Libertarian Paradise

[BansheeX]

Bank runs were a result of fractional reserve banking: the practice of creating and loaning out gold receipts at interest for which no gold deposits existed. There's nothing libertarian about that practice, it's fraud and should be prosecuted in court.

Slavery is also anti-libertarian. Everyone owns their own body. The use of force is minimized to taxes going to the prevention of such abuses. States are also allowed to pass minor socialist conveniences because states compete with each other and can't monetize debt. Federal XYZ socialist program with no deficit restrictions is bankrupt squalor waiting to happen.

But yes, the Industrial Revolution was impressive. Immigrants starting with nothing keeping most of what they earned fueled the highest rate of wage growth even today. Federal spending relative to that production was miniscule, probably 1% of what is today.

People looking for a time in history where the poor flocked somewhere to become unpoor and quickly can look at USA 1880-1920 first.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

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.

I'm not saying libertarianism = anarchism. The video is extreme, but there is some truth in it.

I definitely agree with the social aspect of libertarianism. I also agree that we don't need forces all over the world. As for the economic part...you just have to look at our healthcare system to see what happens when private companies control necessary services. Also take a look at wall street...no government regulation = greed and failure.

 

[woolfe9999]

Matt is half right though. If you look at what we have today and compare it to a pure libertarian system, America of the late 1800's was 80% closer to pure libertarian. And his point in using it as an example is a good one. The trouble is that America was a shithole back then for the vast majority of its population. Workers were treated like trash. Children worked in sweatshops. Real wages were in the toilet. There was virtually no middle class.

His contention that income distribution would have improved because of technology is, of course, nonsensical. Technology/productivety increase the size of the pie. Only the system of economics (i.e. the way resources are distributed) will affect the actual apportionment of that pie.

Also Matt, I find it curious that income distribution improved gradually during the period of time when the role of government was expanding and mechanisms such as progressive taxation were put in place to redistribute wealth. While correlation /= causation automatically, I'm afraid the evidence doesn't look very good for you, and your example is pretty much correct and totally self-defeating at the same time.

All the most successful economies in the world today, and by successful I don't mean that "production is expanding" or "some people are getting very rich" like in 19th century America, but where the bulk of people actually live well, are mixed economies. Perhaps we need to reframe the question to define what is a successful economy. Hint: it has to do with people's standard of living.

- wolf

 

[LegendKiller]

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.

Between 1820 and 1913 GDP per capita went from 1,257 to 5,301, a factor of 4. Between 1913 and now it went from 5,301 to 45,898, a factor of more than 8 (not adjusting for current to 1990 dollars).

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

In a 100 year period you see a 2x growth rate.

The US didn't even really "get going" until into the 20th century. Otherwise this country was filled with deadbeat debtors (states and individuals), robber barons, and shitty lifestyles. A modern society has been built whereby the average life expectancy has doubled, much of that as a result of greater infrastructure, health programs, government standards...etc.

Sure, your growth rate might have been 6% sometimes, but it was also -6% sometimes and often times, very close to each other.

So now that we've proven that the US was, by far, not a libertopian wet dream, what libertopian country has been successful?

 

[LegendKiller]

Bank runs were a result of fractional reserve banking: the practice of creating and loaning out gold receipts at interest for which no gold deposits existed. There's nothing libertarian about that practice, it's fraud and should be prosecuted in court.

Slavery is also anti-libertarian. Everyone owns their own body. The use of force is minimized to taxes going to the prevention of such abuses. States are also allowed to pass minor socialist conveniences because states compete with each other and can't monetize debt. Federal XYZ socialist program with no deficit restrictions is bankrupt squalor waiting to happen.

But yes, the Industrial Revolution was impressive. Immigrants starting with nothing keeping most of what they earned fueled the highest rate of wage growth even today. Federal spending relative to that production was miniscule, probably 1% of what is today.

People looking for a time in history where the poor flocked somewhere to become unpoor and quickly can look at USA 1880-1920 first.

FRB is not "Fraud", it's simple logic, holding all deposited money in reserve is silly and inefficient and would, overall just result in deposits going elsewhere. Under a libertopian standard you wouldn't care whether it existed or not, you wouldn't regulate it and merely rely on the "market" to dictate the course of action. Those depositories that were not FRB would, by your logic, fail and not attract depositors over time as they recognized the superior non-FRB standard.

I would love for you to prove that government spending as a % of production was far smaller.

People still flock to the US to become unpoor. By 2nd and 3rd world country standards even the poor Americans live very well, to think contrary to that is to not even look at the world.

The simple fact remains that the US was not the greatest at anything. We were simply the only country left standing after WW2 and were owed a shit-ton of money. We not only became the world's factory but also the world's bank. We were massively enriched because of that and created a temporary uptick in manufacturing for 30 or so years.

 

[MotF Bane]

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.

Because the 1900s with expanding government have been so much more fiscally responsible or peaceful.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the 1900s with expanding government have been so much more fiscally responsible or peaceful.

What's your point?

 

[Anarchist420]

Somalia has support for a government, contrary to popular belief.

Also, the bank panics were nothing compared to the shit the Fed causes.

The 2 most free eras since the Founding were from 1783-1788 and from the end of Jackson's Presidency up until James Buchanan left office.

