• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

EGarrett said:
...if so, what were the results?
Click to expand...

It really depends on the precise definition. I've seen it used to describe everything from anarchists to people crabby about NEA funding. If we look more toward the former...

The world is inherently libertarian, yet individuals rarely do not form polities to better pursue common interests, like enslaving others or avoiding same. Power and vacuums and all that.

It would require a pretty strong government to prevent people from forming governments... interesting idea, all it takes to work is a fundamental change in human nature.
 
oldhat said:
Lord of the Flies.

Worked out great.
Click to expand...
Suddenly said:
It really depends on the precise definition. I've seen it used to describe everything from anarchists to people crabby about NEA funding. If we look more toward the former...

The world is inherently libertarian, yet individuals rarely do not form polities to better pursue common interests, like enslaving others or avoiding same. Power and vacuums and all that.
Click to expand...
Well, to be clear...I'm talking about the Libertarianism where government does not interfere in the free market...as championed by John Stossel, Penn Jillette, Ron Paul and others.

Suddenly said:
It would require a pretty strong government to prevent people from forming governments... interesting idea, all it takes to work is a fundamental change in human nature.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean. I recently came across a video where Ron Paul says that a libertarian government would actually allow its citizens to form socialist communes...since they can spend their money however they choose. So it would seem that a libertarian government wouldn't have to stop people from forming "sub-governments." I think. I started this topic to try to learn more.
 
EGarrett said:
Well, to be clear...I'm talking about the Libertarianism where government does not interfere in the free market...as championed by John Stossel, Penn Jillette, Ron Paul and others.
Click to expand...
Too broad still. Ron Paul isn't much of a libertarian when you get down to brass tacks (more of a critic of federal power in specific, having implicitly endorsed common anti-federal government CTs, and from a social standpoint he endorsed in 2008 a candidate that advocated a Xian theocracy...he sometimes waxes libertarian, but he also had a history of associating himself with racist militia doctrine when he thought that helped him)

Too many people like the label who really haven't specific positions beyond "not interfering in the free market," which is so vague to be useless. One person's interference is another's regulation necessary to avoid fraud, coercion, violation of personal dignity, de facto slavery, and down the line. Anyone to the right of Lenin can say they are against "interference" in the free market.


Not sure what you mean. I recently came across a video where Ron Paul says that a libertarian government would actually allow its citizens to form socialist communes...since they can spend their money however they choose. So it would seem that a libertarian government wouldn't have to stop people from forming "sub-governments." I think. I started this topic to try to learn more.
Click to expand...

Well... are they going to regulate the "sub-governments" at all w/r/t basic civil rights? Are people allowed to succeed if they want to avoid that regulation? Or is there going to be force from a central government to enforce this lack of government?

What happens in a libertarian nation with freedom of succession? It breaks up into smaller polities with more governmental authority and becomes irrelevant.

It just doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. Wrong species.
 
You've been on these forums for 5 years and you haven't learnt all the reasons why libertarianism (and particularly Ron-Paul-flavoured libertarianism) is just out-and-out ridiculous? Really?
 
The U.S. came pretty close to Libertarian Heaven during the latter part of the 19th. century, aka the Gilded Age. The robber barons and their imitators, along with shining lights like Boss Tweed, got away with just about every kind of swindle you could think of, not excluding the Pigeon Drop. Strange to say, with all the laissez-faire going around they still had to lie at some crucial point in their schemes; they always dealt a falsehood or two. Perhaps they couldn't get off without deception?
 
Last edited:
EGarrett said:
Well, to be clear...I'm talking about the Libertarianism where government does not interfere in the free market...
Click to expand...

You mean except where said government intervention helps businesses.

Big pharma, for example, probably couldn't exist without the protections of their intellectual property rights. In a truly free market, as soon as a drug hit the market, pretty much everyone could produce and sell it, so no one would have any incentive to develop new ones.
 
Suddenly said:
Too broad still. Ron Paul isn't much of a libertarian when you get down to brass tacks (more of a critic of federal power in specific, having implicitly endorsed common anti-federal government CTs, and from a social standpoint he endorsed in 2008 a candidate that advocated a Xian theocracy...he sometimes waxes libertarian, but he also had a history of associating himself with racist militia doctrine when he thought that helped him)
Click to expand...
Ron Paul has said a lot of stupid things. The basic policy I have in mind when I hear libertarian is "separation of state and economics," where the government's only role is to enforce property rights and stop violence, coercion, fraud and the like. I suppose that to some extent people can argue about what constitutes fraud or coercion (though I'm not too sure about that), but I'm curious if any state has actually tried such a policy and what the results were.

Well... are they going to regulate the "sub-governments" at all w/r/t basic civil rights?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? A private enterprise can have whatever policy they want as long as they aren't committing fraud or physically harming other people. According to libertarian philosophy (as I understand it), businesses that are racist pretty much handicap themselves right out of the market anyway. But, if you want to set-up a subgroup where you pool your money and use it to purchase group possessions or give charity to others within the group (which seems to be the basics of a socialist commune), you would be allowed to do so.

Are people allowed to succeed if they want to avoid that regulation? Or is there going to be force from a central government to enforce this lack of government?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean. The government is going to prevent theft, rape, murder, violence, fraud and so on. Those aren't required to have a socialist group...

What happens in a libertarian nation with freedom of succession? It breaks up into smaller polities with more governmental authority and becomes irrelevant.

It just doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. Wrong species.
Click to expand...
I put "freedom of succession" into google and it had no idea what I was talking about.

Do you mean "freedom of secession?" The "totally free market" philosophy, as I understand it, is not anarchy. It maintains basic laws...but it does away with "market interference" policies like the minimum wage, licensing requirements, and so on...and let's businesses and consumers freely compete for products and jobs.

Note: I'm not here to argue that it would work. I don't know if it would. I'm curious if this "totally free market" philosophy, which I assume to be the core of libertarianism as Stossel, Ron Paul, Penn Jillette and others describe it...has been tried in other ways and what the results were...pass or fail.

sackett said:
The U.S. came pretty close to Libertarian Heaven during the latter part of the 19th. century, aka the Gilded Age. The robber barons and their imitators, along with shining lights like Boss Tweed, got away with just about every kind of swindle you could think of, not excluding the Pigeon Drop. Strange to say, with all the laissez-faire going around they still had to lie at some crucial point in their schemes; they always dealt a falsehood or two. Perhaps they couldn't get off without deception?
Click to expand...
This sounds nothing at all like a "libertarian heaven" as I understand it. Fraud is still a crime.

JoeTheJuggler said:
You mean except where said government intervention helps businesses.

Big pharma, for example, probably couldn't exist without the protections of their intellectual property rights. In a truly free market, as soon as a drug hit the market, pretty much everyone could produce and sell it, so no one would have any incentive to develop new ones.
Click to expand...
Um, protection of intellectual property is essential for a free market to function. People aren't allowed to steal each other's products or designs.

Tricky said:
Yes.

They eventually discovered agriculture and moved out of their caves.
Click to expand...
I expected better from you.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the early days of the US industrial revolution pretty much free market systems with hardly any government interference?

In that particular case, it resulted huge class divides and unsafe working conditions for little pay. Ultimately, though, I suppose you could say it resulted in government regulation and unions.


You're never going to find an example of a "pure" implementation of any economic philosophy. Philosophies are necessarily simplified extractions of real world situations. You can't control for every real world factor to try a perfect 'libertarian economic system'.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Bioshock. That was nonfiction right?
Click to expand...

I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

"I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky. But there is something more powerful than each of us, a combination of our efforts, a Great Chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you different either has his hand in your pocket, or a pistol to your neck."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom