Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Mister Agenda]

This was rather a very good post, very honest and thoughtful. I'm rather stunned a Libertarian could make such a post, and I look forward to more of your posts, Mister Agenda; you seem like a person being a real person and being able to actually discuss things. Good on you.

Thank you. I'll try to stay humble.

 

[Mister Agenda]

All that should be required to disprove this asssertion is to point out that Libertarians have not been in control of any significant part of the government, and no libertarian policies have been implemented. And in fact, many new government controls have been imposed, many specifically on the very part of the economy that caused all the trouble.
SNIP
My whole point is simply that blaming the free market under the present conditions is ludicrous.

I don't disagree. I just don't believe that libertarianism boils down to Austrian economics. On the skeptic boards, at least, it seems many Democrats passionately despise us, more than they do Republicans. I find that baffling when we're on their side on so many issues: gay marriage, medical marijuana, Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and so on. I think it is because so many outspoken Libertarians promote conspiracy theories, radical economic proposals, and generally get overexcited. I think it will do us a world of good to get back to basics: social liberty and economic restraint. When I was a child it seemed like the Republicans and Democrats balanced each other, one cautious and thrifty, the other adventurous and generous. I could see us finding a middle, sensible course between them. The Republicans have abdicated their role as the 'thrifty party'. They have serious internal divisions between the Neocons and Religous Right vs. the Libertarian-leaning Republicans. Our country would be better served if the Libertarian Republicans and Democrats joined the LP. In that situation I think the Neocon and Religous Right coalition would wither and THEY would wind up a '3rd Party', and the two major parties would be the Democrats and the Libertarians and the assaults on separation of Church and State and similar crap would dwindle into irrelevance. This (to me) happy fantasy is not even a possibility if we're regarded as clowns.

That's one reason I like Bob Barr. He's a bit boring, but he's not a side show.

 

[Tippit]

I've been an active party member since the 90s, 'insert irrelevant speculative personal claim here' back at you.

You made a claim about how the so-called majority of Libertarians don't support abolition of the Fed, and I pointed out how recent Libertarian history contradicts this. It was neither irrelevant, nor personal. I think the LP is itself hapless and irrelevant. Given a plurality voting system and Duverger's law, it's inevitable that we will wind up with a polarized electorate and a two-party system that marginalizes all other parties.

I am claiming that this being on the agenda of our past few presidential candidates does not establish the claim that the majority of rank-and-file Libertarians advocate abolishing the Fed. It's a large minority, sure, but it's a fine point of Austrian theory that has not yet been demonstrated to work in the real world (the bad money has already driven out all the good money). Most of us simply want a government that is more fiscally responsible while infringing on our civil and privacy rights as little as possible, based on our Constitution.

Can you describe then how the Fed is Constitutional, and how Congress can borrow endlessly on the public credit based on the Constitution?

Neither of the major parties stands for fiscal responsibilty. This should be a good time for Libertarians. One of the things holding us back is a focus on esoteric economic theories that cause a first reaction in the average citizen of 'that's nuts!'. I don't mind excluding the people who would be with us if we didn't want to legalize pot. I do mind driving off people who would vote for us and with us if they didn't think our party is composed mostly of anarcho-capitalists and other economic extremists. There's a lot of good we could do with sensible and common-sense spending cuts and firm opposition to erosion of our liberties. Frankly, it would be more than most of us dare hope for. The reason we can't do it is we have so few like-minded people in Congress (thank you Freedom Democrats and Republican Liberty Caucus). Our basic principle is liberty, and you don't need to go to the fringe to support and advance liberty. Hundreds of thousands of people vote Libertarian every presidential election, many of them have never even heard of the idea of abolishing the Fed. Many of those who have, wouldn't vote for us if they thought we could actually win, they're just trying to send a message. More people voting for us sends the message we want to send.

There is nothing "nutty" about wanting to abolish the Fed. It was created just like any other government agency, by an act of legislation. There is nothing special about it. In fact what is nutty is the idea that "fiscal responsibility" is not mutually exclusive to the Federal Reserve's existence. It's very purpose is to enable profligate spending by the Federal Government. As much as you would like to marginalize me as an "extremist nut", I'm not. I just have a comprehensive understanding of how the system works. As far as I'm concerned, you're nuts. So is any "common man" who understands the system and yet supports it.

