Libertarian Paradise

[Mr. Lennon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saWCZVggQAs&feature=player_embedded

A bit cheesy, but so damn true. I can't think of one successful libertarian country.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Libertarianism /= Anarchism

 

[Genx87]

Before I even clicked on the link I knew it was some dumb reference to Somalia. Which is not a libertarian paradise. It is an anarchists paradise. Stupid lefties are stupid.

I can't think of one successful libertarian country.

A country based on limited central govt and free markets? Really? Cant think of a single one eh?

 

[First]

Before I even clicked on the link I knew it was some dumb reference to Somalia. Which is not a libertarian paradise. It is an anarchists paradise. Stupid lefties are stupid.

Nah it's funny.

A country based on limited central govt and free markets? Really? Cant think of a single one eh?

Name them. Also, when you get down to specifics those things are not really what Libertarians want, it's what they idealize they want. Practically they can't have a real version of either.

 

[matt0611]

Before I even clicked on the link I knew it was some dumb reference to Somalia. Which is not a libertarian paradise. It is an anarchists paradise. Stupid lefties are stupid.



A country based on limited central govt and free markets? Really? Cant think of a single one eh?

Maybe this country called the United States in the 1800s?

It was pretty much a small government country, especially from 1860-1913.
We were the most prosperous country in the world.

No, it wasn't perfect, but compared to the government we have today, it was a libertarian paradise.

There was so much technological progress, there was relative peace, there were very low tariffs and imports, no income tax (you make money, you keep it), we were on a gold standard, if a business failed it failed, if it succeeded it profited. There were no "stimulus packages".

Between 1850-1900 there was unbelievable economic growth (as high as 6-7 percent per year), per capita income was increasing faster than it had ever done throughout human history, and people were coming here from all over the world. Peoples lifespans increased from 40 to 50 from 1850-1900. Prices fell from 1800-1900.

There were so much new technology, railroads, electricity, radio etc
I'd say it was pretty successful.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Slavery, robber barons, sure the 1800s were great.

 

[First]

Maybe this country called the United States in the 1800s?

It was pretty much a small government country, especially from 1860-1913.
We were the most prosperous country in the world.

No, it wasn't perfect, but compared to the government we have today, it was a libertarian paradise.

The U.S. had 4 major banking panics between 1860-1913, was most certainly not the most prosperous country in the world (an easily refutable statement), had huge wealth inequality, and was in the midst of the Civil War and Reconstruction a good chunk of that time. Libertarian paradise indeed.

 

[matt0611]

The U.S. had 4 major banking panics between 1860-1913, was most certainly not the most prosperous country in the world (an easily refutable statement), had huge wealth inequality, and was in the midst of the Civil War and Reconstruction a good chunk of that time. Libertarian paradise indeed.

Lol yeah, the US was not a successful from 1800-1900. I'm mostly talking about after the civil war for the prosperous part anyway.
Hilarious.

I'll take banking panics over the shit economy we have now btw.

Wealth inequality would have gone away as technology and capital and competition continued to increase.

Yup, "no succesfull libertarian government ever existed" indeed.

 

[First]

Lol yeah, the US was not a successful from 1800-1900.
Hilarious.

That is hilarious, wonder who the hell said that shit. Certainly not me, lol.

I'll take banking panics over the shit economy we have now btw.

Then you're not particularly intelligent. Banking panics wipe out savings and confidence in the financial system.

Wealth inequality would have gone away as technology and capital and competition continued to increase.

No evidence for this bullshit.

 

[matt0611]

That is hilarious, wonder who the hell said that shit. Certainly not me, lol.



Then you're not particularly intelligent. Banking panics wipe out savings and confidence in the financial system.



No evidence for this bullshit.

The OP said it (more or less).

And of course there's evidence. Happens all over the world. Happened throughout history. Why are wages increasing all over the emerging world markets?

Oh, let me guess, we only make money because of the minimum wage and unions

 

[manlymatt83]

Maybe this country called the United States in the 1800s?

It was pretty much a small government country, especially from 1860-1913.
We were the most prosperous country in the world.

No, it wasn't perfect, but compared to the government we have today, it was a libertarian paradise.

There was so much technological progress, there was relative peace, there were very low tariffs and imports, no income tax (you make money, you keep it), we were on a gold standard, if a business failed it failed, if it succeeded it profited. There were no "stimulus packages".

Between 1850-1900 there was unbelievable economic growth (as high as 6-7 percent per year), per capita income was increasing faster than it had ever done throughout human history, and people were coming here from all over the world. Peoples lifespans increased from 40 to 50 from 1850-1900. Prices fell from 1800-1900.

There were so much new technology, railroads, electricity, radio etc
I'd say it was pretty successful.

Yeah, this.

 

[bfdd]

Slavery, robber barons, sure the 1800s were great.

That was governments fault for not protecting our rights. So their solution was to put more legislation on top so they wouldn't enforce those either. Government is only as good as the laws/legislation in which it enforces. Blaming the economic system is quite flawed when it was the political systems failings.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe this country called the United States in the 1800s?

It was pretty much a small government country, especially from 1860-1913.
We were the most prosperous country in the world.

No, it wasn't perfect, but compared to the government we have today, it was a libertarian paradise.

There was so much technological progress, there was relative peace, there were very low tariffs and imports, no income tax (you make money, you keep it), we were on a gold standard, if a business failed it failed, if it succeeded it profited. There were no "stimulus packages".

