Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[GreNME]

Good ideas are in short supply.

Well said.

I don't think that every brain fart deserves the title "intellectual property" any more than George Carlin thinks every ejaculation deserves a name.

I see you have studied philosophy with the likes of giants. My commendations, sir.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What libertarian's don't oppose labor laws and other regulations that "interfere" with the free market?

I honestly don't know.

Why would child labor not be one of them? They just want a government that maintains roads, law enforcement and the military, right?

I see what you did there, and do not care to deal with your dishonesty in the least. By the way, I am not sure what axe you have to grind, but trying to grind it on me is a mistake. In other words, this is not the libertarian you are looking for ...

 

[psychictv]

Huh? What definition of libertarianism allows for labor regulations?

 

[GreNME]

The non-purist type. I have plenty of libertarian proclivities, but I'm also realist enough that any such pure system is a utopian ideal and not suited to the the random real world.

 

[psychictv]

You mean a more traditional definition of "libertarian" that is what we would call liberal in the U.S.? I don't think that's the current popular definition accepted by the Libertarian party, Ayn Rand followers, or Milton Friedman/Reason Magazine/Cato institute types.

For the record, the O.P. referenced total crackpots like John Stossel, Penn Jillette, & Ron Paul.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As if the only difference between then and now was laws. Sorry, but there's a rather obvious and gaping hole in your logic right there.

As if the there is no difference between the comunism people propose and historic comunism. You simply have a double standard for ideologies being disproved by history.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I honestly don't know.

How about you look in this thread to where Ziggurat dirrectly opposes child labor laws.

 

[Francesca R]

If you can make a case for child labor laws under Libertarianism

As far as I know, a libertarian case for child labour laws is that although children have the right of self-ownership, they don't have the authority to voluntarily contract themselves. Because . . . well they're kids.

I suppose you can make a case for, well, virtually all of the other regulations, too.

To a large extent, yes. It's necessary to designate the regluated effect as "harm" and away you go. I've seen a (probably rare) "libertarian" argument for trade tariffs couched as defence from invading foreign harm, for example.

 

[GreNME]

You mean a more traditional definition of "libertarian" that is what we would call liberal in the U.S.? I don't think that's the current popular definition accepted by the Libertarian party, Ayn Rand followers, or Milton Friedman/Reason Magazine/Cato institute types.

For the record, the O.P. referenced total crackpots like John Stossel, Penn Jillette, & Ron Paul.

I think that you're making up your own definition of what constitutes "libertarian" in this case. this definition seems sufficient to work from for my own beliefs, and depending on the issue or the scenario I remain at some middle ground between "left-libertarianism" and "right-libertarianism" by the descriptions on that page.

However, I don't subscribe to just that type of philosophy (and I suspect DR is similar with his beliefs), which means there's a mixture of other philosophies, including political, economic, and social philosophies of various types.

People aren't always too complicated, but they're rarely too simple.

 

[Darth Rotor]

How about you look in this thread to where Ziggurat dirrectly opposes child labor laws.

1. Zigg isn't a Libertarian.
2. I see what you did there, and attribute that to your standard, dishonest game playing. I am pretty sure you enjoy yourself as you do that, but I don't find it a way to move a discussion forward.

DR

 

[Suddenly]

What Libertarians do this? .0

Which goes back to my original point. Being a "libertarian" is meaningless. It tends to be in the eye of the beholder, and when someone criticizes a "libertarian" stance like "against child labor laws" or "in favor of crack being sold in vending machines" many "libertarians" will disavow such beliefs as being unreasonable.

Whereas some of the more, shall we say, ideologically dedicated "libertarians" will try to justify same, usually claiming that the free market will somehow prevent the horrors of such activity, blaming any historical counterexamples as being themselves the result of government action, and so on.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Unfortunately, the more "moderate" "libertarians" wind up running a sort of idealogical interference for the nutbags to hide behind. When you call them on some absurd position, say labor laws and how they seem to be against the sorts of measures necessary to prevent the state of neo-slavery as it existed in the Jim Crow era and so no, some reasonable person pops up and derails it by muddying up the definition of "libertarian."

