Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Ziggurat]

Why do you need a reliable contract enforcement system?

Because otherwise you don't have a market, you have something else. Which may or may not work, but it's not libertarian. It's anarchist.

 

[jimbob]

So where do you draw the line?

Contract enforcement?

Weights and measures?

Dangerous goods?

Full-blown trading standards?

Laws against loan Sharks?

Laws against other unfair practices?

Ensuring standards in public utilities?

Full-bodied government?

 

[Jontg]

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.

...
*Poe's Law overload*

 

[Galileo]

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.

The US was not "free" until after the Treaty of Paris (1783), and not really free until 1815. The great James Madison lead us to victory and world respect.

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.

Not much more stability, but less average net economic growth.

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

Lincoln started the Civil War. He botched his foreign policy, mismanaged his cabinet, and botched the war. Lincoln did everything he could to help the North lose the war and keep the slaves enslaved. He lucked out when Stonewall Jackson died.

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

I am sorry. I was expecting this to be a forum of educated gentlemen, where I did not have to explain simple things. Grover Cleveland vetoed the 400 bills, more than all presidents before him combined, because they were unconstitutional.

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.

If I want to assign my kids housework, that is none of Teddy's business. Yes, we all know that Ted was upset that kids who grew up on farms had to do chores before they turned 21.

OMG CONSPIRACY.

gulp. Yep, another one. Egads!

 

[tyr_13]

Lincoln started the Civil War. He botched his foreign policy, mismanaged his cabinet, and botched the war. Lincoln did everything he could to help the North lose the war and keep the slaves enslaved. He lucked out when Stonewall Jackson died.

You're joking right? Please tell me you're joking.

I am sorry. I was expecting this to be a forum of educated gentlemen, where I did not have to explain simple things. Grover Cleveland vetoed the 400 bills, more than all presidents before him combined, because they were unconstitutional.

How does that support your argument?

If I want to assign my kids housework, that is none of Teddy's business. Yes, we all know that Ted was upset that kids who grew up on farms had to do chores before they turned 21.

Are you serious? Is he serious? If this isn't a joke, then your interpretation of history is heavily skewed towards straw. We don't all know that, because it's silly.

gulp. Yep, another one. Egads!

Oh, you weren't serious. You are joking. Haha, Poe's Law got me again. Here I thought Earthborn was going to have the best one on this thread.

 

[Francesca R]

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.

Correct. Quite a lot of anti-libertarians don't have a very good idea of what it is they are opposing.

 

[Ziggurat]

So where do you draw the line?

Contract enforcement?

A requirement for libertarian systems. Otherwise you're talking anarchism or anarcho-capitalism.

Weights and measures?

In principle, private organizations could establish standards. In fact, for certain things they already do. But nothing about government establishing a set of standards for weights and measures requires that people use those standards. The only problem would be if someone claimed to be using those standards when they were not, in which case, well, you've just got a form of contract violation.

Dangerous goods?

Libertarians don't have a problem with this, so long as the dangers are not hidden.

Full-blown trading standards?

Too vague a question.

Laws against loan Sharks?

Loan sharks engage in self-enforcement of contracts, which is a no-no. Perhaps you mean usury, but laws against usury are not necessarily beneficial, and competition in a free credit markets can drive down the cost of borrowing more effectively than government interference can, without causing the kind of crisis we're in right now.

Laws against other unfair practices?

Too vague a question.

Ensuring standards in public utilities?

Standards can and do evolve in industries even without government involvement. Just look at the personal computer industry.

Full-bodied government?

Libertarians don't oppose the existence of government, so I have no idea why you're asking about this. If you don't understand why they acknowledge the need for government, well, you don't understand the arguments for libertarianism. That's not the fault of the ideology, that's your own lack of knowledge.

 

[Francesca R]

Libertarians don't have a problem with this, so long as the dangers are not hidden.

What does "hidden" mean? Libertarian doctrine is against any compulsory disclosure (as in putting a label on a gun saying "Governments Guns kill people"). Effectively I think you can hide danger all you like as long as you don't harm anyone.