You claim to support liberty, but if you knew how the existence of the Fed directly contradicts liberty and fiscal restraint, you would have no choice but to denounce it.

We need purists such as yourself constantly refining libertarian ideas, but there is a difference between ideas and principles. The principles are more important than enacting a specific idea. The greatest men of our nation had to compromise with the worst to secure our independence, so we could move forward. There are many who would like to keep our party small and ideologically pure, too small to even acknowledge that a former Republican like Bob Barr even has the right to call himself a Libertarian when the difference between him and his opposition is like day and night--if the Libertarian tent isn't big enough to cover those of us who lean a little to the right or a little to the left or are moderate in any way, we might as well close the tent because we're just wasting our time. The purists can become full-time bloggers and save the rest of us the effort of actually trying to make progress in the only way possible: incrementally.

As far as the Fed goes, our efforts are more practically applied in trying to find ways to make what we have work better. Getting rid of it is obviously politically impossible, and it's reckless to make fundamental changes to our monetary system that haven't been proven--and ad hoc interpretations of history don't prove anything. Economics is a science where experimentation is possible. Find a way to test the theory that is repeatable and people will be convinced by the evidence.

As long as the Fed exists, their will be no progress towards liberty. The Libertarian party is a sad joke, Bob Barr is a hypocrite. The evidence for why the Fed needs to be abolished is everywhere. The reason why it's "politically impossible" to get rid of it is because it is the source of the two-party duopoly's power. Your comment about "reckless" legislation to abolish the Fed could just as easily have been applied to its creation in the first place. If you think you can work to restore liberty within the confines of the Federal Reserve System and the two-party plurality voting system, then I submit that you sir are the one who is nuts.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You made a claim about how the so-called majority of Libertarians don't support abolition of the Fed, and I pointed out how recent Libertarian history contradicts this. It was neither irrelevant, nor personal. I think the LP is itself hapless and irrelevant. Given a plurality voting system and Duverger's law, it's inevitable that we will wind up with a polarized electorate and a two-party system that marginalizes all other parties.

You speculated that I personally had not been in the Libertarian Party for very long with the implication that I was therefore ignorant of what's going on in the party. If your speculation was true the consequent still does not necessarily follow, but would have been useful for ad hom attacks against my arguments--and nothing else. I find your need to defend this insignificant point indicative of a tendency to pointless contention, and I assume you won't take that observation as personal. Your assessment of the LP is not without merit, but is irrelevant to the topic of the conversation you are having with me.

Can you describe then how the Fed is Constitutional, and how Congress can borrow endlessly on the public credit based on the Constitution?

Nope. This establishes the majority of Libertarians agree with you how? I'm not saying the Fed is Constitutional. I'm saying it's not going anywhere unless a LOT of other things change first, and Gresham's Law implies we can't successfully introduce sound money without draconian measures to enforce it, because people will tend to hoard it instead of spend it if they have a less-sound alternative to use for commerce. If you want to replace the Fed you have to make a case FOR what you're going to replace it with, and your case has to be able to convince a majority of people or it won't be implemented. Your position doesn't have to be wrong for mine to be right.

There is nothing "nutty" about wanting to abolish the Fed. It was created just like any other government agency, by an act of legislation. There is nothing special about it. In fact what is nutty is the idea that "fiscal responsibility" is not mutually exclusive to the Federal Reserve's existence. It's very purpose is to enable profligate spending by the Federal Government. As much as you would like to marginalize me as an "extremist nut", I'm not. I just have a comprehensive understanding of how the system works. As far as I'm concerned, you're nuts. So is any "common man" who understands the system and yet supports it.

I don't think you're nuts for your belief. I think you've amply demonstrated you can't make a case for your belief that persuades anyone who is not a libertarian already. You deserve to be marginalized because you don't know when to change your focus to something that you can make a difference on. We have great issues that are easy to defend that we can attract allies on and actually start to make a difference and you are focusing on something that can't be changed until we've made a great deal of progress already. In doing so you're making it harder for people like me to succeed in actually accomplishing something. You have to show you can do small things before you will be entrusted with the responsibility to do big things.

