interference.

People argue that wealth inequality necessarily leads to power inequality, whether a government exists or not. This would probably also be true of fame, as famous people necessarily wield more influence, yet we don't do anything about fame inequality (nor could we).

Do you agree that inequality of money or power is bad? If so, how would we reconcile free markets with inevitable inequality?

Just curious since I don't see a lot of criticism from Trump (especially after he pardoned Ross Ulbricht) from libertarians both online and irl.

Looking at the movie, it's based on a true story that talks about child trafficking and how criminals enter our homes. And even though critics received it negativity the audience reception has been very positive as 10/10 reviews on IMDb are outnumbered. A lot of audience like it but critics hate it. Also, the movie has a $14.5 dollar budget made independently that destroyed Hollywood's basic tactics.

Do Libertarians for instance believe in no unemployment benefits?

How would repealing all laws in those areas improve the life of ordinary citizens and why wouldnt corporations just pollute rivers, lakes, forests etc. in an extreme way and put all kind of dangerous addictive substances in food and clothes etc. if there were no regulations, not even minimal ones?

My guess would be Japan, although I'm not entirely sure why.

If there is what should the limit be? Economic productivity? Ability to afford children?

3 cases in point for samples?

1. Elon have $1 trillion. Anyone think it's problematic?
2. Welfare recipients have 40 children. Any victims? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159476/amp/Tennessees-deadbeat-dads-The-men-81-children-46-different-women--theyre-paying-child-support-them.html
3. Elon hired 1k women to produce 5 heirs each. He pays $5k a month per each child and continue running his business.

Number 3 is as far as I know impossible. Instead this tend to happen

Certainly, here are the plain text URLs for the cases discussed:

1. Brendan Fraser (Actor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Fraser

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni47116266/

2. Blake Griffin (NBA Player)

https://www.tmz.com/2018/08/03/blake-griffin-32k-child-support/

https://sports.yahoo.com/no-blake-griffin-isnt-playing-258000-per-month-child-support-230210368.html

3. Nas (Rapper)

https://www.mtv.com/news/1619220/nas-ordered-to-pay-kelis-55100-per-month-in-child-and-spousal-support/

4. P. Diddy (Sean Combs, Music Mogul)

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-much-does-diddy-pay-in-child-support.html/

5. Future (Rapper)

https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/13/future-ordered-pay-3200-month-child-support-daughter-eliza-reign/

These links provide detailed information on each individual's child support arrangements.

Case 3 is hypothetical because it's actually very difficult legally. Each of those mom can fly to California and sue for much larger than $5k a month. I am not even sure the laws are. Maybe if Elon stays in Texas he can't be sued for child support like that.

My question is, as libertarian

Which of the 3 cases should be legally impossible?

If you think 1 is okay and 2 is not why?

If you think 1 is okay but 3 is not why?

I personally think 1 and 3 is okay but not 2.

The status quo is there is no hard limit. Income taxes , however slow down 1 and 3 greatly and welfare encourage 2.

Most people, especially leftists think 2 should be legal but 3 is not. Libertarians also think the same way. Or do they? I mean if it's the law of the land then the majority support this right?

What do you think?

In any case those 3 cases are samples of people being far more successful than the rest.

Many libertarians complain that Trump is not libertarian.

Fine.

But he is much better than Commiela right? And can actually win. And well won.

You agree? Trump is a step forward for us?

He is grateful for libertarian support and free Ross Ulbricht.

That impress me very much.

I have heard how much libertarians hate the EU, but I don’t know what the EU even is and why libertarians have such disdain for it.

I was recently in a thread elsewhere about who is responsible for feeding babies and children, and some Libertarians spoke up with opinions about the children's parents, or relatives/neighbors of orphans, etc. When I asked them how that fit with their political beliefs, a few of them replied about "implicit contracts", as in "there's an implicit contract created when someone has a baby, obligating them to feed that child for some years".

My end goal is to come to more general discussions with Libertarians with some examples of the "implicit contracts" that other political ideologies believe in so I can try to find where the Libertarians draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate such contracts.