 

[Beerina]

...if so, what were the results?

Depends what you mean. General laissez-faire economic principles, not specific to libertarianism, are more or less the basis of modern, Western prosperity. Detractors, which is to say, power-hungry politicians, are largely just nibbling around the edges, feigning righteous indignation.


Many on the left also espouse positions shared with libertarian concepts, such as the right to an abortion, or for varied consenting sexual activity, or the legalization of drugs. But, not having a principle at heart of their beliefs, they stop short of things like legalizing prostitution.


Oh, wait. You're probably talking capital-L Libertarianism, with all it's crazy strawmen to poke at.

Nevermind.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Sure the question was...I asked what the results were...and net effects are definitely part of the results and are probably the most important result.

Note though, that I'm not sure how you mean "unfettered", but hopefully you don't mean without government enforcement of basic laws.

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.

Well, that's a lot to throw out at once. Let me just ask about one category...the huge monopolies. Are you referring to Ma Bell or something similar? What would be one monopoly that came about as a result of this market. That would probably be easy to explain quickly.

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,

This is a very interesting point, and one of the few concerns or criticisms of libertarianisms ability to work in the real world that actually seems to come from understanding of what the libertarians are saying instead of ignorance of it.

I'd like to ask some "real" libertarians about this. Do you think that checks on government power (like the three houses) could help this? They may say that government temptation exists in every form of government though and is thus not really a criticism or a specific concern.

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.

Thank you for saying this. It's so frustrating to want to talk about an idea and get bogged down in a relentless parade of strawman arguments.

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?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. "Protect capital but not labor?" Regulations against stealing and murder and so on protect everyone and allow people to exercise their freedom and live their lives, in addition to allowing a market to exist. I reject your premise that those regulations are somehow non-sequiturs or have no reason to be there.

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.

This is like a strawman wrapped in an equivocation tied up with an argument from ignorance. I'm sorry but it's just far too exhausting to have to pick through all of this. The libertarians to my knowledge believe that a free market system without artificial government control over prices, supply and demand and the like, are what's best ultimately for creating quality of life. There are certain things necessary for this free market system to exist. The libertarians do not believe in anarchy and anarchy is not pure supply and demand. Please recognize this as I want to talk about the libertarian ideas in practice and not get bogged down repeating things over and over.

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.

Now you're moving into strawman arguments in the form of putting words in people's mouths. Private property is necessary for a market to exist, and the libertarians believe that the market makes human life better.

I'm not going to continue this with you.

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.)

I disagree with your claim that there is a distinction between pro labor and pro environment in the 'free free market' idea. The controls that are REQUIRED for the market to exist are "pro everything." When people can have personal or intellectual property rights protecting their property or innovations, they WILL innovate in order to make money. Even the people who WOULD steal the invention are ultimately better off because under a stealing-allowed system there WOULD BE NO innovations for them to steal in the first place.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you guys, but it's a bit hard to pick apart the various assumptions being made in your posts.

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.

Yes they can, see my above replies to you and please stop with the strawmen.

 

[EGarrett]

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

People absolutely try to get away with fraud and theft if that's what you mean...but the libertarians believe that is stopped through criminal law, not through regulation of the market.

(dear God, please let him understand the difference between criminal law enforcement and market regulation as defined by the libertarians...pretty please?)

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.

You said that it would degenerate into chaos like anarchy. Ziggurat replied that it wouldn't break down into anarchy, it would just result in people voting for government regulation. I understand why he wanted to clear that up.

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.

You sound suspiciously fair-minded and knowledgeable. Maybe you can actually help me to understand some of these libertarian ideas.

I'll look up Alexis de Tocqueville. How did the early libertarians respond to Slavery in the South? Did they tolerate it, or was the libertarian philosophy still developing at that point?

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

I guess nothing. There's nothing in the American government that stops you from leaving and starting your own country elsewhere.

Of course, you'd have to do so on your own property, and if you go about murdering or raping or stealing from people within the libertarian country you would get a visit from the police or military...