 

[woolfe9999]

The 2 most free eras since the Founding were from 1783-1788 and from the end of Jackson's Presidency up until James Buchanan left office.

Was life better for the average American then than it is now? Would you go back in a time machine to live in those eras if you had the option? Really?

 

[MotF Bane]

What's your point?

Oh, oops, I missed something.

Your assertion of the gold standard causing so many problems.

Yeah, because changing away from it has eliminated banking panics, financial problems, boom/bust cycles... OH WAIT, it hasn't.

 

[woolfe9999]

Because the 1900s with expanding government have been so much more fiscally responsible or peaceful.

Whether or not they've been more fiscally responsible (and BTW they were fiscally responsible enough up until the early 1980's), they certainly were a lot more prosperous than the 19th century.

 

[MotF Bane]

Whether or not they've been more fiscally responsible (and BTW they were fiscally responsible enough up until the early 1980's), they certainly were a lot more prosperous than the 19th century.

I'm looking at it from the view that lighting money on fire is probably more fiscally responsible than the actions of the past decade.

 

[JSt0rm]

so the retard matt left the thread. lol.

 

[Elias824]

Between 1820 and 1913 GDP per capita went from 1,257 to 5,301, a factor of 4. Between 1913 and now it went from 5,301 to 45,898, a factor of more than 8 (not adjusting for current to 1990 dollars).

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

In a 100 year period you see a 2x growth rate.

The US didn't even really "get going" until into the 20th century. Otherwise this country was filled with deadbeat debtors (states and individuals), robber barons, and shitty lifestyles. A modern society has been built whereby the average life expectancy has doubled, much of that as a result of greater infrastructure, health programs, government standards...etc.

Sure, your growth rate might have been 6% sometimes, but it was also -6% sometimes and often times, very close to each other.

So now that we've proven that the US was, by far, not a libertopian wet dream, what libertopian country has been successful?

Well as far as the growth rates goes, there were alot of outside factors that are going to influence the numbers alot. For example Europe destroying itself twice in just a few years and handing us the manufacturing base for the entire planet. Also what do you define as being successful for a country? Is it based purely on living standards?

 

[Elias824]

Was life better for the average American then than it is now? Would you go back in a time machine to live in those eras if you had the option? Really?

The questions isn't weather or not it was better back then, The question is what would it be like now had we followed those principals.

 

[zsdersw]

Probably the most stupid thing I've seen in this thread is the use of present and historical failure to judge future possibilities. Of all the yardsticks to judge future potential, past failure is the poorest.

 

[nonlnear]

Probably the most stupid thing I've seen in this thread is the use of present and historical failure to judge future possibilities. Of all the yardsticks to judge future potential, past failure is the poorest.

Go back 500 years and Mr. Lennon would be having this same discussion about the impossibility of a society succeeding without an institutionalized hereditary nobility, or a state church. It's really laughable that this is perceived by some as a valid argument.

 

[Siddhartha]

Somalia is an example of the liberarian vision taken to extremes.

The libertarian vision of the pre-New Deal utopia never existed. To insist that it did exist only invites complete condemnation of the small government ideal and brings in questions about the libertarian's true motivations and intelligence.

 

[LegendKiller]

Somalia has support for a government, contrary to popular belief.

Also, the bank panics were nothing compared to the shit the Fed causes.

The 2 most free eras since the Founding were from 1783-1788 and from the end of Jackson's Presidency up until James Buchanan left office.

That's laughable. The "shit" the Fed caused were a walk in the park compared to what happened before. The "Great Depression" was nothing more than a shadow of whath happened before that, pre-Fed days.

 

[QuantumPion]

The trouble is that America was a shithole back then for the vast majority of its population. Workers were treated like trash. Children worked in sweatshops. Real wages were in the toilet. There was virtually no middle class.

Only if you are comparing 21st century standard of living values to people living in the 19th century. Compared to anywhere else in the world of the same time period America was a golden paradise.

 

[Anarchist420]

Was life better for the average American then than it is now? Would you go back in a time machine to live in those eras if you had the option? Really?

Fuck yeah and fuck yeah. Southern Agrarianism FTW!

There is a lot I'd do to restore the government that Jackson and Van Buren gave us.

Independent Treasury, Specie Circular, No legal tender, super low taxes, suoer low expenditures, states' rights, peace, no foreign alliances, no threatening government activism, etc., etc. The Southern Agrarians had it made from the end of Jackson's presidency until the latter days of Buchanan's presidency.

 

[amish]

so the retard matt left the thread. lol.

great first contribution to the thread, dumbass.

somalia is far from being a libertarian paradise. a libertarian paradise is a pipedream.

 

[werepossum]

Only if you are comparing 21st century standard of living values to people living in the 19th century. Compared to anywhere else in the world of the same time period America was a golden paradise.

This. For all America's warts, it was (and remains) the preferred destination for a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the world's would-be immigrants. During the latter nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Old World's governments were much larger and MUCH more powerful than was America's. Outside of the wealthy and in other nations largely hereditary wealthy elites, the common man had much more freedom, much better upward mobility, and at least equal gender equality. Only in racial equality does one find America lacking in comparison to its Old World competitors for that period.

 

[her209]

 

[schneiderguy]