Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Francesca R]

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.

Of course they have (both crossed the threshold of being able to afford western standard workplace conditions). Which is why they are in a position to outlaw child labour if they want. Which they do. But Bangladesh isn't.

You apparently did not know how techological progress and productivity growth was linked to improvements in workplace conditions. Europe and America have experienced plenty enough of both to be able to afford the working conditions they both select. Bangladesh has not, yet. Hence Bangladesh's best bet is rapid growth.

 

[David Wong]

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).

Citation, please. I suspect this is only true if you factor in the upper 5%, who have seen their wages explode while the rest of the workforce has remained stagnant.

 

[David Wong]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/poverty-rate-rises/

See the second graph. Only the rich have seen their wages grow since the 90s.

 

[GreNME]

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.

Hyperliteralism is no way to go through life. The arguments claiming it's something else point to 1) false statements or 2) unfavorable conditions in the country, like the "true free market" part of the quote. While, yes, I recognize that you can hyperliteralize your way out of the cognitive dissonance between accusing me of a strawman and the instances of the no true scots fallacy played in this thread, you're offering no good reason to accept your assertions.

"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.

Wrong again, and now you're arguing from ignorance. Here is a brief description of part of the current government in Somalia. There's more present than you're seemingly willing to admit. Their significance and efficacy relative to their neighbors or comparable nations is indeed arguable, but the constant mantra of "Somalia has no government" is false, and excuses to try to disqualify it are just more "no true scots" fallacy at play.

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

More "no true scots" from you. The Judiciary of Somalia, as well as the 'private' religious groups, enforce property rights as well, they simply enforce them via their interpretation of sharia. I've not seen arguments that "Libertarian" enforcement requires atheism in a while, but that could be because so many of the Libertarians lately in politics have been former GOP folk.

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.

Again with a no true scots argument. It has a laissez faire economy with minimal government intrusion except as an arbitration body. From an economic perspective the Somali government's strongest similarity to a Libertarian system is its free market. Despite having this pointed out repeatedly your assertions to the contrary have not shown otherwise, even though for years (example) Somalia's "free market" has been the positive aspect various people seem to focus on.

 

[Francesca R]

Citation, please

See line 2 (labour income as a % share of GDP since 1930) in the Commerce Dept's National Income and Product Accounts Labour's share of GDP has occuipied a 55-60% rance since the 1950s. Real GDP has climbed significantly since then (ex last year). Here is a chart, it is in constant prices (net of inflation)

I suspect this is only true if you factor in the upper 5%, who have seen their wages explode while the rest of the workforce has remained stagnant.

Certainly inequality has increased, but that wasn't a statement I was countering.

 

[Francesca R]

Again with a no true scots argument.

I think it is you who is attempting to say that there are more Scots than there are nationals of Scotland. I have no idea why you seem to want to say "Somalia is an example of a libertarianism ideal" unless it is to piss on libertarianism, but it's a daft way to do that.

IMO there are plenty of good reasons to fault libertarianism as a philosophy/doctrine/ideology. That you apparently need to reach for a flawed and crap one is something of a mystery.

 

[psychictv]

That is because they select a different (higher) level of regulation and welfare provision than America does.

Of course. And I never argued that they didn't pay for it, just that those improvements cannot happen through increases in productivity alone. Regulation is often required. Zig argued that regulation has no effect and improvements come about through productivity increases alone. You seem to agree that regulation does have some effect.

You apparently did not know how techological progress and productivity growth was linked to improvements in workplace conditions.

I objected to the argument that increases in productivity brought about by technology are the sole driver of improvements in working conditions. There are still major holes in that argument.

For starters, it ignores cases where decreases in productivity can actually lead to improved working conditions. If you slow down an assembly line and drastically reduce the number of injuries, you have reduced productivity while improving conditions in the workplace.

It also ignores cases where cheap and simple safety improvements can be made which don't rely on any advanced technology (such as wearing a face mask in a factory with lots of particulates in the air). The "threshold" argument also doesn't make much sense in a global economy. Workers in Bangladesh may not be able to run down to the local home depot to buy a face mask but the American corporation that employs them can certainly afford to provide them.

