Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Galileo]

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?

A Libertarian free market lead to the Industrial Revolution. The great increase in wealth gradually allowed a parasitic central government to become entrenched, with 1913 as the watershed year.

As it stands now, the great benefits of the Industrial Revolution outweigh the negative impact of big government. But big government, enstrenched since 1913, has led to the point where we no longer have real economic growth, and a slow decline over the next 50 years looms.

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.

Lincoln was a blip. During his reign, there was untold property damage, 600,000 deaths, and flagrant violations of the US Constitution.

But the slaves were freed, offsetting this. The South did not start its Industrial Revolution until after the Civil War, while the Industrial Revolution accelerated in the North. The West also opened up to industry.

Lincoln set some dangerous precedents that were realized in the 20th century.

As I said,the last president to rule in a Constitutional manner was Grover Cleveland. He vetoed 400 bills.

McKinley did not watch the ship, and allowed corruption to grow, including the 1898 Maine incident, then he was murdered in 1901. Teddy Roosevelt was anti-Libertarian. Taft was pretty good, but not as good as Cleveland. Then Wilson got in, and we had 1913:

1) Publication of Charles Beard's book ripping on the Founding Fathers (An Economic Intepretation of the Constition). his widely popular book posited a massive conspiracy by the Founding Fathers.

2) The Italian Hall mass murder in Upper Michigan, orchestrated by big business & abetted by big media, at the expense of free labor.

3) The Harrison Act, and the beginning of the evil War on Drugs.

4) The Federal Reserve Act.

5) The Income Tax fraud.

6) The worst of them all, the direct election of Senators.

Later in Wilson's reign, we got:

1) The Alcohol prohibition.

2) The faked Zimmerman telgram.

3) The orchetrated Lusitania incident.

4) WWI

5) Wilson's coverup of the Influenza outbreak, that lead to 50 million deaths worldwide. Wilson kept info on the spread iof the disease, greatly increasing its deadly impact, becasue he was afraid it would interfere with his war effort.

6) More books by Beard, including a rip-job on Thomas Jefferson.

On the good side, women got the right to vote, and the League of Nations was set up, offsetting somewhat, the above problems.

PS

Just prior to Wilson in 1910, we got an outrage that is arguably worse than the 17th amendment, the unconstitutional fixing of the size of congress. This made the fascist mass media more influential in deciding congressional races.

 

[GreNME]

A Libertarian free market lead to the Industrial Revolution.

Fail. Europe entered the Industrial Revolution long before the US, so if the "Libertarian free market" in the US did anything it slowed the US down.

As it stands now, the great benefits of the Industrial Revolution outweigh the negative impact of big government. But big government, enstrenched since 1913, has led to the point where we no longer have real economic growth, and a slow decline over the next 50 years looms.

More fail. Since the 1910's the US economy has had a great deal more stability than it did prior, with huge bouts of inflation and deflation throughout the 1800's thanks to Laissez Faire economics.

Lincoln was a blip. During his reign, there was untold property damage, 600,000 deaths, and flagrant violations of the US Constitution.

Or, in other words, the Civil War started by the South.

As I said,the last president to rule in a Constitutional manner was Grover Cleveland. He vetoed 400 bills.

Fail. Constitutionality is not defined by how many bills are vetoed.

Teddy Roosevelt was anti-Libertarian. Taft was pretty good, but not as good as Cleveland.

Teddy Roosevelt had problems with stuff like child labor and lack of responsibility of robber-barons to the backs they were breaking to rake in cash. That says loads about Libertarian ethics.

Just prior to Wilson in 1910, we got an outrage that is arguably worse than the 17th amendment, the unconstitutional fixing of the size of congress. This made the fascist mass media more influential in deciding congressional races.

OMG CONSPIRACY.

 

[psychictv]

And what are these regulations that libertarians like which you speak of?

Property rights, contract enforcement, protection against fraud. Do try to follow along.

 

[Ziggurat]

Property rights, contract enforcement, protection against fraud.

What, you don't think those things protect workers too?

 

[psychictv]

What, you don't think those things protect workers too?

Sure they do, although they obviously disproportionately benefit the wealthiest.

So is that the critera? A regulation must benefit both workers and owners in order for Libertarians to approve?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure they do, although they obviously disproportionately benefit the wealthiest.

It's not that simple. There are many cases where weak property rights hurt the poor more than the rich (for example, Kelo vs. New London).

So is that the critera? A regulation must benefit both workers and owners in order for Libertarians to approve?

No. The distinction between "owners" and "workers" is not a solid boundary, and they are neither comprehensive nor exclusive categories (one can be both or neither). Libertarians don't use those categories.

And property rights laws are not what most people would consider "regulations". There's a reason we use the term "regulation" and not simply "law".

 

[psychictv]

It's not that simple. There are many cases where weak property rights hurt the poor more than the rich (for example, Kelo vs. New London).

Property rights benefit those who own property. By definition, if I own no property I get no benefit. The more property I own, the more I have to lose. It's the same thing with contract law. If I work under no contracts, then contract law means quite a bit less to me than someone who has billions of dollars riding on a contract.

