Examples of Libertarian countries/regions in recent history

HavingCrack

Hey everyone, just wondering with the recent interest in Libertarianism is there any examples of it occuring across an entire country/region in relatively recent history (last 400 years or so).

The closest examples I can think of are the original 13 states of the the USA for a relatively short period of time, the earlier parts of the French Revolution before it was brought under centralised countrol by Robespirre, the Directory and eventually Napoleon in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Anarchists in the Ukraine under Nestor Makhno during the Russian Civil War coudl also be considered Libertarian I think while my best example would be the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War when they founded collective farms, abolished taxation, orgainsed millitas rather than army, banished police etc etc etc

What does everyone think of my examples and do they have any others??

HavingCrack

32 views and no replies grrrrr

imme

I don`t think anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War could be described as libertarians.

An example might be the right-wing Freedom Party in Austria who were in power in 2000.

Denerick

HavingCrack wrote: »

The closest examples I can think of are the original 13 states of the the USA for a relatively short period of time,

Nope. Washington was a slave owner, as was Jefferson, and many others. The White House was built by slaves. It takes a very peculiar definition of Libertarianism to seriously consider the US to have ever been a contender for that.

Don't get me wrong, the fundamental cornerstones of US politics as originally designed are libertarian. But America's original sin trumps everything else. It was never Libertarian.

the earlier parts of the French Revolution before it was brought under centralised countrol by Robespirre, the Directory and eventually Napoleon in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. The French Revolution was essentially an authoritarian revolution. What about 'The Cult of Reason'? The ideals of the revolution form a vital component part of classic liberalism, but its vices far outweigh its virtues.

The Anarchists in the Ukraine under Nestor Makhno during the Russian Civil War coudl also be considered Libertarian I think while my best example would be the Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War when they founded collective farms, abolished taxation, orgainsed millitas rather than army, banished police etc etc etc

What does everyone think of my examples and do they have any others??

I would consider them to be anarchist, not Libertarian.

There never has been a Libertarian system, and I doubt there ever will. Certainly some of the better elements of Libertarianism have been adopted in several countries, but I personally consider it incompatible with both human nature and global wellbeing.

HavingCrack

Denerick wrote: »

Nope. Washington was a slave owner, as was Jefferson, and many others. The White House was built by slaves. It takes a very peculiar definition of Libertarianism to seriously consider the US to have ever been a contender for that.

Don't get me wrong, the fundamental cornerstones of US politics as originally designed are libertarian. But America's original sin trumps everything else. It was never Libertarian.

Sorry I forgot to mention the issue of slavery in my original post. My apologies.

ChocolateSauce

Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries had a very open economy- so hands off the government didn't think it was its business to feed the Irish during the famine, and they didn't have income tax until the Napoleonic wars.. Read up on pre-WWI British economic history for a better view.

Denerick

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries had a very open economy- so hands off the government didn't think it was its business to feed the Irish during the famine, and they didn't have income tax until the Napoleonic wars.. Read up on pre-WWI British economic history for a better view.

Lol! One of the great ironies of the Brits is that they paid more in compensation to west indies slaveowners after abolishing slavery than they ever paid to rescue the Irish tenant farmer. Their Libertarianism was rather selective, I'm afraid...

silverharp

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries had a very open economy- so hands off the government didn't think it was its business to feed the Irish during the famine, and they didn't have income tax until the Napoleonic wars.. Read up on pre-WWI British economic history for a better view.

the flaws always come back to where the state did intervene. The corn laws were one of the main drivers that set up the potato famine. It took the unintended consequences of government intervention in the market by causing a land bubble in Ireland to turn a fungus problem into a famine. Thankfully future governments learned from this and ensured that land bubbles didnt occur again, o wait.....:D

HavingCrack

Denerick wrote: »

I would consider them to be anarchist, not Libertarian.
/QUOTE]
Noam Chomsky certainly sees them as Libertarian while the CNT themselves considered themselves Libertarian rather than Anarchist.

imme wrote: »

I don`t think anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War could be described as libertarians.

.

Actually I would say a lot of the revolutionary communes in Aragon were more Libertarian in nature than Anarchist as private property was respected if the owners did not wish to become part of a collectivised farm.

Is your objection to the Anarcho-Syndicalists being described as Libertarian due to their politics or due to their existence during war time??

Denerick

Noam Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. I'm sure thats probably relevant in some way.

HavingCrack

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries had a very open economy- so hands off the government didn't think it was its business to feed the Irish during the famine, and they didn't have income tax until the Napoleonic wars.. Read up on pre-WWI British economic history for a better view.

Completely forgot to add the example most relevant to Ireland in :eek: Cheers for reminding me

HavingCrack

Denerick wrote: »

Noam Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. I'm sure thats probably relevant in some way.

True, true.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

There never has been a Libertarian system, and I doubt there ever will. Certainly some of the better elements of Libertarianism have been adopted in several countries, but I personally consider it incompatible with both human nature and global wellbeing.