And finally, it ignores the possibility that improved working conditions can actually help drive productivity, therefore increasing wealth and technological innovation. There's a evidence that productivity decreases as people work longer hours. And there are the obvious benefits to the economy brought about by higher wages, increased spending, and increased leisure time.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

God forbid you should be able to distinguish economic cycle fluctuations from long-term trends. There's also the issue of market work versus non-market work, and the fact that there's often a trade off between the two.

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.

As I already said, the US and Europe today resemble each other far more than either resembles the industrial revolution. As for shorter working hours, well, that goes hand in hand with lower per-capita GDP. As for workplace benefits, if you're happy to accept more "benefits" for less pay, that's your choice, but you (speaking generally) have made a tradeoff, don't ever kid yourself that it is or could be otherwise. Nothing is free.

And the basic fact remains uncontested by you: we can only produce enough wealth to support the lifestyles of BOTH Europe and the US thanks to the productivity that modern technology provides. No laws could possibly produce such high standards of living with industrial revolution-era technology, it simply isn't possible.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think it is you who is attempting to say that there are more Scots than there are nationals of Scotland. I have no idea why you seem to want to say "Somalia is an example of a libertarianism ideal" unless it is to piss on libertarianism, but it's a daft way to do that.

IMO there are plenty of good reasons to fault libertarianism as a philosophy/doctrine/ideology. That you apparently need to reach for a flawed and crap one is something of a mystery.

This reminds me of a Claus Larsen point made in a thread bashing Bush: bash Bush for what he's actually done (plenty of ammo there) not for what you'd like to pretend he did, or didn't do.

I fully endorse Francesca's encouragement for folks to bash libertarianism for what it actually holds, does, or doesn't do. No point in making crap up. There seems to be plenty of material.

My discomfort with libertarian arguments begin with worship of markets too frequently attending the arguments.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course. And I never argued that they didn't pay for it, just that those improvements cannot happen through increases in productivity alone.

History says otherwise.

Zig argued that regulation has no effect

No I didn't.

I objected to the argument that increases in productivity brought about by technology are the sole driver of improvements in working conditions.

But that wasn't my argument. Rather, increases in productivity are the primary driver of improvements.

 

[GreNME]

I think it is you who is attempting to say that there are more Scots than there are nationals of Scotland. I have no idea why you seem to want to say "Somalia is an example of a libertarianism ideal" unless it is to piss on libertarianism, but it's a daft way to do that.

IMO there are plenty of good reasons to fault libertarianism as a philosophy/doctrine/ideology. That you apparently need to reach for a flawed and crap one is something of a mystery.

I understand your criticism, but I disagree that it's useful in the context of what's been cited. The fact is that "libertarianism ideal" is a slippery and shifting measure, completely dependent on the interpretation of the person looking at it. Yes, no "pure" form of Libertarianism or any other form of government have really existed for any measurable period, not even dictatorships.

I'm not pointing out the folly or fault of Libertarianism with the Somalia example, I'm pointing out the folly of purist fundamentalism. Somali politics does have enough similar aspects to Libertarian ideals for comparison, but nowhere and nothing are going to meet the Libertarian, Federalist, Capitalist, Socialist, or any other idea because the pure forms always tend to be utopias, unattainable and unrealistic. Objecting to more realistic examples inevitably get the "no true scots" defense, usually followed by the "poor, misunderstood" martyr plays (which Phrost and firecoins have played). And all of this is on top of the fallacious premise within the first post, as if a pure form of any government has ever existed that we could base a logical argument from.

So, while I understand your objection, I don't see why I shouldn't simply point out that the entire conversation was poisoned from the very start, and be done with it.

 

[jimbob]

Of course they have (both crossed the threshold of being able to afford western standard workplace conditions). Which is why they are in a position to outlaw child labour if they want. Which they do. But Bangladesh isn't.

You apparently did not know how techological progress and productivity growth was linked to improvements in workplace conditions. Europe and America have experienced plenty enough of both to be able to afford the working conditions they both select. Bangladesh has not, yet. Hence Bangladesh's best bet is rapid growth.

