Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[GreNME]

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.

HAHA! Which toll roads, railroads, or canals, pray tell were opened and operated solely through private methods? Certainly not a single damned one in the United States.

 

[Ziggurat]

HAHA! Which toll roads, railroads, or canals, pray tell were opened and operated solely through private methods? Certainly not a single damned one in the United States.

I never said anything about "solely", whatever you mean by that. Nor is it particularly relevant, since public involvement in the past doesn't prove it cannot be done. In fact, we're only talking about the possibility of such a thing, not whether it would be preferable, and I think it's pretty clear that it is possible.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in attacking the theoretical possibility of such systems, though, given that it will never happen for the simple reason that it's not what most people want.

 

[geni]

HAHA! Which toll roads, railroads, or canals, pray tell were opened and operated solely through private methods? Certainly not a single damned one in the United States.

There were a few short 1 mile canals that managed it. The rolle canal would have if lord rolle had managed to avoid building across common land.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...if so, what were the results?

Somalia & Afghanistan are the two most recent examples. Results were not good, at least for people who think rationally.

 

[leftysergeant]

...if so, what were the results?

Roanoke Colony.

It sucked.

 

[GreNME]

I never said anything about "solely", whatever you mean by that. Nor is it particularly relevant, since public involvement in the past doesn't prove it cannot be done. In fact, we're only talking about the possibility of such a thing, not whether it would be preferable, and I think it's pretty clear that it is possible.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in attacking the theoretical possibility of such systems, though, given that it will never happen for the simple reason that it's not what most people want.

Not invested in anything, simply amused at "well, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it theoretically couldn't" being used as an argument about a utopian philosophy.

The point is that the libertarian political philosophy only works if all members of the libertarian nation agree to the same set of principles. Otherwise, much like the anarchist political philosophy it degenerates into chaos or like the communist political philosophy it becomes corrupt and abusive-- the latter of which is demonstrable in the late-19th-century American economics.

 

[Ziggurat]

The point is that the libertarian political philosophy only works if all members of the libertarian nation agree to the same set of principles. Otherwise, much like the anarchist political philosophy it degenerates into chaos

Actually, there's a much simpler and more immediate "failure" mechanism: people just start voting for government regulations.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, there's a much simpler and more immediate "failure" mechanism: people just start voting for government regulations.

That is because they realize early that there are people trying to get away with some outrageous crap that has to be stopped.

 

[GreNME]

Actually, there's a much simpler and more immediate "failure" mechanism: people just start voting for government regulations.

I already noted that more than once: libertarian political philosophy only works if everyone taking part agrees to the same principle.

Re-wording something I say and then shooting it back to me is not pointing out an error in what I said.

 

[Ziggurat]

I already noted that more than once: libertarian political philosophy only works if everyone taking part agrees to the same principle.

Re-wording something I say and then shooting it back to me is not pointing out an error in what I said.

What I said in that post is not a rewording of what you said in the post I responded to. You indicated not just that libertarianism would fail, but that it would suffer a particular failure mechanism. I pointed out that there was a different and more likely failure mechanism.

 

[geni]

I'm not sure why you're so invested in attacking the theoretical possibility of such systems, though, given that it will never happen for the simple reason that it's not what most people want.

Because libertarian principles have a degree of popularity with certian groups so of which have significant power of various types. Rather than fighting the pro vs anti-libertarian argument as a series of skirmishes it is more efficent to show that the libertarian utopia is anything but.

 

[GreNME]

What I said in that post is not a rewording of what you said in the post I responded to. You indicated not just that libertarianism would fail, but that it would suffer a particular failure mechanism. I pointed out that there was a different and more likely failure mechanism.

You pointed out what I already said previously. Twice.

 

[Galileo]

...if so, what were the results?

Yes, it was implemented during the Virginia Dynasty, the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe.

The results were very successful.

It lead to the kicking of British ass in the Second War of Independence, and then the Era of Good Feelings, free trade on the Great Lakes/Atlantic ocean/Mississippi river/West Indies, the Missouri Compromise, the Monroe Doctrine, the American Industrial Revolution, and the culmination of the American Enlightenment.