Can I take issue with the Human Nature bit, we would probably agree that if our nature was more insect like, communism would be acceptable and we would not need a concept of the individual and the rights that derive from such a concept.
I am at a loss to see why a Statist system is a perfect fit for human nature. If the flaws or qualities of our nature can lead to situations where Orwell's "power corrupts...." becomes apt, why would we want a situation where these qualities can be magnified in a negative way by centralising power and giving them a monopoly of the use of force? Also our nature means that we cant deal with a "commons" approach to situations, make something free at the point of use and consumers and providers begin to act it sub optimal ways.
A Libertarian approach to justice and resource allocation gives the best chance of delivering checks and balances and allocating the use of scarce resources by reason of the fact that it deals with people as individuals and families which is the day to day reality of life, we are not born to be slaves to a State or a slaves to each other.

Denerick

silverharp wrote: »

Can I take issue with the Human Nature bit, we would probably agree that if our nature was more insect like, communism would be acceptable and we would not need a concept of the individual and the rights that derive from such a concept.
I am at a loss to see why a Statist system is a perfect fit for human nature. If the flaws or qualities of our nature can lead to situations where Orwell's "power corrupts...." becomes apt, why would we want a situation where these qualities can be magnified in a negative way by centralising power and giving them a monopoly of the use of force? Also our nature means that we cant deal with a "commons" approach to situations, make something free at the point of use and consumers and providers begin to act it sub optimal ways.
A Libertarian approach to justice and resource allocation gives the best chance of delivering checks and balances and allocating the use of scarce resources by reason of the fact that it deals with people as individuals and families which is the day to day reality of life, we are not born to be slaves to a State or a slaves to each other.

My major beef with libertarianism is the fundamental logic behind it - ie, 'A doesn't work, so lets abolish A'.

Rugged individualism and hardy self reliance my be the foundations of the free market system, but its consequences have often been poverty and massive inequality. Not everybody can be Henry Ford. Sometimes people have to work the assembly line.

Whilst on the topic of Henry Ford, his version of economics is more than welcome. he doubled assembly line wages and introduced an English language programme for his largely immigrant workforce. That kind of enlightened capitalism has worked and will continue to work. But for every Henry Ford there are at least 100 Montgomenry Burns, the aim for which is profit maximisation and cutting down of all fixed costs to a bare minimum, such as labour.

I have no problems with the free market system and don't consider myself a socialist. The market has done some remarkable things - it is the primary motor of innovation and I would argue the only mechanism through which people can be lifted out of poverty. (EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about the step up from an agrarian economy to an industrialised one, not poverty that is inherent in industrialised societies) This is why I support the Welfare State, which reforms some of the very worst aspects of the free market and gives everybody a greater piece of the pie - be that universal healthcare, free education, or a basic social safety net to prevent unemployed people from falling into the most dire kind of poverty. At least the Welfare State permits some kind of equality of opportunity, the poorest people in this country are able to go to college. Some of our greatest achievements as a human race have been rather understated and functional innovations such as the Orphan allowance, that enables children from abusive families (Or who grew up in orphanages) to attain a high educational standard.

The welfare state has proven time and time again that it can make the difference for poor people born into a generational tyranny of poverty, and through free education and healthcare they can hope to carve their own place in the world, relatively free from the socio-economic constraints placed upon them by birth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The statist system has been the default system of practically every political institution on this planet since man learnt to communicate with each other. Its not hard to attribute blame to it, but you choose to ignore its catalogue of successes.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

My major beef with libertarianism is the fundamental logic behind it - ie, 'A doesn't work, so lets abolish A'.

That's not a Libertarian view point. A Libertarian starts with the axiom that an individual has self ownership and the rights that derive from it. It is simply wrong that any entity or stranger can have a claim on your mind, property or work therefore the state has no business interfering in the private lives of individuals.
Even if you could prove that welfare would be enhanced under an alternate system the Libertarian would counter that you cant solve a crime by committing another one. Just because someone "needs" something does not give that person the right steal from someone else nor does it give the right to a third party (the state) to decide what resources can be legally stolen and redistributed (badly)
looking around it appears that the welfare state binds people to poverty, intergeneration welfare would appear to be good enough proof that it acts against the human spirit and creates a dependency culture that is difficult to break away from

Denerick

silverharp wrote: »

That's not a Libertarian view point. A Libertarian starts with the axiom that an individual has self ownership and the rights that derive from it. It is simply wrong that any entity or stranger can have a claim on your mind, property or work therefore the state has no business interfering in the private lives of individuals.
Even if you could prove that welfare would be enhanced under an alternate system the Libertarian would counter that you cant solve a crime by committing another one. Just because someone "needs" something does not give that person the right steal from someone else nor does it give the right to a third party (the state) to decide what resources can be legally stolen and redistributed (badly)
looking around it appears that the welfare state binds people to poverty, intergeneration welfare would appear to be good enough proof that it acts against the human spirit and creates a dependency culture that is difficult to break away from

I would argue that reforming the Welfare State to make it more incentivised and less entitlement based is the future. Again, just because there are flaws doesn't mean it should be abolished. For every dole scrounger there is at least one person who benefits from not going into debt in order to have a hip operation.

