Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[jimbob]

What is the libertarian argument against restricting someone's right to own property, and to have tenants?

?? There isn't one.

Why the question marks?

the OP was asking about whether libertarianism had been tried in the real world, and we have gone on to discuss the merits of libertarianism.

The question was an attempt to highlight that a full-blooded libertarian system would have no protection against slum landlords, and indeed the philosophy of libertarianism won't even recognise that these would be A Bad Thing
.

Even if the landlord abused his greater economic power to get the tenants in the first place.

In libertarian philosophy there is little/no concept of "abusing economic power" unless it is to harm people or coerce them by denying them free choice of their alternatives.

If you are talking about a libertarian system, what is to stop a magnate buying the bridges out of a town, or otherwise buying up the access to a block of housing, and then bleeding the inhabitants dry? Or just buying some utility.

I am not aware of anything but you need to explain the highlighted part

Suppose you buy all the routes into a town, you can charge what you like to let the inhabitants get out, and to let goods in...

Just like a game of monopoly.

Can a libertarian system protect against abuses of economic power whilst remaining a true libertarian system? I would argue that it can't.

See above. Libertarianism does not consider there to be a difference between someone who can choose between a rock and a hard place, and someone who can select from abundant riches. Both of them are equally "free" and the unlucky one has no right to anything beyond being able to choose from available alternatives.

Yes, that was my point.

I suppose it depends on whether you consider injustice to be undesirable.


I would say that libertarianism is incompatible with a belief that injustice is bad.

 

[jimbob]

Housing might not normally be a natural monopoly, but in the case of company towns in the UK, and of crofts in Scotland and Ireland (under English rule) during the 19th Century, the housing was a natural monopoly. Hence the Clearances.

We seem to be talking past each other. I am not saying there are libertarian arguments against letting landlords be terrible people who provide little to and demand much from their tenants, and are "unfair". I am saying that libertarians would argue that without land use restrictions and market interference in housing, competition would provide powerful incentives against such behavior, and make such cases rare and limited

I would say there is plenty of evidence from history that says that this isn't the case. Even in the modern UK. see my link about Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Anyway, as Francesca has pointed out, I would argue there is nothing in libertarian philosophy to accept that slum landlords are actually a bad thing.

 

[Francesca R]

Why the question marks?

You asked for a libertarian argument in an area where libertarianism is silent.

The question was an attempt to highlight that a full-blooded libertarian system would have no protection against slum landlords, and indeed the philosophy of libertarianism won't even recognise that these would be A Bad Thing

I believe I have concurred with that.

Suppose you buy all the routes into a town, you can charge what you like to let the inhabitants get out, and to let goods in...

I am not aware of anything in libertarianism that would oppose that.

Just like a game of monopoly.

The game of monopoly is not a representative model of a national economy and establishing an extremely dominant market position is not the predestined end-point of open, price-driven systems. Whereas in the game, it is always the final result (it just takes varying lengths of time to reach it).

I suppose it depends on whether you consider injustice to be undesirable.

I am merely answering questions and making statements about libertarianism

I would say that libertarianism is incompatible with a belief that injustice is bad.

You may be aware that there are many differing philosophies of what justice is, so you can't really proclaim that there is an objective unwavering ethical norm. In libertarianism, justice is overwhelmingly about freedom to choose from available alternatives (and the stuff about outlawing harm and protecting contract sanctity and property). In utilitarianism justice is about achieving the greatest level of aggregated system utility (happiness). In Kantian philosophy it is about observing motives rooted in respect. In Rawlsian justice it is about other stuff, and so on.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is beside the point though.

It's not beside the point for those of us who are not actually libertarians. I understand your statements in this regard, but libertarian policies can still be evaluated by criteria other than libertarian ones. If libertarians want people to adopt libertarian policies, pointing out consequences that others find beneficial is still useful to that cause, even if those consequences are of no direct relevance to libertarians.

 

[Phrost]

If you don't mind, could you explain exactly why it is such a bad example of libertarianism? Not that it is especially important to the thread here, but as far as I've seen, the only way Somalia is an unsuitable example is that there is no 'contract enforcement' (even though there are plenty of libertarian philosophies that say even that is unneeded and against libertarian ideals).

Somalia is an example of Anarchy, not Libertarianism. To have a truly free market requires a government to secure individual rights and enforce contracts, etc. None of which exists in Somalia.

It brings the idea that libertarianism is little more than an angsty teenage boy's fantasy into sharp relief?

Ironic, considering your comment reads like a first year college student raging against the machine. Thanks for contributing nothing productive to the discussion.