All the presidents that followed were more less Libertarians, up until Lincoln became a dictator in 1861 and violated the U.S. Constitution.

The only non-Libertarian exceptions to the pre-Lincoln era were WH Harrison (who died suddenly), and Polk (who made a land grab).

The era of Jacksonian democracy was very Libertarian, as documented by Alexis de Tocqueville.

As the Civil War approached in the 1850s, things started to get unstable and tended against Libertarianism, but the presidents themselves usually stuck to the Constitution.

Even after Lincoln, we still had a Libertarian president as late as Grover Cleveland.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because libertarian principles have a degree of popularity with certian groups so of which have significant power of various types.

So? The notion of a completely libertarian society does not have a significant degree of popularity.

Rather than fighting the pro vs anti-libertarian argument as a series of skirmishes it is more efficent to show that the libertarian utopia is anything but.

In other words, it's more efficient to fight strawmen. One need not want a "libertarian utopia" to accept libertarian arguments in more limited contexts.

 

[psychictv]

Then you've changed the subject.

Nope, still talking about Libertarianism. You're the one who started going off on a tangent about axioms.

 

[psychictv]

It lead to the kicking of British ass in the Second War of Independence, and then the Era of Good Feelings, free trade on the Great Lakes/Atlantic ocean/Mississippi river/West Indies, the Missouri Compromise, the Monroe Doctrine, the American Industrial Revolution, and the culmination of the American Enlightenment.

Did Libertarianism lead to the industrial revolution, or did industrialization make it impossible to ever go back to a simplistic free market devoid of any regulation?

It's funny that you mention Lincoln as a turning point, considering that the economic success of early America had more to do with a massive supply of free labor than a lack of government intervention in the market.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope, still talking about Libertarianism. You're the one who started going off on a tangent about axioms.

It was not a tangent, it was directly related to your claim that libertarianism had no logical basis, a claim which is rather meaningless. You shifted from talking about the basis of libertarianism (YOUR topic) to talking about its rigidity.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's funny that you mention Lincoln as a turning point, considering that the economic success of early America had more to do with a massive supply of free labor than a lack of government intervention in the market.

Slave labor isn't free, it's just artificially cheap, and the non-slave states were more economically prosperous than the slave states.

 

[psychictv]

It was not a tangent, it was directly related to your claim that libertarianism had no logical basis, a claim which is rather meaningless. You shifted from talking about the basis of libertarianism (YOUR topic) to talking about its rigidity.

I was criticizing Libertarianism for its illogically rigid thinking. I was criticizing the absolutist position that Libertarians take against all government regulation and pointing out that such a position is logically inconsistent with the fact that any marketplace requires some degree of regulation in order to function.

You did some handwaving and said that private property was axiomatic without explaining why Libertarians arbitrarily accept regulations that benefit capital while disallowing regulations that benefit labor. Why is the right for capital to organize itself into corporations a Libertarian axiom, and not the right for workers to organize themselves into trade unions?

 

[Ziggurat]

I was criticizing Libertarianism for its illogically rigid thinking.

Could have fooled me. But there's nothing illogical about rigidity. Perhaps foolish, but not illogical.

I was criticizing the absolutist position that Libertarians take against all government regulation and pointing out that such a position is logically inconsistent with the fact that any marketplace requires some degree of regulation in order to function.

But that is not something anyone has proven, so while it might be wrong, there's nothing illogical about it. And there's a difference between contract enforcement (which libertarians want) and regulation.

You did some handwaving and said that private property was axiomatic without explaining why Libertarians arbitrarily accept regulations that benefit capital while disallowing regulations that benefit labor. Why is the right for capital to organize itself into corporations a Libertarian axiom, and not the right for workers to organize themselves into trade unions?

But you're wrong: libertarians don't have any problem with workers forming unions. Unions are, at heart, simply voluntary contracts between groups of workers, and libertarians are just fine with voluntary contracts. And what are these regulations that libertarians like which you speak of?