Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Ziggurat]

The American Civil War.

Was not about libertarianism.

The 1895 and 1907 runs on the banks

Did not occur in a free market.

The Civil Rights Movement and the riots in the 1960's

Was also not about libertarianism

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.

Also not really about libertarianism.

Those are just a few examples in US history

Examples of what? That chaos can happen with change? Sure. That race relations posed serious challenges for the US over a very long time? That too. That change cannot happen without chaos? Sorry, they demonstrate nothing of the sort.

 

[GreNME]

Was not about libertarianism.



Did not occur in a free market.



Was also not about libertarianism



Also not really about libertarianism.



Examples of what? That chaos can happen with change? Sure. That race relations posed serious challenges for the US over a very long time? That too. That change cannot happen without chaos? Sorry, they demonstrate nothing of the sort.

Right, we come back to the "no true Libertarian" defenses, as has already been criticized of your statements.

Where in history has pure communism been tried? Where pure anarchy, or pure socialism, and so on? How do we come up with the arguments for and against each type of political philosophy?

 

[tyr_13]

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.

I'm having this odd feeling. It's sort of like I feel this part is going to be ignored by anyone advocating a libertarian system or using the 'no true libertarianism' card.

Someone prove me wrong.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

There seems to be some confusion. I think he was referring to the US Civil War, fought on the planet Earth, between 1861 and 1865.

 

[Cain]

Originally Posted by psychictv
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.

Which posts? Anarcho-capitalism is the purest expression of libertarianism known to us. People can and do plausibly argue that something other than government interferes with the workings of the free market, that something being reality. Of course, minarchism encounters the same sort of problems.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where in history has pure communism been tried?

It's arguably been tried in lots of places but never achieved. But it doesn't matter: attempts to get to communism, pure or not, always result in not only failure, but massive death as well.

What have attempts to get pure libertarianism gotten? Failure, perhaps, but no such horrors either. And none of the instances of chaos that you cited had anything to do with efforts to create or remove libertarianism, pure or not.

 

[psychictv]

Libertarians oppose such laws because they don't think they do serve the greater good.

Which doesn't serve the greater good, the absence of child labor, or the regulation that outlaws it?

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?

So Libertarians actually oppose child labor but they just think regulation is the wrong way to achieve that result? Or do they think that child labor is a desirable part of a free market? Can you point to any examples of child labor disappearing without government intervention?

This is rather overblown rhetoric - working as a child doesn't equal death.

I was referring more to quality of life but certainly children have died working in factories.

 

[Ziggurat]

So Libertarians actually oppose child labor but they just think regulation is the wrong way to achieve that result?

Back up a second. What is wrong with child labor? That's a serious question. You seem to be taking it as categorically bad, but why? Is it always wrong for children to work for money? Or is it only certain effects which are sometimes associated with child labor that are bad?

Oh, and child labor has not been abolished in the US. Nor is it likely that it ever will be.

 

[psychictv]

Do you really think that if child labor laws were repealed in the US, we'd see factories staffed by children popping up?

And to answer your question, yes. I think it's undeniable that we would see a return to widespread child labor in this country if child labor laws were revoked, considering that American corporations already use child labor overseas with few repercussions, there is plenty of legal child labor (hollywood kids, family farms and businesses, etc.), child labor exists in other countries with no child labor laws, and it existed in this country until laws were enacted to stop the practice.

edit: I didn't see your second reply before I posted this, but maybe this will answer your other questions anyway.

 

[Cain]

Back up a second. What is wrong with child labor? That's a serious question. You seem to be taking it as categorically bad, but why? Is it always wrong for children to work for money? Or is it only certain effects which are sometimes associated with child labor that are bad?

Oh, and child labor has not been abolished in the US. Nor is it likely that it ever will be.

By child labor I think most people mean the kind where children are working for money instead of working for an education *ahem* in a school.