And property rights laws are not what most people would consider "regulations". There's a reason we use the term "regulation" and not simply "law".

And so I ask again: in what fundamental way are the laws that protect property rights, contracts, or the right for investors to organize themselves into a corporation different than a law prohibiting the employment of children, or prohibiting an individual from voluntarily selling himself into slavery?

 

[Ziggurat]

Property rights benefit those who own property.

Which is basically everyone.

 

[psychictv]

So you can't answer the question right? It's just an "axiom" because Libertarians say it's so.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's just an "axiom" because Libertarians say it's so.

What do you think an axiom is? And do you seriously think there aren't things that you believe in axiomatically?

 

[geni]

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

As if numbers mattered. For example:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/10/06/mean-street-ayn-rand-vs-goldman-sachs/

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.

Actualy you do. Libertarianism is a fairly complete philosophy (well family of philosphies). If it's fundimental conclusions about the world can be shown to be false (and they are) then those wanting to argue for a smaller goverment or less regulated markets can't use libertarian arguments.

 

[geni]

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.

As soon as you have disputes over contracts the distinction becomes unclear. As Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co showed (effectively regulating adverts to say that you shouldn't make your puffery too beliveable unless you really mean it).

 

[Puppycow]

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?

That seems like closest approximation. Before things like anti-trust laws.

 

[leftysergeant]

That seems like closest approximation. Before things like anti-trust laws.

And anti-trust laws came about because libertarian ecconomics only worked for those who had and screwed those who had not.

That aint even human, so the law had to redress the balance of nature.

Libertarianism falls way short of what makes humans human.

 

[Jontg]

Yes. It was called the Dark Ages. The moment the old power structure broke down, the strongest and nastiest people around began creating their own. And now, you want to do the same thing over again, and let everyone have assault rifles. Reeeeeal smart.
...
Okay, I admit that was a slight exaggeration.
Only the people who can afford them will have assault rifles.

 

[psychictv]

What do you think an axiom is? And do you seriously think there aren't things that you believe in axiomatically?

I never said there weren't. It's just totally irrelevant, as any law that stems from such a "self evident" assumption doesn't preclude the necessity of other, similar laws. So again, how can Libertarianism reject any laws that govern trade while simultaneously taking a series of laws that govern trade as it's very foundation?

 

[Earthborn]

Only the people who can afford them will have assault rifles.

If it wasn't for those meddling safety features the government mandates, gun manufacturers could get really innovative and make much cheaper assault rifles, so that everyone will be able to afford an assault rifle.

I am sure you are thinking: "But... but... wouldn't the removal of those safety regulations make those assault rifles more dangerous?". That of course is socialist claptrap; a Free Market business does not have any incentive to produce products that could kill its potential customers. Nobody would buy anything from a gun maker if its products could kill, so it is in its own interest to make those guns as safe as possible. If those government regulations do anything at all, it is more likely that they stifle innovation to make them safer. In a truly Free Market, gun manufacturers would be able to make dirt cheap assault rifles that are so safe you couldn't even kill anyone even if you were trying to.

I know this because there already are dirt cheap and safe assault rifles, but again because of government meddling it is illegal to sell them as "real guns". Even more absurd, in some places it is illegal to sell them at all if people might confuse them for deadly guns! It's the world on its head!

Guns kill people, but only because of government regulation.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Is this the "No true Libertarian" argument?

Why do you need a reliable contract enforcement system? Surely if someone reneges on a contract, nobody will trade with them in future; as Tricky pointed out this did work in hunter-gatherer society:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3_8hTUOXCiwC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=axes+stingray+spears+australia&source=bl&ots=SJmmkIEnCI&sig=VzG33LFuYwd5jZvcGKQofMxpEpo&hl=en&ei=S73RSsjWH8f-4Abwwb3rBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

However I will argue that for any society more complex than this, libertarianism will fail because you need protection for the members of society.

 

[elbe]

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.

And what's to stop those small, non-libertarian governments from merging and creating larger, non-libertarian governments - as they always have.

But I'll be honest, I don't really understand this particular libertarian inconsistency, other than government = bad. If a large group of individuals with overlapping self interests want to join together to create a larger economic entity (ala a corporation), and that's a good thing, then why can't a large group of individuals with overlapping self interests join together to create a different kind of large entity to provide public goods and provide for the public good?

Of course there's always the whole big/small government issue attached to lib (which I personally think is more of a concession on their part from "government = evil" because of various necessary evils). If governments shouldn't be too large because of corruption and a lack of accountability, then shouldn't corporations also be size limited?

 

[Arcade22]

And what's to stop those small, non-libertarian governments from merging and creating larger, non-libertarian governments - as they always have.

But I'll be honest, I don't really understand this particular libertarian inconsistency, other than government = bad. If a large group of individuals with overlapping self interests want to join together to create a larger economic entity (ala a corporation), and that's a good thing, then why can't a large group of individuals with overlapping self interests join together to create a different kind of large entity to provide public goods and provide for the public good?

Because they feel that people are being forced and coerced, and force and coercion is apparently bad even if most people have it better because of it.