 

[Ziggurat]

A lot of people appear to believe that if you simply outlaw something you don't like, you've solved the problem. Child labor is a case in point: people don't like children working in factories, so they figure that simply outlawing it is the solution. And if that's the case, then the problem can be attributed to a lack of such laws in the first place.

But the world isn't that simple. Children didn't end up working in factories because it was legal, they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse. That's something those arguing for child labor laws still haven't come to terms with. If all you do is outlaw child labor, then you're just forcing them into those worse alternatives. And if you provide better alternatives, or better alternatives are available, well, you don't need the child labor laws to make those children pick those better alternatives. But the problem of child labor is NOT a problem of a lack of laws prohibiting it, it's a problem of a lack of better alternatives.

 

[Delscottio]

A lot of people appear to believe that if you simply outlaw something you don't like, you've solved the problem. Child labor is a case in point: people don't like children working in factories, so they figure that simply outlawing it is the solution. And if that's the case, then the problem can be attributed to a lack of such laws in the first place.

But the world isn't that simple. Children didn't end up working in factories because it was legal, they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse. That's something those arguing for child labor laws still haven't come to terms with. If all you do is outlaw child labor, then you're just forcing them into those worse alternatives. And if you provide better alternatives, or better alternatives are available, well, you don't need the child labor laws to make those children pick those better alternatives. But the problem of child labor is NOT a problem of a lack of laws prohibiting it, it's a problem of a lack of better alternatives.

I'd never thought of it like that to be honest, what immediately comes to mind though is the word "better". Better for who, the child, the family or society?

Also surely there must be an overlap when there are better alternatives available but not taken up for any number of reasons (family greed, cultural expectations etc) - how is change enacted? Its usually not up to the individual child to make the decision.

 

[Region Rat]

Would the repeal of child labor laws allow children to work to earn income if they choose to, and are capable of performing the work, or would the repeal force children to work?
If children were allowed to work, would current workplace safety rules not apply to them, and would they be forced to be in harms way while they worked?

It seems that any time you talk about child labor, the unspoken example is a 1900's vintage factory where children are forced to work in dingy dark factories for extended length of time until they die early deaths. Poor sad looking, dirty faced children wearing ragged clothes. That may have actually been the case back then, but it certainly was the case that adults who worked in factories worked in some god awful conditions. Things have changed in industry in this country, and I don't quite see it that way, and I don't believe for a minute that kids would be working in factories anyway. No manufacturing facility would want the liability. Heck, the factory where I work does not even want high school graduates as floor level operators. They aim for at least tech school or any higher level education for the lowest rung in the ladder.

If my 12 year old wanted to earn some extra money, and was willing and able to mop floors at the Foot Locker down the street, and they were willing to pay him to do so, what would be the problem with that?

I think this always turns into a knee jerk 'what about the children' emotional appeal that has no basis in the reality of today's US workforce.

 

[Suddenly]

But the world isn't that simple. Children didn't end up working in factories because it was legal, they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse....

Slaves also wound up in the American South because staying in Africa was worse. When such an argument is made, it ignores that often we control the alternatives. If the choice was getting on the boat or death, then the above is absolutely true. It is also absolutely absurd as being let alone would be better, just that it wasn't available.

(Imputing freedom of choice to a small child as to these sorts of decisions is likewise absurd, but leave that aside for now)

It is pretty clear that it is worse than government funded education, especially given removing cheap labor from the market would cause greater demand for adult labor and thus make child labor less necessary in the first place. However, since those profiting from the child labor also controlled the alternatives, these better alternatives didn't exist.

 

[Suddenly]

I think this always turns into a knee jerk 'what about the children' emotional appeal that has no basis in the reality of today's US workforce.

This is true mostly because things like child labor were prohibited in the first place.

Yes, some children would be forced to work if child labor laws were repealed. Some would be physically coerced, etc. Child labor laws serve the same purpose as statutory rape laws, it makes damn sure child exploitation is not justified by the child "choosing" to be exploited.

 

[Ziggurat]

Slaves also wound up in the American South because staying in Africa was worse.

No. They wound up in the American South because they were deprived of choice by force. Once you allow for doing that, well, you're no longer talking about a system which libertarians endorse, so this is rather a red herring.