You claim to support liberty, but if you knew how the existence of the Fed directly contradicts liberty and fiscal restraint, you would have no choice but to denounce it.

Consider it denounced. Now can we move on to something we can actually affect?

As long as the Fed exists, their will be no progress towards liberty. The Libertarian party is a sad joke, Bob Barr is a hypocrite. The evidence for why the Fed needs to be abolished is everywhere. The reason why it's "politically impossible" to get rid of it is because it is the source of the two-party duopoly's power. Your comment about "reckless" legislation to abolish the Fed could just as easily have been applied to its creation in the first place. If you think you can work to restore liberty within the confines of the Federal Reserve System and the two-party plurality voting system, then I submit that you sir are the one who is nuts.

Focused like a laser aren't you? Repealing the PATRIOT Act wouldn't count as progress toward liberty? Reducing or eliminating corporate and special interest welfare wouldn't count as progress toward liberty? Tippit, if this one institution makes all other progress impossible, you should just give up, 'cause it's not going anywhere barring the collapse of our nation or the success of the incremental improvements you claim are impossible. Your comment about reckless legislation is fine, but it happened before either of us was born and it's already a done deal. I'm not sure it could have been prevented in the long run anyway, bad money drives out good, and now all the money in circulation in the world is bad money, by Gresham's definition. The economy isn't the be-all and end-all of libertarianism, there are several countries that are arguably more libertarian than ours overall despite having central banks.

Seriously, why do you bother posting if you really believe that nothing can be done to improve liberty as long as the Fed and the two-party system exist? Is it compulsive Quixote-ism? At least I think there's a chance my efforts contribute to making some kind of positive difference, you seem to believe your efforts depend on the obstacles to your goal just...what? You believe you can't make any progress until they're gone, and they won't go away unless you make progress. I prefer to believe you got a little overexcited and accidentally overstated your case without thinking it through all the way.

 

[SaulOhio]

No initiation of force? Rule of law, not of men? Well-defined property rights? I had no idea the tribal regions of western Pakistan were so progressive.

Yes, typical strawman argument. I once "discussed" this subject with an idiot who claimed that Somalia was an example of a country where Libertarianism had been tried, claiming that its anarchy was the ideal free market. Same problems, and not only does Somalia not lack a government, property rights are left unprotected, and almost anyone is vulnerable to plundering and theft, its problem has been that it has had TOO MANY governments.

From the CIA World Factnbook

In May 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes the administrative regions of Awdal, Woqooyi Galbeed, Togdheer, Sanaag, and Sool. Although not recognized by any government, this entity has maintained a stable existence and continues efforts to establish a constitutional democracy, including holding municipal, parliamentary, and presidential elections. The regions of Bari, Nugaal, and northern Mudug comprise a neighboring self-declared autonomous state of Puntland, which has been self-governing since 1998 but does not aim at independence; it has also made strides toward reconstructing a legitimate, representative government but has suffered some civil strife. Puntland disputes its border with Somaliland as it also claims portions of eastern Sool and Sanaag. Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. A two-year peace process, led by the Government of Kenya under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), concluded in October 2004 with the election of Abdullahi YUSUF Ahmed as President of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia and the formation of an interim government, known as the Somalia Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs).

Critics of free market capitalism will make any claim to try to discredit free market ideas, always strawman arguments. Facts don't matter. What the proponents of free markets actually claim and advocate doesn't matter. Just discredit them any way you can. Accuse them of paranoid conspiracy theorizing, portray anarchist or totalitarian nations as consequences of free markets, blame the effects of the regulations they themselves support on free markets, blame any problem on free markets, even when there is no free market present. Who cares? You just GOT to discredit these dangerous ideas!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's fun to watch Libertarian loonies argue over who is loonier!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't disagree. I just don't believe that libertarianism boils down to Austrian economics. On the skeptic boards, at least, it seems many Democrats passionately despise us, more than they do Republicans. I find that baffling when we're on their side on so many issues: gay marriage, medical marijuana, Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and so on. I think it is because so many outspoken Libertarians promote conspiracy theories, radical economic proposals, and generally get overexcited.

That is the case. I can accept socialy liberal and finanicaly conservative, the reason I argue against libertarian is that they always seem to when they explain their views, be raving nut jobs about something.

A typical area is the need for goverment regulation in workplace safety.

