Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Ziggurat]

Oh really? Which country and by what measure? I see evidence to the contrary. Human development index
Human poverty index

By per capita GDP, for example. As for the HPI, well, as with so many UN projects, it is from the outset slanted to favor socialist countries. It's not hard to find more detailed criticisms of their methodology.

I made no argument, I merely showed the weakness in yours. But please do explain this correlation between technology, productivity, and conditions in the workplace.

Seriously? You can't figure that out yourself? You can't figure out why you can work shorter hours if you produce more within those work hours? You can't figure out how technology might help make the products of your labor more valuable? You can't figure out how even modern technologies like air conditioning might make the work environment better? Wow. You really haven't thought about these issues at all.

My claim is that conditions in the workplace are primarily the result of regulations that oversee conditions in the workplace. I know it's a radical concept.

It's not radical at all, in fact it's rather cliche. It's also just wrong. Ford didn't introduce the 40 hour work week because of labor laws.

Our standard of living depends upon our economic output. Laws can redistribute that output, but they cannot make more of it. There simply was not enough economic output to produce a typical modern standard of living for more than a few people, no matter how you tried to redistribute that output.

 

[DC]

As for the HPI, well, as with so many UN projects, it is from the outset slanted to favor socialist countries

LOOOOL

you got a list of the Socialist countrys?

 

[Ziggurat]

LOOOOL

you got a list of the Socialist countrys?

Start with Norway, top of the HPI list.

 

[Francesca R]

Ziggurat calls "social democrat" socialist. This is not all that rare a characterisation in the US. In Europe it is not really equated with socialism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat calls "social democrat" socialist. This is not all that rare a characterisation in the US. In Europe it is not really equated with socialism.

The semantics are irrelevant to me. Anyone may feel free to substitite "social democrat" for "socialist" in my above posts.

 

[Francesca R]

Fine. They are typically a lot less relevant to Europeans than to Americans. Although a knee-jerk aversion to the "socialist" label appears to be creeping over to Europe too.

 

[GreNME]

That doesn't mean they're right. The late Michael van Notten--whose book that article is borrowing from--did not say that Somalia was a libertarian country. He thought it was a "near Kritarchy" (rule by judges interpreting so-called natural rights).

There are several aspects in which free markets in Somalia deliver higher levels of social welfare than in neighbouring countries ruled by predatory central governments. That doesn't make it a libertarian country either, even if libertarians use such examples to point out the dangers of government over-reach.

Viewing the discussion as a pissing contest rather misses the use of it IMO.

Claiming it's an invalid example because it's not a great country to be in is a no true scotsman fallacy. It has a government, it has arbitration bodies, and its government is highly limited along with a free, laissez faire market. It also happens to show how certain groups will take over and monopolize significant segments of the society 1) to the detriment of the general public, 2) without concern for international relations, and 3) simply because they can.

It's not about pissing contests, it's about using the no true scotsman argument to shift goalposts when obvious unpleasant flaws are borne out in systems that resemble the arguer's ideal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Claiming it's an invalid example because it's not a great country to be in is a no true scotsman fallacy.

Nobody was doing that.

It has a government

Only nominally.

 

[Francesca R]

There is "no true Scotsman". That is the answer to the thread title. Hardcore libertarianism has not been tried, ever, in the real world. Including in Somalia.

Why don't you provide some material where some group of ackowledged libertarian thinkers really do say "Somalia is a real world example"? Because you didn't do that. Critics of libertarianism don't do themselves any merits by not knowing what they actually oppose.

 

[GreNME]

Claiming it's an invalid example because it's not a great country to be in is a no true scotsman fallacy.

Nobody was doing that.

False. And I quote:

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.

Government exists, arbitration bodies exist (both public and 'private', where 'private' means 'religious'), and yet still no "truly free market" to be found.

It has a government

Only nominally.

I'm glad we agree that it has a government.

 

[GreNME]

There is "no true Scotsman". That is the answer to the thread title. Hardcore libertarianism has not been tried, ever, in the real world. Including in Somalia.

Why don't you provide some material where some group of ackowledged libertarian thinkers really do say "Somalia is a real world example"? Because you didn't do that. Critics of libertarianism don't do themselves any merits by not knowing what they actually oppose.

That would be going from a no true scotsman to a shifting goalposts fallacy.

The answer to the OP, " Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?", is "yes, a few times... hasn't turn out so well."

As for me allegedly not knowing what I oppose, I'd say at this point the only thing I'm opposed to in the discussion is fundamentalism on the subject. I've already pointed out that "pure" systems of any type are incompatible with human nature (namely the human nature for not everyone to agree).

 

[oldhat]

Critics of libertarianism don't do themselves any merits by not knowing what they actually oppose.

Then what do libertarians stand for then? Abstract utopias? Intellectual wankery?

Libertarianism is a bunch of theoretical mush for middle aged men with pot bellies.