(Imputing freedom of choice to a small child as to these sorts of decisions is likewise absurd, but leave that aside for now)

No, let's not leave it aside. Let's talk about it. First off, child labor laws don't just cover small children, they cover all children (though the details can vary by age). Secondly, you are correct, in many cases the decision is made by the parent, not the child. And it is possible for a parent to choose something for the child which is not in the child's best interest. This is part of why I'm not a libertarian myself.

But let's be honest too: the vast exploitation of child labor that once went on was not the result of hordes of parents cynically exploiting their children. A repeal of child labor laws might lead to some parents trying to exploit their children in a similar manner today, but that number would be quite small. And the villains in such a case would be primarily the parents, not the factory owners. You may feel that even such small numbers justify enactment of such laws (and you will find I'm not without sympathy for such arguments), but one should still recognize both the scope (not very big) and the real cause of the problem (which is a form of the agency problem, where the parent must act as the agent of the child).

 

[jimbob]

A lot of people appear to believe that if you simply outlaw something you don't like, you've solved the problem. Child labor is a case in point: people don't like children working in factories, so they figure that simply outlawing it is the solution. And if that's the case, then the problem can be attributed to a lack of such laws in the first place.

But the world isn't that simple. Children didn't end up working in factories because it was legal, they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse. That's something those arguing for child labor laws still haven't come to terms with. If all you do is outlaw child labor, then you're just forcing them into those worse alternatives. And if you provide better alternatives, or better alternatives are available, well, you don't need the child labor laws to make those children pick those better alternatives. But the problem of child labor is NOT a problem of a lack of laws prohibiting it, it's a problem of a lack of better alternatives.

Earlier I linked to the Factory Acts of the UK. These did progressively limit child labour, but they were wider in scope than that. In reality, the alternative was that the mill owner had to be a bit more humane in his conditions, and a bit less exploitative. The profits were still available. This meant that once the act was passed *and enforced* the alternative for the family was that adults did the work for a bit more money and the children went to school.

The work still existed, a pool of cheap, easily-exploitable labour was no longer competing for it.




Truck Acts

Truck Acts
The rise of manufacturing industry saw many company owners cashing in on their workers by paying them in full or in part with tokens, rather than coin of the realm. These tokens were exchangeable for goods at the company store, often at highly-inflated prices. The Truck Act of 1831 made this practice illegal in many trades, and the law was extended to cover nearly all manual workers in 1887.

There was such disparity of economic power that the workers had no option. They were kept in a poverty trap, and provided with enough to subsist on but not enough to escape. This still happens in India, via money lending as opposed to payment in tokens (AFIK), but the effect is still similar.

I would argue that libertarianism can't work for the majority if there are beings (individual or corporate) with vastly more economic power than others.

What about pollution? How does a libertarian approach that? Through private injunctions?

 

[Ziggurat]

What about pollution? How does a libertarian approach that? Through private injunctions?

Pollution is a case of an externality. There are various ways to try to internalize such costs. For example, polluters can be held directly liable for damage they do to others by their pollution. And if most property is private, then polluters will have few places they can dump their pollution which wouldn't be on someone else's property. But it's still a hard problem. Not being a libertarian, I cannot give you a definitive answer.

 

[Suddenly]

No. They wound up in the American South because they were deprived of choice by force. Once you allow for doing that, well, you're no longer talking about a system which libertarians endorse, so this is rather a red herring.

... so the entire history of labor in the US, and pretty much the world, is a red herring. Once you assume labor, unskilled labor in particular, is naturally free of compulsion, you enter a total fantasy land.

There are two ways a laborer has any sort of real choice. One is if he has a special skill that provides some scarcity. The second is when capital is forced into some equal footing, be it by unions or government regulation or fear of same.

But let's be honest too: the vast exploitation of child labor that once went on was not the result of hordes of parents cynically exploiting their children.

No, it was children being cynically exploited as a cost-cutting measure that was itself made possible by other exploitation friendly policies directed at their parents.

Again, the control of the alternative can give any compulsion the illusion of free choice.

A repeal of child labor laws might lead to some parents trying to exploit their children in a similar manner today, but that number would be quite small.

I'm lost as to where this assumption comes from.