So if you get used to most of the people identifying as such being total loonies who think workplace relations where their best in the late 19th century, you wonder why more rational people choose the same label.

 

[Darat]

I don't disagree. I just don't believe that libertarianism boils down to Austrian economics. On the skeptic boards, at least, it seems many Democrats passionately despise us, more than they do Republicans. I find that baffling when we're on their side on so many issues

...snip...

I think you'll find it's not because they are "Democrats" but that many folk here (that are not partisan in regards to USA politics) are very wary about all ideologies. And unfortunately many of the people who do argue for "Libertarianism" here are of the "pure as driven snow" idealogical bent, as you have probably already noticed!

Personally I share most of the things that you want and believe should be our "rights". Where we will differ is I suspect in some quite important areas, the major one is being how we can achieve those freedoms for most people most of the time. I believe that humans (given our current capabilities and knowledge) require society, and society is the voluntary and compulsory interactions between people and that history shows us that to form a society that allows as much freedom as possible for individuals it must have an element of compulsion or if you like "initiation of force against the members of society". History shows us that when "unregulated" the society that forms is one that actually achieves less freedom for most members of the society.

 

[SaulOhio]

It's fun to watch Libertarian loonies argue over who is loonier!

I think we've made a pretty clear case that you are.

You have no arguments. You have no evidence to present. All you do is make snide remarks and accuse people of conspiracy theories.

You've got nothing, yet you smugly assert that people are wrong, with no evidence, no argument, no logic. When you attempt to make something vaguely resembling an argument, its a strawman.

Why do you bother?

So if you get used to most of the people identifying as such being total loonies who think workplace relations where their best in the late 19th century, you wonder why more rational people choose the same label.

And when has any libertarian ever argued that?

Of course workplace conditions sucked in the 19th century, compared to what we are used to in the early 21st.

Its just that we argue that the government regulations had little to do with that improvement, and is sometimes an impediment.

At least get the position you are arguing against right. Then you won't see it as so nutty.

Yes, there are the conspiracy theorists. But you have them in every party or political movement.

 

[Darat]

...snip....

Of course workplace conditions sucked in the 19th century, compared to what we are used to in the early 21st.

Its just that we argue that the government regulations had little to do with that improvement, and is sometimes an impediment.

...snip...

You are joking?

 

[Francesca R]

I think not joking, just beyond reach in respect of self-delusion.

 

[paximperium]

You are joking?

The delusion and denial is most amusing.

 

[SaulOhio]

Whats the delusion and denial? I stated the position, but I didn't provide any argument for it, yet. My purpose was simply to correct the misrepresentation of the free market position.

The original claim was that libertarians believe that labor relations were the ideal in the 19th century. It was far from that. There was violence used on both sides, by employers and by unions, and the government participated, or sometimes turned a blind eye to it. The Libertarian principle is the non-initiation of force, and government actually initiating force on the behalf of employers who want to break up a union, or failure to keep the peace in the face of union violence is a violation of that principle.

As for the real cause of improvements in working conditions and safety, its economic and technological progress.

Employers are willing to spend so much money on hiring workers. They calculate the entire cost of hiring a worker, and that includes not just wages, but benefits and capital improvements required for that worker, like the tools and machines he uses. What motivates employers to spend more money hiring workers is the prospect of making profits. The more profits he stands to earn, the more money he is willing to spend. And where he can earn those profits determines where he will want to spend it.

And an employer has choices to make about what specifically to spend that money on. He can spend it on safety gear for the workers, or better tools, or hiring more workers, or to pay his workers more to keep a competitor from hiring those workers away from him. Workers have choices about where to work, and what their priorities are. If they need more money to care fortheir children, they may be willing to accept greater risk or more difficult working conditions in exchange for higher pay.

When government tries to force employers to spend more money on workplace safety, that money has to come from somewhere. It will either come from wages, or from profits. If it comes from wages, the workers are not necessarily better off. They were simply forced out of that tradeoff they chose between higher pay and better working conditions. If it comes from profits, then employers will be less motivated to invest money in that industry. they will take their money elsewhere, to some sector of the economy which is providing higher profits.

But when capital accumulation has progressed to a level where the workers don't need to make such a tradeoff anymore, they will demand better working conditions, and they will be willing to accept lower wages for them.

