Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[psychictv]

...the government's only role is to enforce property rights...fraud and the like.

...intellectual property is essential for a free market to function.

These are all quite major regulations of the marketplace. Why do you support these regulations which protect the interests of capital but not regulations which would protect the interest of workers?

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Wasn't the net results of the industrial revolution were much, much more efficient production of goods and an explosion in the number of available jobs?

I wouldn't argue though, that a free market economy would not have periods where there are crappy products or bad working conditions...I think that the libertarian philosophy says that market forces ultimately correct these though through competition and the end result is better than we could achieve through any other system.

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'.

Well, I think you can "pure implementations" of philosophies that allow for and acknowledge human nature. For example, you can't get a pure implementation of communism because people don't go for it...but you can see pure implementation of things like dictatorship with secret police seeking to squash dissent.

(I chose that example just so it doesn't seem like I'm doing special pleading for libertarianism or something similar as a transcendant idea that can be fully implemented due to its individual greatness.)

It seems like ideas that have various allowances for potential problems can be implemented in reasonably pure forms, and it seems like libertarianism is one of them, sense it relies on overall forces to create its positive effect which ultimately overcome individual "hiccups."

These are all quite major regulations of the marketplace. Why do you support these regulations which protect the interests of capital but not regulations which would protect the interest of workers?

Well, these regulations are simply necessary for the "free free market" to exist. People have to use creation of goods and services and so on to make their money instead of simply stealing things from people or stealing innovations from other businessmen.

Let me stress that libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The government DOES have a role, but the role is ONLY to protect property rights and stop stealing, murder, fraud and so on. NOT to try to control the demand or price for any good or service or the wages of workers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wasn't the net results of the industrial revolution were much, much more efficient production of goods and an explosion in the number of available jobs?

But your question wasn't about the net effect of the industrial revolution, but rather the results of an unfettered, free market, post-industrial capitalist economy.

We've seen those results: huge monopolies, robber barons, unsafe working conditions and the exploitation of the working class, exploitation of child labor, corporate irresponsibility with regard to product safety and liability and environmental stewardship.

The reason for the resistance to globalization is largely a concern for attempts to undue the progress we've made on these issues (which can pretty much be seen as government intervention and limitations on the free market).

 

[Ziggurat]

...if so, what were the results?

An absolutely free market hasn't really been tried, and it probably never will be. And even if it were, it would be unstable. With non-democratic governments, the government has an irresistible temptation to game the market for their own benefit, and in a democracy, some degree of regulation is and probably always will be simply too popular.

The example of Somalia is not a libertarian system. It's got a free market, but no reliable contract enforcement, which is a requirement of a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) system.

 

[psychictv]

Well, these regulations are simply necessary for the "free free market" to exist. People have to use creation of goods and services and so on to make their money instead of simply stealing things from people or stealing innovations from other businessmen.

So again, why allow regulations that protect capital but not regulations that protect labor? A truly free market would not protect intellectual property. What good reason is there not to prohibit child labor or slavery?

Let me stress that libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The government DOES have a role, but the role is ONLY to protect property rights and stop stealing, murder, fraud and so on. NOT to try to control the demand or price for any good or service or the wages of workers.

Intellectual property is a regulation that controls prices. All ownership of private property is essentially an artificial control on supply and demand, as wealthy individuals can hoard resources that would otherwise be cheap and abundant.

Libertarianism is anarchy for the worker as the government's only role would be the protection of capital. Why do you value private property over human life? It's a totally illogical and antisocial philosophy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let me stress that libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The government DOES have a role, but the role is ONLY to protect property rights and stop stealing, murder, fraud and so on. NOT to try to control the demand or price for any good or service or the wages of workers.

I think the distinction you're making is largely arbitrary. Enforcement of intellectual property rights, as I've mentioned, has a profound effect on supply, demand and price. So do environmental regulations, workers' rights, etc. (ETA: And so do the things you mentioned: defining and protecting property rights, establishing a stable nation and society, etc.)

It seems the only distinction you want to make are whether government intervention is pro-business or not (i.e. pro-labor, pro-environment, etc.)

 

[David Wong]

Let me stress that libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The government DOES have a role, but the role is ONLY to protect property rights and stop stealing, murder, fraud and so on.

It's in defining the "and so on" where the bitter disagreements set in.

 

[psychictv]

The example of Somalia is not a libertarian system. It's got a free market, but no reliable contract enforcement, which is a requirement of a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) system.