It's just as productive as if I were to make the point that some people expect the government to care for them from the cradle to the grave because they're nothing more than manchildren who don't have the talent or testicular fortitude to make it on their own in the world, on their merits.

Stay classy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would say there is plenty of evidence from history that says that this isn't the case. Even in the modern UK. see my link about Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Well, paying a gang to attack a business associate, and murdering a business rival, is very un-libertarian. And would be illegal under a libertarian system as well. There is little information about his dealings as a landlord in that link, but considering that English land-use laws are in fact far from free market (for example, green belts), I'm not sure why you think he serves as any kind of counter-example to my claim.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That slum landlords are largely the result of land use restrictions and policies that distort the market for its allocation.

Ummmm....no. Not even close.

 

[GreNME]

Responding to page 1: Anyone who references Somalia as an example of "libertarianism" with sincerity deserves a kick to the crotch.

It's the statist's Godwin.

Um, except that's precisely what the Mises Institute, bailiwick of the Libertarian Austrian School arguments, has done with Somalia themselves.

In other words: baloney. Libertarians themselves have invoked Somalia. Don't whine when their own words are used against them.

-----

Somalia does not have a cental authority which is credibly enforcing property rights and binding contracts, or credibly enforcing against harm and foreign attacks.

Libertarians call for the state to do all of those. Anarcho-capitalists believe that profit-seeking interests will do it (if it's worth doing)

That, I believe, qualifies as a "no true Libertarians" argument. See above.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ummmm....no. Not even close.

Next time, how about presenting an argument or evidence.

 

[tyr_13]

Next time, how about presenting an argument or evidence.

Take your own advice; tell us how slum landlords are largely the result of land use restrictions and policies that distort the market for its allocation.

 

[Phrost]

Um, except that's precisely what the Mises Institute, bailiwick of the Libertarian Austrian School arguments, has done with Somalia themselves.

In other words: baloney. Libertarians themselves have invoked Somalia. Don't whine when their own words are used against them.

That, I believe, qualifies as a "no true Libertarians" argument. See above.

Funny, I've never heard of them. Talk to me when CATO makes the comparison.

It's not a "no true scotsman" to point out that one group doesn't speak for everyone.

 

[oldhat]

Funny, I've never heard of them.

That's like a Republican saying he's never heard of Koch Industries, therefore they don't count.

 

[Ziggurat]

Take your own advice; tell us how slum landlords are largely the result of land use restrictions and policies that distort the market for its allocation.

You could have asked the first time around.

Land use restrictions mean that new housing cannot be created in response to market demands. This artificially inflates the power of current owners, and restricts the supply of housing to the detriment of those who demand it. As for distortions of the market, consider rent control. Ostensibly the effect is to keep prices low, but the effect is often quite different. Rent control leads to things like Congressman Rangel renting four rent-controlled apartments (he's far from the only one playing that game), which further constricts available supply. And because those who might create new housing are constrained in how much profit they could get from creating it, they again restrict supply.

http://freedomkeys.com/pricecontrols7.htm

 

[Chaos]

You have not been paying close attention to what I am actually saying, but have rather made assumptions about my position. Your assumptions are wrong.

I am paying close attention to what you write. I am just ignoring what you want me to believe about you.

You are wrong about libertarians.

When someone proposes something that any moron would realize has the unavoiable result of X, then I will consider that someone to be in favor of X, propaganda be damned.

Such language. Really now, Chaos, one might think you're a child laborer yourself. It would explain the venom with which you approach the current topic, but it really does no good.

Out of arguments, so let´s get patronizing, huh?

And your appeals to history are, well, rather lacking in any actual historical perspective.

I know more history than you apparently do.

And what happens if they can't earn that money, Chaos? Are they really better off? Your own statements would suggest they would not be.

I know how children are off right now, more or less. I can extrapolate from libertarian positions, opposition to child labor legislation included, how they would be off in a libertarian society. Now, their choice is "go to school" or "go to school". In a libertarian society it would be "go to work" or "starve".

For the record, I oppose the rest of the libertarian crap as well. It´s sort of a package deal.

By your own words, it keeps them from starving.

Only because the libertarians have previously removed what else kept them from starving - welfare and decently-paid jobs for their parents - so that they would be available for child labor.

First off, that's not true, and secondly, the fact that there are few drawbacks is just the flip side of there being little benefit, both of which stem from the fact that they have little effect at all nowdays.

Yet I have not heard you say anything that didn´t add up to "the laws prohibiting child labor are a bad idea".

As if that's what children would end up doing if child labor laws were repealed. Don't be stupid, Chaos. Adults in the US don't work those conditions, why would children?