There's no difference between the Cato Institute, Mises, Paultards, Lew Rockwell, et. al prattling on about the gold standard and a bunch of college kids in a dorm room with Che posters quoting Marx.

 

[oldhat]

I've already pointed out that "pure" systems of any type are incompatible with human nature (namely the human nature for not everyone to agree).

See also: Marxism.

Looks great on paper, fails miserably whenever someone tries to implement it.

 

[GreNME]

See also: Marxism.

See also: democracy, republics, monarchies, capitalism, socialism, and so on.

The real world has shown that, figuratively, people as a whole prefer to have a little chocolate in their peanut butter, or a little peanut butter in their chocolate, before they're satisfied or at least accepting of their general government. And since people come and people go, that ratio changes depending on who's being asked.

 

[Ziggurat]

False. And I quote:

The quote doesn't support your claim. You made a claim that people were saying that Somalia wasn't libertarian because it was a bad place, but your quote doesn't demonstrate that. Rather, the quote shows that Somalia was claimed to not be libertarian because it was something else.

Government exists

"Government" must do more than exist to deserve the name. First and foremost, it must credibly enforce its monopoly on the use of force. Somalia's "government" cannot do this.

arbitration bodies exist (both public and 'private', where 'private' means 'religious')

And those arbitration bodies uphold religious law, not property rights. Hardly libertarian.

and yet still no "truly free market" to be found.

Because (surprise, surprise) it doesn't have the prerequisites for a free market. And you have not demonstrated that it does, despite having been told (repeatedly) what those prerequisites are.

 

[psychictv]

Seriously? You can't figure that out yourself? You can't figure out why you can work shorter hours if you produce more within those work hours?

No I cannot, considering the fact that Americans are working longer hours as our productivity increases and our wages drop. And again, some European nations that are at roughly the same level of technological development as the U.S. have shorter working hours and greater workplace benefits thanks to stricter labor laws.

 

[Francesca R]

Then what do libertarians stand for then?

Maybe you should ask one of them.

Abstract utopias? Intellectual wankery? Libertarianism is a bunch of theoretical mush for middle aged men with pot bellies.

Except that argument from ignorance seems to be preferable. QED

 

[psychictv]

That's standard economics. Income (or output) is a function of [labour] [capital] and [multifactor productivity] (see Cobb-Douglas production function). The last term is a catch-all for any improvements in the ability to generate more income/output from the same [labour] and [capital] inputs, so it includes techonological innovation, education (human-capital formation), infrastructure, banking, laws, and other things. Societies grow richer by using some of their income to increase the capital stock, and to provide resourcing to increase the input value of the multifactor productivity term..

Sure, I see no mention of workplace conditions though.

If you are starting from a position of relative poverty, then welfare states, workplace conditions, and--in fact--the myriad factors grouped under multifactor productivity itself, are mostly luxury goods....Thus, income growth is ultimately the overwhelming major driver of better workplace conditions, as well as better <whole bunch of things>. And it's wrong too. Those regulations--assuming they are welfare-promoting--have next to no likelihood of ever being "afforded" until the society that desires them gets above some threshold income level.

That's incredibly vague. Where's the threshold? What year did the U.S. cross it? Surely the U.S. and most European nations are economically similar enough that they have all crossed this threshold and therefore we should be able to compare their workplace conditions relative to labor laws.

 

[Francesca R]

No I cannot, considering the fact that Americans are working longer hours as our productivity increases and our wages drop.

Labour compensation in America has been on a consistently rising trend, not a dropping one (excluding during the downturn in GDP since 2008 Q1, when it has dropped).

And again, some European nations that are at roughly the same level of technological development as the U.S. have shorter working hours and greater workplace benefits thanks to stricter labor laws.

That is because they select a different (higher) level of regulation and welfare provision than America does. One result of that is that they pay higher income and social insurance tax rates than Americans do. In other words, as I already suggested before, they pay for it (and they can afford to pay for it). The regulations and social-market provisions don't just arise out of the mist in a self-financing way at the wave of a politician's hand.

Is your refusal to acknowledge this wilful?

 

[David Wong]

Then what do libertarians stand for then? Abstract utopias? Intellectual wankery?

They don't stand for any particular system - that's why you can't get any two of them to fall withing a thousand miles of each other on what their ideal system would look like - but rather appeal to people who dislike paying taxes and obeying government regulation.

It's a rhetorical trick where they can focus entirely on the negatives of government intervention and pretend the positives (or the negatives that result from the absence of it) don't exist.

It's like the hippies I went to college with who insisted that police should be abolished, and could cite hundreds of instances of police corruption and brutality. They start with firm ground (the criticism of the status quo) but cross into utter insanity when pressed for a solution. As long as libertarians can keep the discussion on the former, they sound smart and unified. When pressed for the latter, you suddenly find yourself in Bizarro land.