Toward that goal, I'm asking here... What such implicit contracts exist, that at least some/most Libertarians believe in? Has anyone studied this, polled on it, written up concise descriptions of them, etc?

On one hand, standards allow interchangeability between technologies, but on the other hand, manufacturers who don't follow the standards are disincentivised from following their own standards.

Let's divide the questions.

Do poor people have right to have many children?

Like 40. They can't afford it of course.

So if they have right to have many children, who gonna pay for those children? Does their right to have many children imply that the rest of us got to pay via tax and welfare?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-davies-feckless-fathers-mp-monmouth-child-support

Let's ask another similar questions.

Do rich people have right to have many children?

What about if he doesn't want to spend money on his children? Same rules? Let government pay for it?

What about if rich people want to have many children, want to afford them all, but don't want to spend as much money as the court require for child support?

Say Elon wants to have 100 children but wants to spend only $2k a month for each. Notice that's still more than median child support amount?

So what do you think is true

1. Do poor people have right to have many children?
2. Do rich people have right to have many children if they don't want to afford those children?
3. Do rich people have right to have many children if they can and are willing to afford those children.

In each case, assume that having children is consensual with mom. Either seduce or pay. Pay count as consensual.

Also how many children do you think a man should be legally allowed to have? infinite? 1000? What's the limit? His wealth? Number of women he can pay or persuade to be mom? What?

What restrictions, if any, you think government should have on people having many children? Should they be able to afford those children? Is that the only restrictions?

I've heard many people say it's the inflation caused by government printing money that causes those rises in prices, but isn't that proven wrong by the fact that Croatia switched from Kuna to Euro and prices continued rising at an even higher rate? Croatian government now has no power to endlessly print money, it's using Euro, the same currency the entire European Union uses. Yet prices are rising in Croatia much faster than in Germany.
Besides, if it was the inflation to blame, we would expect wages to rise as well, wouldn't we? But wages have barely risen, and telecommunication prices basically haven't risen at all. It's basically only the food prices that are rising. 10 years ago, Croatia was known as a country with low wages, but also low food prices. These days, wages in Croatia are a fraction of the wages in Germany, but food prices are the same or often even higher.

I've heard some people say it's the shortage of wheat and similar "raw materials" that causes this, but prices of wheat have stayed constant since 2020. Not to mention that explanation is incompatible with modern economics, as it's based on the labour theory of value, right?

Some people are blaming taxes and tarrifs for this, but those have been decreasing or stayed the same, and the prices of food have increased.

For example, most third world countries that do not have a mature thinking.

Or place like Korean where is more paternal authority?

Or place like India that women get raped every day?

Spreading the concept for the places that are high in diversity enough (e.g. USA, UK and most developed countries) looks a waste to me.

Shouldn't we help the places that actually need the DEI?

I am thinking steemit twitter combo. If there are costs I prefer to pay with crypto or something anonymous.

I am a bit like moldbug. Kind of libertarian but not mainstream.

My idea is that everything should be privatized and commercialized, including governments. So like moldbug I think government should be joint stock companies.

I need a blogging system.

It could be a twitter. I don't mind paying for blue checkmark.

But I want blogs that

1. Can't be censored by commies or anything

2. Facilitate 2 ways communications.

3. Spam proof.

4. Anonymous. Nobody knows who I am.

5. Huge reach. Twitter is nice.

6. If possible I want automated syndication. So I post once and it shows up on twitter and tumblr and so on.

7. Cheap is good. Free is better.

8. Make money is a bit good. I don't need the money. But I tend to see this like video games. Even though I have money to just buy good gears and characters in games I prefer to win with little or no paying. So if this can make a little money then good....... Then I can teach other writers to do the same.

What arrangements would you recommend?

A lot of libertarians I know are neutral-to-optimistic about the new Trump administration, with Trump fulfilling his promise and pardoning Ross Ulbricht. Now obviously, president Trump isn’t a libertarian. However, what do you think are policies that Trump could realistically pass as president that would advance libertarians, their goals and their messages?