Those are precisely the conditions under which they worked before child labor was outlawed. If they would not work under these conditions today, and adults don´t work under these conditions today, this is for the most part due to all the other legislation that libertarians, by their nature as the government-is-evil-and-the-free-market-solves-all-problems movement, wish to repeal. If you wish to glimpse at the glorious libertarian future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the darkest days of the Industrial Revolution.

I have said nothing of the sort, Chaos.

Then perhaps you should read your own posts again. I see them ceaselessly slamming laws against child labor, and not advancing the tiniest argument in favor of such laws.

 

[Arcade22]

I honestly don't think Libertarianism will be tried in the real world. Since the failure of communism and it's untold amounts of mass graves, people have generally become weary of utopias and the false promises and chaos they bring forth.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Public property is pretty much always physical property, which is always scarce. Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the term. In this context, "scarce" doesn't mean that there is very little of it, it means that there is a limited amount of it, whether that limit is large or small.

I understand what scarcity means. My point is without definitions that create such concepts as public property there is no category of property to be scarce naturally or artificially.

What about the public airwaves? What about public rights of way and roads? These things wouldn't even exist as a category without government intervention.

 

[GreNME]

Funny, I've never heard of them. Talk to me when CATO makes the comparison.

It's not a "no true scotsman" to point out that one group doesn't speak for everyone.

The no true scotsman allegation isn't tied to the Mises Institute. However, your moving of the goalposts is noted.

Somalia has a government, it's simply limited. It even has a group who arbitrates. Of course, that's neither here nor there, since to further your no true scotsman argument you'll simply say that the government or arbitrators lack some specific feature that you would accept, just as your lack of acceptance of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which happens to be a fairly well-known Libertarian apologetics group (your ignorance of their existence means nothing as to their significance, ETA: FrancescaR knows who they are, I bet).

 

[Ziggurat]

I am paying close attention to what you write.

Then why do you claim that I took positions that I never expressed?

I am just ignoring what you want me to believe about you.

And instead are inventing things that you want to believe about me. So much better.

When someone proposes something

I have not proposed anything.

Out of arguments, so let´s get patronizing, huh?

If you don't want me to treat you as a child, do not act as a child.

I know how children are off right now, more or less. I can extrapolate from libertarian positions, opposition to child labor legislation included, how they would be off in a libertarian society. Now, their choice is "go to school" or "go to school". In a libertarian society it would be "go to work" or "starve".

Because no parent would ever choose to send their child to school when they could be working. Quite the extrapolation you've got going on there, Chaos.

Only because the libertarians have previously removed what else kept them from starving - welfare and decently-paid jobs for their parents - so that they would be available for child labor.

Libertarians removed well-paying jobs? Uh, no.

Yet I have not heard you say anything that didn´t add up to "the laws prohibiting child labor are a bad idea".

Must be one of them "New Math" things.

Those are precisely the conditions under which they worked before child labor was outlawed.

No, Chaos. Those conditions will not be replicated unless civilization collapses and has to be rebuilt, because technology has made worker productivity far higher than it ever was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century.

If they would not work under these conditions today, and adults don´t work under these conditions today, this is for the most part due to all the other legislation that libertarians, by their nature as the government-is-evil-and-the-free-market-solves-all-problems movement, wish to repeal.

No, Chaos. We don't work under those conditions because productivity increases have allowed us to produce vastly more wealth with less work. Those productivity increases are the primary difference between then and now, they are not the result of laws, and the repeal of laws will not eliminate them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand what scarcity means. My point is without definitions that create such concepts as public property there is no category of property to be scarce naturally or artificially.

What about the public airwaves? What about public rights of way and roads? These things wouldn't even exist as a category without government intervention.

I don't see how this has anything to do with scarcity. As far as I can tell, the only relevance this has is that without government-enforced property rights, it's sometimes hard to say that property exists in a meaningful sense at all. The electromagnetic spectrum (the public airwaves) is a good example in that regards. But once you've got property, scarcity comes quite naturally and automatically, whether or not one wants it, and whether or not it's public.

 

[jimbob]

Well, paying a gang to attack a business associate, and murdering a business rival, is very un-libertarian. And would be illegal under a libertarian system as well. There is little information about his dealings as a landlord in that link, but considering that English land-use laws are in fact far from free market (for example, green belts), I'm not sure why you think he serves as any kind of counter-example to my claim.

He managed to build up a large property empire sailing close to the wind legally.

With fewer laws, it would have been easier to build his empire.

The murdering simply shows what sort of rule10 he is.

Slum landlords are not nice people. They also exist. Under a libertarian system they would find it easier to operate legally.

Are you arguing the slum-landlord question as *yourself* or as devils advocate for the libertarian view?