Libertarian Paradise

[Genx87]

Brilliant

 

[werepossum]

Brilliant

Seconded.

 

[woolfe9999]

Seconded.

I agree with that description of the theory of libertarianism as opposed to how it is often it is characterized by its opponents. There is just one problem. It's that actual libertarians, in practice, on political discussion boards and elsewhere, seem to take very extreme positions on virtually every issue. Time and time again some proposal for government activity in the public interest is made or discussed, and no matter what it is, there is a chorus of "no" from libertarians. Tracking vehicles when on *public roadways* as a law enforcement tool? Nope, no way. How about requiring people to wear seatbelts not on private property but when on publically funded roads? No, too much restriction on "personal freedom." And on and on and on. It isn't the "theory" of libertarianism that is the problem. It's most of the actual liberatarians, the ones who give the impression that they are way out at the extreme. YOU may not be one of those people, but there are loads of them, right here on this discussion board. My impression, based on listening to the actual opinions of actual libertarians, is that many of them want virtually no government at all.

So you're right, there's nothing giving "libertarianism" a bad name, except for actual libertarians.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

I agree with that description of the theory of libertarianism as opposed to how it is often it is characterized by its opponents. There is just one problem. It's that actual libertarians, in practice, on political discussion boards and elsewhere, seem to take very extreme positions on virtually every issue. Time and time again some proposal for government activity in the public interest is proposed, and no matter what it is, there is a chorus of "no" from libertarians. Tracking vehicles when on *public roadways* as a law enforcement tool? Nope, no way. How about requiring people to wear seatbelts not on private property but when on publically funded roads? No, too much restriction on "personal freedom." And on and on and on. It isn't the "theory" of libertarianism that is the problem. It's most of the actual liberatarians, the ones who give the impression that they are way out at the extreme. YOU may not be one of those people, but there are loads of them, right here on this discussion board. My impression, based on listening to the actual opinions of actual libertarians, is that many of them want virtually no government at all.

So you're right, there's nothing giving "libertarianism" a bad name, except for actual libertarians.

- wolf

You have a point, but here's yet another thread from yet another big government leftist positing Somalia as libertarian. Clearly there are things beyond the libertarians themselves giving libertarianism a bad name - the right wing wanting to retain the power of social engineering and the left wing wanting to retain the power of social engineering. Both sides are currently in love with using the power of government to enforce their will on others, with the left leading the charge by adding wealth transfer.

And while I as a small "l" libertarian personally have no problem with secret GPS tracking, finding the analogy to tailing to be persuasive, I would add that moderation in pursuit of liberty is no virtue, and a lack of moderation in defense of liberty is no vice.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

Is it possible that one key contributing factor was the availability of open land and untapped natural resources? In other words, is it possible that much of the economic growth and supposed prosperity was related to the availability of resources? Also, was the wealth widely distributed or was the situation something akin to a third world country where the vast majority of people are poor and a small percentage are very rich?

 

[JTsyo]

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.

But what were the working conditions for those people? There was a reason unions were formed at the end of that era. It should be obvious the steady state for a free market without any oversight would be in a very bad place.

 

[QuantumPion]

But what were the working conditions for those people? There was a reason unions were formed at the end of that era. It should be obvious the steady state for a free market without any oversight would be in a very bad place.

Working conditions sucked compared to today. But they had steady income, food, and shelter. A substantial increase in quality of life compared to pre-industrial revolution.

Anyways libertarian government is what allowed unions to exist in the first place. If any other country tried to unionize, the king would probably put an end to it.

 

[QuantumPion]

Is it possible that one key contributing factor was the availability of open land and untapped natural resources? In other words, is it possible that much of the economic growth and supposed prosperity was related to the availability of resources? Also, was the wealth widely distributed or was the situation something akin to a third world country where the vast majority of people are poor and a small percentage are very rich?

Are you saying there is no more open land or untapped resources today? Or are you agreeing with him in that having a socialist government putting resources off limits to the people via regulations is what is causing the economic slowdowns today?

 

[werepossum]

Is it possible that one key contributing factor was the availability of open land and untapped natural resources? In other words, is it possible that much of the economic growth and supposed prosperity was related to the availability of resources? Also, was the wealth widely distributed or was the situation something akin to a third world country where the vast majority of people are poor and a small percentage are very rich?

The availability of land was one of the greatest contributing factors in our early prosperity. Europe had long recovered from the Black Death and had little quality land available, and none free (or nearly so) for the taking. However, it's undeniable that America was much more libertarian than was the Old World.

Part of that was no doubt due to the land availability as well. If one wished to worship a head of lettuce and make holy slaw in the streets on Sunday, it was still relatively easy to combine with other Produceterians and make your own community away from the federal government. Also, your newfangled polluting infernal combustion milling engine was much more easily tolerated if it was the only one around for miles. To some degree, freedom is always lost as population density increases. But again, explanations for a thing do not make that thing false.

 

[zsdersw]

Seconded.

Thirded.

 

[Doppel]

Funny even if not entirely applicable