But I'll be honest, I don't really understand this particular libertarian inconsistency, other than government = bad.

Government attempts to control the free market are bad. The government DOES have some basic role in a libertarian society.

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?

They can, if it's their own property. You can do what you want with your own stuff, including give it away.

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?

Corporations don't have the power to enact force on the population, the government does. If a corporation goes corrupt and starts doing dastardly things like making phony products and so on, they'll be punished by the government and also will lose their customers and go out of business. If the government goes corrupt and starts doing dastardly things...we're in deep trouble.

 

[GreNME]

You said that it would degenerate into chaos like anarchy. Ziggurat replied that it wouldn't break down into anarchy, it would just result in people voting for government regulation. I understand why he wanted to clear that up.

Please read my two posts prior, including the post he quoted from, where I state specifically that the system only works if everyone agrees to the same rules, for the context of the "chaos" that I describe. I never said that it would degenerate into anarchy, as anarchy and chaos are not the same thing from a political or economic systematic point of view. That Libertarian philosophy and Anarchist philosophy share the same trait in terms of degenerating due to utopian expectations does not automatically equate them to being the same thing.

All due respect, EGarrett, but I think you're only taking from the conversation what you would prefer to take from it, and not making note of the contextual and nuanced explanations therein.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please read my two posts prior, including the post he quoted from, where I state specifically that the system only works if everyone agrees to the same rules, for the context of the "chaos" that I describe.

People voting in politicians who change the system to something non-libertarian isn't what I would call chaos. You accuse others of not understanding the context of your statements, but you have consistently failed to understand what my criticism of your statement actually was.

 

[GreNME]

People voting in politicians who change the system to something non-libertarian isn't what I would call chaos. You accuse others of not understanding the context of your statements, but you have consistently failed to understand what my criticism of your statement actually was.

Or you fail to recognize what political upheaval entails.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or you fail to recognize what political upheaval entails.

No, GreNME. I don't think it WOULD be significant upheaval. You may disagree with me about whether or not that's the case, but you have previously indicated that you thought I was simply restating what you had already said, and that just isn't the case.

 

[EGarrett]

Please read my two posts prior, including the post he quoted from, where I state specifically that the system only works if everyone agrees to the same rules, for the context of the "chaos" that I describe. I never said that it would degenerate into anarchy, as anarchy and chaos are not the same thing from a political or economic systematic point of view. That Libertarian philosophy and Anarchist philosophy share the same trait in terms of degenerating due to utopian expectations does not automatically equate them to being the same thing.

All due respect, EGarrett, but I think you're only taking from the conversation what you would prefer to take from it, and not making note of the contextual and nuanced explanations therein.

This is what I saw...

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.

I see "much like the anarchist political philosophy it degenerates into chaos." Which I said was you saying it "would degenerate into chaos like anarchy." Looking back, I do see that you're saying that the situation UNDER which libertarianism would become chaos is different than the situation under which anarchy would become chaos...however, your statement does seem to imply that if all the people don't buy into the principles then the result is chaos. This is true of any governmental system, actually, and is not specifically a criticism of libertarianism.

Also, I do understand why Ziggurat would want to point out that libertarianism failing would result in just government regulations being voted for and not complete societal breakdown or something like that. There are so many characterizations in this thread and others that it does help when any misstatement or thing that could be misread is made clear.

 

[psychictv]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. "Protect capital but not labor?"

Why do Libertarians oppose laws that would outlaw child labor? As a society we decide that, while these laws may slightly hurt the pursuit of profits in the free market, they serve the greater good. So we accept the trade off and decide that it's worth sacrificing the ideology of the free market in order to save human life.

Why do Libertarians believe that an ideologically pure free market is so important that we should ignore some basic and uncontroversial regulations that would benefit everyone?

 

[GreNME]

This is what I saw...