Again, a "pure" expression of libertarianism is one where public education is not just abolished, but the system does not even feature vouchers, which, as we all know, is just another nasty way of redistributing wealth. Of course, I'm sure that if a libertarian society is ever actually tried there will be an outpouring of charitable contributions so that all kids everywhere, including -- ESPECIALLY -- minorities living in ghettos have access to institutions that would put today's Andover Academy to shame.

 

[EGarrett]

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

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. However, I'm not purposefully trying to mischaracterize what people say, so please don't portray me as doing so.

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.

Why is this? I don't see how a libertarian philosophy would require public acceptance than the American system we have now. Please give an example or some more explanation.

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.

Well, in the name of staying on topic, I apologize for misunderstanding you and I'll leave it at that. If it's important by all means explain again, if not let's move on.

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.

I'm not sure what your basis is for saying it's must be completely accepted. Please give an example or more explanation or reasoning.

 

[Ziggurat]

And to answer your question, yes. I think it's undeniable that we would see a return to widespread child labor in this country if child labor laws were revoked, considering that American corporations already use child labor overseas with few repercussions, there is plenty of legal child labor (hollywood kids, family farms and businesses, etc.), child labor exists in other countries with no child labor laws, and it existed in this country until laws were enacted to stop the practice.

But why would American corporations employ children in factories in the US? Would their labor be competitively priced with child workers in other countries? No. Would their labor be competitively priced with adult workers in other countries? Again, probably not.

But manufacturing still takes place in the US, so we know it's not simply about labor costs, it's really about cost vs. productivity. Skilled American workers in highly automated factories can still compete because their productivity is high. But what about child workers? Well, they're unskilled, because they're children. They are, in general, of very little use in such factories. So they're unskilled labor, meaning they're only useful for unskilled jobs. And unskilled factory work, well, they can't compete with foreign labor.

Seriously, how many children do you know who would work for $0.50/hour? Not many. How many children would a factory manager in the US be willing to hire at $20/hour? Again, not many. And unlike the third world, children in the US have the realistic option of simply not working. I don't see how abolishing child labor laws would change that, nor have you described any reason for why it might.

edit: I didn't see your second reply before I posted this, but maybe this will answer your other questions anyway.

No, it didn't.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Well, as I understand it...libertarians have their own ideas about how the problems created by child labor would be minimized or stopped.

For one, I'm not sure a minor would be able to sign a valid labor contract in the first place. He could probably, however, do informal labor opening a lemonade stand or doing a paper route for an employer, as long as he's free to leave at whatever time and isn't threatened or coerced.

If you're worried about children being in inhumane conditions, competition would be the force that would control that. If there's a nice paper route or something similar available, it would get all the applicants while the sweatshop would be left high and dry.

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?

The libertarians believe that a free market without government interference (outside of criminal law enforcement) IS what would benefit everyone.

You can't assert that these regulations would work and go from there...that's jumping past the actual argument. AFAIK, the libertarians don't believe that those regulations would work better than a free market with multiple businesses competing for employees. So that's where the dispute is...

 

[psychictv]

Back up a second. What is wrong with child labor? That's a serious question.

The problem I see with your question is that once we start arguing the merits of a particular regulation we have left the Libertarian argument. The way I understand it, a Libertarian would oppose any regulation just as a matter of principle, and argue that if the results of that regulation were beneficial to society, the free market would inevitably lead toward those same results anyway. Is that a fair characterization of a Libertarian point of view?

Edit: and again I typed this while you guys were typing the last two posts so the order is a bit screwed up

 

[EGarrett]

Which posts?

The same post that you quoted, in the above section.

Anarcho-capitalism is the purest expression of libertarianism known to us. People can and do plausibly argue that something other than government interferes with the workings of the free market, that something being reality. Of course, minarchism encounters the same sort of problems.