Libertarians would be anarchists if they actually thought through their philosophy and were logically consistent. None of them can explain why they arbitrarily support some regulations (like property rights) and not others.

 

[Ziggurat]

Libertarians would be anarchists if they actually thought through their philosophy and were logically consistent. None of them can explain why they arbitrarily support some regulations (like property rights) and not others.

No ideology can "logically" explain everything. It doesn't work that way. Some things must always be taken as axiomatic. Under libertarianism, property rights are axiomatic.

 

[psychictv]

No ideology can "logically" explain everything. It doesn't work that way. Some things must always be taken as axiomatic. Under libertarianism, property rights are axiomatic.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to try to shape government based on any rigid ideology.

My personal philosophy is that regulations of the marketplace are sometimes necessary and helpful to the functioning of the economy and society as a whole. Therefore it makes the most sense to take things on a case by case basis and not arbitrarily take certain categories of regulation off the table for ideological reasons.

Explain to me how Libertarianism is preferable to this less ideological, more common sense approach.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Under libertarianism, property rights are axiomatic.

But which ones? Again, it seems to me that libertarianism chooses pro-business or pro-capitalist property rights. Their definition of laissez-faire is not very honest.

 

[geni]

...if so, what were the results?

British India. There was a famine (it happens from time to time) and a few million people died when it was decided that distributing goverment aid would have been interfering with the free market.

Under certian definitions india under the east india company would also count.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is why it doesn't make sense to try to shape government based on any rigid ideology.

I'm not talking about rigidity, I'm talking about axioms. Not quite the same thing. And basically every democracy (and definitely the United States) takes certain values as axiomatic in the foundation of government. You may disagree with the use of particular axioms, but you will find that you cannot get anywhere without them, whether you realize you are using any or not.

Explain to me how Libertarianism is preferable to this less ideological, more common sense approach.

Why should I explain to you a position I never expressed? I made no claims about the preferability of one ideology over another, I merely pointed out that your previous criticism of libertarianism wasn't valid. I'm also a little surprised that you would challenge me to defend a system that I explicitly stated that I thought wasn't stable. Whatever my desires for libertarianism might be, I've made it plain that I don't think it can be achieved.

 

[Ziggurat]

But which ones?

What are the categories which you envision? As far as I can see, the only really contentious issue in this regard is intellectual versus tangible property, since the latter are naturally scarce but the former only artificially. Your statements suggest you are referring to some other division of kinds of property, but I don't know what they might be.

 

[psychictv]

I'm not talking about rigidity, I'm talking about axioms. Not quite the same thing. And basically every democracy (and definitely the United States) takes certain values as axiomatic in the foundation of government.

But I am talking about rigidity. I've never seen a Libertarian explain why some regulations of the market are acceptable and not others. If you want to take certain property rights as axiomatic that's fine. I'm not arguing against those rights. I'm simply asking why you then have to exclude any other such useful rights and regulations that may fall outside of those limited axioms.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What are the categories which you envision? As far as I can see, the only really contentious issue in this regard is intellectual versus tangible property, since the latter are naturally scarce but the former only artificially. Your statements suggest you are referring to some other division of kinds of property, but I don't know what they might be.

People once thought it was "natural" to own slaves as property. Then there's inherited property rights. At different times women weren't allowed to own property. Even the intellectual property topic is a pretty broad category.

And what about public property? Surely libertarian laissez faire capitalism couldn't exist without roads and other types of public infrastructure.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I am talking about rigidity.

Then you've changed the subject.

 

[Ziggurat]

People once thought it was "natural" to own slaves as property.

Since almost nobody (and certainly not libertarians) thinks that now, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. If your only point is that "property rights" doesn't fully specify what we're talking about, then you would be quite correct. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

And what about public property? Surely libertarian laissez faire capitalism couldn't exist without roads and other types of public infrastructure.

What about it? Nothing about libertarianism categorically prevents governments from owning property. And much infrastructure can indeed operate privately, and often has, for example toll roads, railroads, and canals.

 

[GreNME]

Libertarian philosophy works logically just fine, as long as everyone agrees to play by the same rules. Much like anarchy, libertarian philosophy only works under utopian conditions.

 

[geni]

Since almost nobody (and certainly not libertarians) thinks that now, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

There are versions of libertarianism which have no problems with people selling themselves into slavery.

What about it? Nothing about libertarianism categorically prevents governments from owning property. And much infrastructure can indeed operate privately, and often has, for example toll roads, railroads, and canals.

Very few of those have been built without goverement backing. Most in the form of forced purchase orders and the like.