I see "much like the anarchist political philosophy it degenerates into chaos." Which I said was you saying it "would degenerate into chaos like anarchy." Looking back, I do see that you're saying that the situation UNDER which libertarianism would become chaos is different than the situation under which anarchy would become chaos...however, your statement does seem to imply that if all the people don't buy into the principles then the result is chaos. This is true of any governmental system, actually, and is not specifically a criticism of libertarianism.

Like I said, you saw what you wanted to see, not what I actually said.

And no, unlike most government systems the Libertarian philosophy requires buy-in from the population to be 100% down to a granular level, while most other varied government systems have different amounts of acceptance that are necessary to maintain stability. Without 100% acceptance of the Libertarian philosophy, the system cannot last. That, by definition, is a utopian philosophy that has little or no bearing on the real world of disagreements and changing interpretations.

Also, I do understand why Ziggurat would want to point out that libertarianism failing would result in just government regulations being voted for and not complete societal breakdown or something like that. There are so many characterizations in this thread and others that it does help when any misstatement or thing that could be misread is made clear.

While I'm sure Ziggurat appreciates your understanding, he still repeated what I already said twice before, ignoring my having already said as much and instead focusing on a statement that, while not mutually exclusive, was equally not a requisite.

Do you see what's going on, though, EGarrett? The ideas and concepts I've pointed out in my argument aren't the focus of Ziggurat's continued disagreement, nor your own response, and with each post we're getting further away from the actual meaning of what was pointed out and more into a semantical argument that really seems to have no other purpose than scoring rhetorical points where asking for a simple clarification could have saved everyone a bunch of unnecessary reading and worthless circular argumentation.

Back to the point: Libertarian philosophy does not work because it relies on a utopian acceptance of the core principles in order to work. While various degrees of Libertarian-like systems have existed (late-19th century US) or currently exist (Somalia), there has not nor is there likely to be any "pure" Libertarian system in existence, as arguably there hasn't been any "pure" political philosophical system in existence for any notable period of time throughout history. If the "impure" examples are not sufficient sources to draw conclusions from, then a better argument than suggesting the lack of a "pure" Libertarian system needs to be made to justify such criticism.

 

[GreNME]

No, GreNME. I don't think it WOULD be significant upheaval. You may disagree with me about whether or not that's the case, but you have previously indicated that you thought I was simply restating what you had already said, and that just isn't the case.

The American Civil War. The 1895 and 1907 runs on the banks precipitating the institution of the Fed. The Civil Rights Movement and the riots in the 1960's, as well as the cases in the 1950's where the National Guard had to forcibly open schools to a few black kids as segregation waned.

People don't accept change lightly, and haven't consistently throughout history. Those are just a few examples in US history, though if I actually dug I could give more examples and detail. However, you seem to be arguing that none of these situations would constitute upheaval, yet assuming a start from a Libertarian political system of government movements toward a larger, more regulated, and more federalist government have more likelihood to go the way of America's most volatile moments in history than it does a progression of elections over some given period of time.

In other words, even the United States, which wasn't a "pure" Libertarian system (but close enough to the Laissez Faire concept), has experienced precisely what I explained in several bursts of varied severity and degree throughout its history. Just because you take what I say and re-word it in less volatile language doesn't make what has demonstrably happened in history less volatile.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do Libertarians oppose laws that would outlaw child labor? As a society we decide that, while these laws may slightly hurt the pursuit of profits in the free market, they serve the greater good.

Libertarians oppose such laws because they don't think they do serve the greater good. Do you really think that if child labor laws were repealed in the US, we'd see factories staffed by children popping up? Do you think that no other factors stand in the way of such an outcome besides child labor laws?

You need not agree with libertarians, but your question is predicated upon an assumption of a view that libertarians do not share. So if you would seek to understand the positions that libertarians take, you should start by figuring out what they believe. Your question shows that you do not.

So we accept the trade off and decide that it's worth sacrificing the ideology of the free market in order to save human life.

This is rather overblown rhetoric - working as a child doesn't equal death. You are correct, however, that we (collectively, through our politicians) have decided that the trade off is worth enacting such laws. Libertarians would disagree, but whether or not they are right, the choice has been made.