Governemnt is unable to change this process. It can't motivate employers to spend more on each worker, except maybe by subsidies, and those simply put back into the economy what they take out.

Governments taking credit for improving conditions are like diplomats taking credit for ending a war, when the cause was that one side was beaten militarily. The diplomats just handled the surrender.

No amount of diplomacy can bring an end to a war if both sides still want to fight. And no amount of government coersion can force improvements in safety and working conditions if they are uneconomical. Such regulations are unenforceable when the economy has not yet developed enough that workers can choose between workplace improvements or wages. At best, they are a means to negotiate those improvements once the economic progress necessary to make them possible has taken place.

 

[Darat]

(1) Elizabeth Bentley was interviewed by Michael Sadler and his House of Commons Committee on 4th June, 1832.

Question: What were your hours of labour?

Answer: As a child I worked from five in the morning till nine at night.

Question: What time was allowed for meals?

Answer: We were allowed forty minutes at noon.

Question: Had you any time to get breakfast, or drinking?

Answer: No, we got it as we could.

Question: Did you have time to eat it?

Answer: No; we were obliged to leave it or to take it home, and when we did not take it, the overlooker took it, and gave it to the pigs.

Question: Suppose you flagged a little, or were late, what would they do?

Answer: Strap us.

Question: What work did you do?

Answer: A weigher in the card-room.

Question: How long did you work there?

Answer: From half-past five, till eight at night.

Question: What is the carding-room like?

Answer: Dusty. You cannot see each other for dust.

Question: Did working in the card-room affect your health?

Answer: Yes; it was so dusty, the dust got up my lungs, and the work was so hard. I got so bad in health, that when I pulled the baskets down, I pulled my bones out of their places.

Question: You are considerably deformed in your person in consequence of this labour?

Answer: Yes, I am.

Question: At what time did it come on?

Answer: I was about thirteen years old when it began coming, and it has got worse since. When my mother died I had to look after myself.

Question: Where are you now?

Answer: In the poor house.

Question: You are utterly incapable of working in the factories?

Answer: Yes

Question: You were willing to have worked as long as you were able, from your earliest age?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And you supported your widowed mother as long as you could?

Answer: Yes.

Good libertarian lass - working to help support her widowed mother for as long as she could.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think we've made a pretty clear case that you are.

You have no arguments. You have no evidence to present. All you do is make snide remarks and accuse people of conspiracy theories.

You've got nothing, yet you smugly assert that people are wrong, with no evidence, no argument, no logic. When you attempt to make something vaguely resembling an argument, its a strawman.

Why do you bother?

You're funny!

 

[SaulOhio]

Good libertarian lass - working to help support her widowed mother for as long as she could.

More lack of argument.

Yes, working conditions sucked. Really sucked.

But did you present any evidence that any regulation actually improved working conditions at all?

BTW, flogging workers is the initiation of force. So it taking someone's food from them to give to your pigs.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I think you'll find it's not because they are "Democrats" but that many folk here (that are not partisan in regards to USA politics) are very wary about all ideologies. And unfortunately many of the people who do argue for "Libertarianism" here are of the "pure as driven snow" idealogical bent, as you have probably already noticed!

Personally I share most of the things that you want and believe should be our "rights". Where we will differ is I suspect in some quite important areas, the major one is being how we can achieve those freedoms for most people most of the time. I believe that humans (given our current capabilities and knowledge) require society, and society is the voluntary and compulsory interactions between people and that history shows us that to form a society that allows as much freedom as possible for individuals it must have an element of compulsion or if you like "initiation of force against the members of society". History shows us that when "unregulated" the society that forms is one that actually achieves less freedom for most members of the society.

We might be closer in opinion than you think. I've found the arguments of anarchists interesting but unconvincing. The thing about minarchy is that we acknowledge the need for government, which is acknowledgment of some degree of need for force: for military defense and rule of law, for instance. We can argue about where to draw the line on how much government we need, but we ought to be able to cooperate when we agree on reducing or eliminating a specific aspect of government, like the Patriot Act or prevention of aggressive war.

 

[drkitten]

More lack of argument.

Yes, working conditions sucked. Really sucked.

But did you present any evidence that any regulation actually improved working conditions at all?