Between 1850-1900 there was unbelievable economic growth (as high as 6-7 percent per year), per capita income was increasing faster than it had ever done throughout human history, and people were coming here from all over the world. Peoples lifespans increased from 40 to 50 from 1850-1900. Prices fell from 1800-1900.

There were so much new technology, railroads, electricity, radio etc
I'd say it was pretty successful.

Relative peace, minus a few little bumps in the road such as the US Civil War, the Spanish American War, about a dozen or so wars with various Indian tribes, a war in the Philippines, etc... etc.

Not to mention there was an income tax in existence for about half of that time period, tariffs were in fact notable for being particularly high from 1860-1913 as compared to previous times, the gold standard led to repeated financial and banking panics, etc... etc... etc.

This America you're thinking of never existed.

 

[matt0611]

Relative peace, minus a few little bumps in the road such as the US Civil War, the Spanish American War, about a dozen or so wars with various Indian tribes, a war in the Philippines, etc... etc.

Not to mention there was an income tax in existence for about half of that time period, tariffs were in fact notable for being particularly high from 1860-1913 as compared to previous times, the gold standard led to repeated financial and banking panics, etc... etc... etc.

This America you're thinking of never existed.

Again, I'm mostly talking about AFTER the civil war, and before the turn of the century.

And yes I know there was an income tax for the civil war. It was eliminated in 1870s. Even then, it was only like 2% and was only for the super rich.
The vast majority of people paid 0%.

There were financial panics, nothing like the great depression though when government was central planning our monetary system.

I'm not saying it was perfect, there were a lot of room for improvements. But by today's standards, it was a pretty successful libertarian government.

 

[blackangst1]

The U.S. had 4 major banking panics between 1860-1913, was most certainly not the most prosperous country in the world (an easily refutable statement), had huge wealth inequality, and was in the midst of the Civil War and Reconstruction a good chunk of that time. Libertarian paradise indeed.

Not to mention racial and sex inequality.

 

[First]

The OP said it (more or less).

I'm going to go with less.

And of course there's evidence. Happens all over the world. Happened throughout history. Why are wages increasing all over the emerging world markets?

WTF does this have to do with the U.S. clearly not being the most prosperous country in the world between 1860-1913? I guess if you define it just by how much growth there was in industries that never existed, then sure, but what that has to do with small gov't is beyond me.

Oh, let me guess, we only make money because of the minimum wage and unions

Fail troll is failing.

 

[matt0611]

I'm going to go with less.



WTF does this have to do with the U.S. clearly not being the most prosperous country in the world between 1860-1913? I guess if you define it just by how much growth there was in industries that never existed, then sure, but what that has to do with small gov't is beyond me.



Fail troll is failing.

>>
"I can't think of one successful libertarian country."

Its what my whole original post was in regards to.

 

[First]

Also, that's not to say growth wasn't significant for the 2nd half of the 19th century. But again, tying that to small gov't, gold standard, and free markets is ideological nonsense. Every emerging economy is going to grow faster than a well established super industrialized power. When you start from *nothing* relative to the big boys, expecting the same growth quarter-by-quarter is pretty nonsensical.

 

[First]

>>
"I can't think of one successful libertarian country."

You still haven't, though. And the U.S. wasn't one between 1850 and 1900.

 

[matt0611]

You still haven't, though. And the U.S. wasn't one between 1850 and 1900.

The US was not a successful country in 1850-1900?
Considering the amount of economic growth, individual freedom, relative peace, new inventions, new industries etc I think its safe to say that relative to other countries at the time it was pretty darn successful. Not perfect of course, but a successful country for its time.

If you don't think so we'll just have to agree to disagree because our definitions of successful are not the same.

 

[fskimospy]

The US was not a successful country in 1850-1900?

The US wasn't libertarian. There were large levels of government interference in the economy. Not as large as today, but certainly not libertarian by any means.

 

[xj0hnx]

Stupid liberals dumb video is dumb

 

[matt0611]

The US wasn't libertarian. There were large levels of government interference in the economy. Not as large as today, but certainly not libertarian by any means.

Again, relative to now, it was quite libertarian. The government budgets were tiny compared to now. There was only so much interference they could do.

I don't hold it as the epitome of libertarian government, but relative to now its pretty damn libertarian.
There are degrees to libertarianism anyway, some are anarchists and some prefer smaller government like we had back then.

I think we can all agree that government was far smaller and much more libertarian back then.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, relative to now, it was quite libertarian. The government budgets were tiny compared to now. There was only so much interference they could do.

I don't hold it as the epitome of libertarian government, but relative to now its pretty damn libertarian.
There are degrees to libertarianism anyway, some are anarchists and some prefer smaller government like we had back then.

I think we can all agree that government was far smaller and much more libertarian back then.

Right, but that wasn't the question. The question was evidence of a successful libertarian country, not the success of a country that was simply more libertarian than now.

You can be for smaller government than what we have, but that's really not libertarianism.

 

[matt0611]

Right, but that wasn't the question. The question was evidence of a successful libertarian country, not the success of a country that was simply more libertarian than now.

You can be for smaller government than what we have, but that's really not libertarianism.

Well, I guess it depends how you define libertarianism. Like I said, there are degrees. Some libertarians would call it libertarian, some wouldn't.
The OP alludes to libertarianism = anarchism, when that is not usually the case.

I do consider myself libertarian and call for smaller government than we have now. But settle more or less for the level of interference back then (I'd prefer even less though).
Maybe I shouldn't call myself libertarian anymore though, who knows.