Bangladesh mightn't be politically in a situation to outlaw child labour, but economically it is richer than mid-19th Century Britain

 

[Francesca R]

Of course. And I never argued that they didn't pay for it, just that those improvements cannot happen through increases in productivity alone. Regulation is often required.

Oh I agree with that. There are significant public choice / collective action problems with things like workplace conditions including safety measures because they behave like public goods within firms, and within society. Inter-firm competition and mobile labour markets are normally insufficient to voluntarily supply the measures that society desires (which is one of the flaws of libertarianism whereby it assumes away such quasi-public goods). But there needs to be enough income generated to afford the cost of such measures in the first place.

Of course, regulations about working practices often don't serve society at all and can be protectionism in disguise. Practically all professional licencing bodies have a level of anti-competitive and welfare-reducing protectionism built into them, right up to medical associations.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No. I'm saying that restrictions on building houses artificially inflate housing prices and, consequently, the power of landlords.

But thanks for that bit of straw. Care to address the actual claim with an actual response?

Yes. Your claim is ridiculous.

 

[psychictv]

As I already said, the US and Europe today resemble each other far more than either resembles the industrial revolution.

So we can't look at the history of regulations in America during the industrial revolution because things have changed too much. But we can't look at modern day regulations in Europe because they are too similar to us. And we can't look at modern day societies that lack regulation because their markets aren't free enough. Convenient.

As for shorter working hours, well, that goes hand in hand with lower per-capita GDP. As for workplace benefits, if you're happy to accept more "benefits" for less pay, that's your choice, but you (speaking generally) have made a tradeoff, don't ever kid yourself that it is or could be otherwise. Nothing is free.

Great, so you agree with me that societies can decide to enact legal regulations that successfully improve workplace conditions. I guess we have no argument then. I never said anything about it being free. That's a total strawman.

But that wasn't my argument. Rather, increases in productivity are the primary driver of improvements.

No, you said "We don't work under those conditions because productivity increases have allowed us to produce vastly more wealth with less work." That implied that improved workplace conditions were solely due to increases in productivity brought about by technology and regulations are at best unnecessary, and at worst, actually harmful to the economy.

 

[Francesca R]

Bangladesh mightn't be politically in a situation to outlaw child labour, but economically it is richer than mid-19th Century Britain

Do you have a source for that?

All I can find are estimates that Bangladesh's 2008 GDP per head is approx USD1,500 (2008 dollars, nominal) which compares with this source (Angus Maddison, U of Groningen, Netherlands) showing the UK's was (1990)GK$ 2,330 in 1850 (That's 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars, which translates to the PPP of the USD in 1990). The 1990 GK$ would be worth more than one USD in 2008, which would further inflate the UK number for comparison with the Bangladesh one. I have--however--only spent a few minutes looking at this.

That tentatively suggests otherwise--that the UK was richer in the mid C19th than Bangladesh is now.

 

[psychictv]

But there needs to be enough income generated to afford the cost of such measures in the first place.

Sure, the question is when that threshold is crossed, do corporations typically enact these measures on their own or have they historically been shown to resist such measures until legislation requires them to make changes?

And going back to the Bangladesh example, I still wonder if it's right to place this threshold on the employee's society or on that of the employer. Say an American corporation employs factory workers in the U.S. for minimum wage and supplies them with respirators. Then they move the factory to Bangladesh, where they have dramatically reduced labor costs, and don't provide the workers with respirators because there are no workplace safety regulations. How does technology or productivity factor into that scenario? The only factors would be legal regulations (or the absence of them) and the desire to maximize corporate profit.

 

[Ziggurat]

So we can't look at the history of regulations in America during the industrial revolution because things have changed too much.

We can look at it. But we cannot blindly assign all of the improvements to regulation without evidence that those regulatory changes were actually the primary factor driving improvements. Which is what you have been doing.

But we can't look at modern day regulations in Europe because they are too similar to us.

Again, we can look, but difference between us and Europe now tell us little to nothing about differences between now and the industrial revolution, for rather obvious reasons. Or rather, reasons which should be obvious.