Yes, actually, he did.


Let's look at it in more detail.

Question: What were your hours of labour?

Answer: As a child I worked from five in the morning till nine at night.

The Walsch-Healy Act (1936) restricted regular working hours to no more than eight a day and prohibited child labor generally.

Question: What time was allowed for meals?

Answer: We were allowed forty minutes at noon.

Question: Had you any time to get breakfast, or drinking?

Answer: No, we got it as we could.

Question: Did you have time to eat it?

Answer: No; we were obliged to leave it or to take it home, and when we did not take it, the overlooker took it, and gave it to the pigs.

While Federal law does not require meal breaks, most states do. In particular, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §11040 demands "no employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes." Similarly, OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.141(c)(l)(i)) require that employers offer regular toilet breaks, something that was not often offered in the 19th century (although not often discussed, either).

Question: What work did you do?

Answer: A weigher in the card-room.

Question: How long did you work there?

Answer: From half-past five, till eight at night.

See above.

Question: What is the carding-room like?

Answer: Dusty. You cannot see each other for dust.

Question: Did working in the card-room affect your health?

Answer: Yes; it was so dusty, the dust got up my lungs, and the work was so hard. I got so bad in health, that when I pulled the baskets down, I pulled my bones out of their places.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 would outlaw working in such hazardous conditions.

Question: At what time did it come on?

Answer: I was about thirteen years old when it began coming, and it has got worse since. When my mother died I had to look after myself.

See above.

Question: Where are you now?

Answer: In the poor house.

Question: You are utterly incapable of working in the factories?

Answer: Yes

Mandatory employer-funded workman's comp and disability insurance -- the number of laws relating to this are so profuse I won't bother with citations -- would have kept her out of the poorhouse as the employer would have been required by law to continue to pay her.

So, yes, almost ALL of the abuses described would have been --- and indeed, have been -- directly dealt with by government intervention.

 

[drkitten]

Whats the delusion and denial?

Your opinion about how workplace safety regulations came into being, for one thing.

But when capital accumulation has progressed to a level where the workers don't need to make such a tradeoff anymore, they will demand better working conditions, and they will be willing to accept lower wages for them.

Governemnt is unable to change this process.

Certainly it can. It can -- as libertarians keep pointing out, at gunpoint if necessary -- demand that employers provide better working conditions or suffer penalties such as fines. If necessary, the government can simply shut down a business and cause the owners to lose the entire amount they have invested in it, with no compensation whatsoever.

It can't motivate employers to spend more on each worker,

You don't consider "adjust your business practices or be shut down to be motivation"?

Governments taking credit for improving conditions are like diplomats taking credit for ending a war, when the cause was that one side was beaten militarily. The diplomats just handled the surrender.

The problem is that the war had not ended in 1936 when the Walsch-Healy act was passed, and indeed had not ended in 1970 when OSHA was established. OSHA still routinely inspects workplaces and issues fines for violations; the mere threat of an OSHA investigation is often enough to get management to spend more money on workplace safety than they had originally budgeted.

The "war," as you call it, is ongoing. You're right that OSHA cannot force compliance upon a businessman who is willing to be shut down instead of complying with the law. In that sense, you're right:

No amount of diplomacy can bring an end to a war if both sides still want to fight.

But government is not just a diplomat. As you point out, they have guns. And it's very easy to stop a war by shooting all the belligerents on one side.

And no amount of government coersion can force improvements in safety and working conditions if they are uneconomical.

Sure they can. Either make such improvements, or be shut down.

Such regulations are unenforceable when the economy has not yet developed enough that workers can choose between workplace improvements or wages.

That's a total misrepresentation of history. Among other things, Welsch-Healy established BOTH improved wages and workplace improvements.

The reason is very simple. The firms had the capacity to provide both, but did not have the motivation. The government provided that motivation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why do you bother?

And when has any libertarian ever argued that?

Yes, they think that the way workers where regulated was the best then. Employers had such freedom to offer the conditions they wanted and the employees had complete freedom to choose the conditions they wanted.

It was a win win for everyone, then the goverment but an end to it with things like overtime pay, worker safety laws, outlawing child labor and the like.

Look at Darat's example, see how charitable the factory owner was, helping that girl care for her mother like that?