Multiple people have said and explained in this thread that libertarianism is not anarchy nor is it anarcho-capitalism. You have not acknowledged this nor have you presented any argument against their reasoning. You just baldly asserted the same statement as though no one had said anything. Thus it's not possible to have a discussion with you and I wish you good day.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem I see with your question is that once we start arguing the merits of a particular regulation we have left the Libertarian argument. The way I understand it, a Libertarian would oppose any regulation just as a matter of principle, and argue that if the results of that regulation were beneficial to society, the free market would inevitably lead toward those same results anyway. Is that a fair characterization of a Libertarian point of view?

Not quite. I'd say that the libertarian (not Libertarian - those guys are just nuts) position is that government interference in the free market generally has more negative consequences than positive consequences. That's different than saying that the benefits interference might have are the same benefits as the free market itself produces. That may sometimes be the case, but it need not always be.

But the reason I ask about what you object to in regards to child labor is specifically because there are market mechanisms which will limit or eliminate much of what most people object to about child labor (unsafe working conditions, slave-like existence, etc). But child labor itself wouldn't actually be eliminated (though I doubt there would be very much). If child labor itself is what you object to, then you cannot accomplish that by market mechanisms. But libertarians have no reason to object to child labor in and of itself.

 

[psychictv]

But the reason I ask about what you object to in regards to child labor is specifically because there are market mechanisms which will limit or eliminate much of what most people object to about child labor (unsafe working conditions, slave-like existence, etc).

Then why do these objectionable factors still exist in other countries with no child labor regulations?

 

[EGarrett]

Then why do these objectionable factors still exist in other countries with no child labor regulations?

Since this is a general statement, the general answer is that the objectionable factors exist because those countries aren't free markets the way the libertarians envision them. We can be pretty close to certain of this because in this thread no one seems to think that a reasonably pure libertarian society has ever actually been tried.

I'm sure if you get more specific, about which countries have these problems, we can look at what the actual difference is and where they break away from the market model.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then why do these objectionable factors still exist in other countries with no child labor regulations?

Because life sucks in general there, the alternatives to child labor can be even worse, and in the nastier cases the children aren't working voluntarily. And those countries tend not to be very free market either, as a matter of fact.

 

[GreNME]

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.

I'm not sure what your basis is for saying it's must be completely accepted. Please give an example or more explanation or reasoning.

What, precisely, would you like an example of? The Laissez Faire doctrine not being sustainable? The fact that Laissez Faire has given way to regulation and unionization isn't sufficient? Do you understand why things happened the way they did, why the various markets of the robber-barons were eventually met with regulation or why federalism was fought over so vehemently? The reasoning is fairly elementary-- people want their social systems to have moral basis, including fairness and charity, as opposed to an amoral system-- while explanations could go on for pages upon pages.

The key point of Libertarian philosophy, that personal property is sacrosanct regardless of community or nationality, falls short of a sustainable political philosophy from the beginning, since the only precedent for its establishment is that some guys asserted it as a philosophy. But to illustrate how and why the Libertarian philosophy is utopian, let me ask you these questions: do you feel that a Libertarian philosophy of government allows for democratically-elected governance? Why or why not?

I ask those things because clearly Democracy in its base form is completely antithetical to Libertarianism, yet advocates of Libertarianism always seem to propose a government where the people are voting in a democratic-like system. While I understand that this is ostensibly presented in order to show that there would still be a place for a representative government, however much smaller it may be, the manner in which it's described how individuals would take or gain office seems to be completely the opposite of the Libertarian philosophy-- after all, if there's a vote, haven't those who voted "the other guy" not been afforded an equal amount of representation in their government as individuals? Wouldn't a democratic vote simply be the imposition of the majority upon the minority, which is precisely what the Libertarian philosophy opposes about the current form of federalist government, about worker unionization and government regulations, about the system of taxation and federal subsidy, and so on?

I encourage you to explain away this small bit of what seems like a convenient cognitive dissonance as the first step in our having a reasoned conversation about why a Libertarian political system is a utopian ideal.