And we can't look at modern day societies that lack regulation because their markets aren't free enough.

Again, we can look at such societies, but we should not make the mistake you do of attributing everything to the presence or absence of regulations.

Great, so you agree with me that societies can decide to enact legal regulations that successfully improve workplace conditions.

Sure. And those improvements pretty much always come at some cost. One need not deny that improvements exist in order to conclude that they do not outweigh the costs.

No, you said "We don't work under those conditions because productivity increases have allowed us to produce vastly more wealth with less work." That implied that improved workplace conditions were solely due to increases in productivity brought about by technology and regulations are at best unnecessary, and at worst, actually harmful to the economy.

I cannot stop you from making inferences, but that is not the actual meaning of what I said. Nothing about my statements requires that productivity increases be the only change. But productivity increases alone are enough to improve conditions considerably versus industrial revolution conditions, whereas laws alone could have done very little. There wasn't nearly enough wealth created to sustain modern standards of living, regardless of how you distributed that wealth. You have yet to come to terms with that basic fact.

 

[jimbob]

True, but there would be monopolies under libertarian systems and these would be abused.

Most libertarians believe there would be fewer effective monopolies, and that is advanced and supported to justify the merit of their philosophy. However their philosophy, again, has nothing to say about monopolies being bad, or what constitutes abuse. Market dominance (bargaining power) gleaned without violating others' liberty is not something that libertarianism would seek to dismantle if it existed.

Governments create monopolistic trade deliberately in several cases as well. Some of them probably serve society, some don't. I tend to think one gets more monopolies the bigger the government is--which would mean more beneficient ones and more malign ones.

"Most libertarians believe there would be fewer effective monopolies" is probably a true statement of libertarian beliefs. I have seen this asserted several times, however I have rarely seen this argued, let alone convincingly. I, however see more reason and historical precedent to believe that the converse is the case and that there would be more effective monopolies and especially cartels. I would argue that a certain level of government is needed to manage them.

Europe in the early middle ages had inefficient and weak central government, but there were many local monopolies, from the allocated mills to the guilds, and the entire feudal system.

A lot of the local monopolies were parts of the governments in the cases of merchant princes in city-state republics.

During the reformation and the age of enlightenment, central government was a lot more inefficient than now, and there were many granted monopolies, for example the VOC

I would argue that much of law concerning commerce and business has actually arisen in response to particular abuses and problems that needed fixing, including abuse of market power.

I would say that Enron's manipulation of energy prices in California would be demonstrating an admirable libertarian approach. (The fraud wasn't, but milking a monopoly is just great).

Morals and ethics are ultimately derived from value-judgements, which have ultimately the same *logical* justification as aesthetic decisions.

Well Kant didn't think they did; he thought they were derived from reason and "categorical imperatives"; hence he apparently would refuse to lie to a murderer. But science can't derive them, I would agree.

I would agree except that it isn't science, but quite simple logic:

At least theists can define "good" in terms of what they think their their deity wants. So they can in this respect claim a logical framework for morals, albeit one that I would argue is based in an incorrect first assumption: "God exists and what God wants is axiomatically good". Rejecting this first assumption, one eventually gets to the ultimate reason, "Because it feels right to my primate emotions". I like to think that I have strong opinions on morality, and right and wrong, it is just that I accept that the ultimate arbiter of my morality is based on my evolved feelings as a social animal.

Probably an interesting discussion, but one for the "inherent rights" threads...

 

[Ziggurat]

Say an American corporation employs factory workers in the U.S. for minimum wage and supplies them with respirators. Then they move the factory to Bangladesh, where they have dramatically reduced labor costs, and don't provide the workers with respirators because there are no workplace safety regulations. How does technology or productivity factor into that scenario? The only factors would be legal regulations (or the absence of them) and the desire to maximize corporate profit.

Quite simple, really. It takes time to train workers, and even after training, experience typically improves a worker's productivity. If a worker's health deteriorates because of a lack of respirators, the factory owner is losing out on that increased productivity. It's the same basic reason that Ford raised wages: it kept people working at his factories from leaving for work elsewhere, reducing worker turnover and increasing productivity and hence profits.