Furthermore, you view all welfare as essentially theft, any intervention by the state as a crime. Its a familiar argument, but one I'm happy to acknowledge. In the total sum of humankind, the State is an aggressive, unkind entity. It steals the fruit of your labour and redistributes it to others. But at the risk of offending Benjamin Franklin, I'm more than willing to compromise some essential liberty in order to attain some security. Life wouldn't be worth living were my life entirely in my own hands, without a social safety net or anything or anybody to pick me up if I fall.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I recognise that 'the State' is responsible for warfare, genocide and some of the worst crimes committed by man. But you treat the State as if it is an independent conscious living entity. I prefer to place blame with the German people, who so meekly permitted Hitler to take over their Republic, or the American people, for not having the wisdom to say no when warmongers urged them to invade Iraq. The State is answerable to its people, or at least it is in democratic Republics.

The top-down structuring of political and economic relations might have been a tradition for millennia, but that doesn't make such a system justifiable. Do you think the "default system" of gender relations prior to, say, 1950, was also the optimal one? Should women not have demanded full recognition of their individual rights?

Thats a red herring. I'm merely saying that the litany of failures that you perceive to be the States fault are a constant of history. Thus anything bad that ever happened is by default the fault of the State.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I don't agree. I don't think you can compare (for example) the failings of Switzerland with the failings of the USSR.

Why then do you use the word 'State' in the generic sense? Switzerland is a State, as was the USSR, yet one is significantly less totalitarian than the other. Is this an inherent acceptance that States are not a monolithic, conscious entity but shaped, founded, and altered according to the will of the people? I always find it tiring when a Libertarian generalises all States as one, but you seem to be letting the side down a bit with this slip up.

Murray Rothbard has referred to the "welfare-warfare state," which describes how politicians buy and bribe their way into power by offering freebies, and then use that power to commit atrocities that are beyond the power of individuals to stop. Hitler's populist measures, which included health insurance for pensioners, and doubling the number of state holidays, ensured that he remained in power to carry out the warfare portion of his agenda.

Is this why France is one of the most anti war countries on the planet? Because of its strong adherence to Libertarian values and the free market?

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

I would argue that reforming the Welfare State to make it more incentivised and less entitlement based is the future. Again, just because there are flaws doesn't mean it should be abolished. For every dole scrounger there is at least one person who benefits from not going into debt in order to have a hip operation.

Furthermore, you view all welfare as essentially theft, any intervention by the state as a crime. Its a familiar argument, but one I'm happy to acknowledge. In the total sum of humankind, the State is an aggressive, unkind entity. It steals the fruit of your labour and redistributes it to others. But at the risk of offending Benjamin Franklin, I'm more than willing to compromise some essential liberty in order to attain some security. Life wouldn't be worth living were my life entirely in my own hands, without a social safety net or anything or anybody to pick me up if I fall.

if youd asked me 10 years ago I have broadly agreed with your reasoning for the welfare state but the flaw is that you are agreeing to an entity with essentially limitless power to coerce its own citizens when the benefits are limited. The examples you have given would only need a government that is say 10% of the economy, why the rest? why cant middle class people not partially opt out of the tax system if they want to fund their own educational and medical needs? why do urban working class people have to support wealthy property owners via the direct and indirect subsidies to industries like farming, tourism etc. why do we have to use shoddy state sevices?

imme

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually I would say a lot of the revolutionary communes in Aragon were more Libertarian in nature than Anarchist as private property was respected if the owners did not wish to become part of a collectivised farm.

Is your objection to the Anarcho-Syndicalists being described as Libertarian due to their politics or due to their existence during war time??

How could I be opposed to the existance of anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War, it´s a fact, how could anyone be opposed to it?

I just don`t think that any anarcho-syndicalists could be described as Libertarians.

HavingCrack

imme wrote: »

How could I be opposed to the existance of anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War, it´s a fact, how could anyone be opposed to it?

I just don`t think that any anarcho-syndicalists could be described as Libertarians.

Sorry I didn't phrase my question very well

I meant did you think libertarianism could not exist during wartime (libertarianism and peace idea if you get me) or did you actually think the anarcho-syndicalists weren't libertarian.You've made it clear it was the 2nd however.

Just read back over my posts there and realise it makes no sense at all sorry

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

Nope. Washington was a slave owner, as was Jefferson, and many others. The White House was built by slaves. It takes a very peculiar definition of Libertarianism to seriously consider the US to have ever been a contender for that.

Don't get me wrong, the fundamental cornerstones of US politics as originally designed are libertarian. But America's original sin trumps everything else. It was never Libertarian.

Surely libertarians (who define themselves, not as mere advocates of laissez faire capitalism, but as rejecters of any sort of government intervention) would have no problem with slavery? Slaves were just a commodity to be bought and sold. Indeed, several people made a lot of money in the export of this valuable commodity (many of whom were from the same countries as the slaves I might add).

Moreover, it is highly skewed thinking to say that permitting slavery was an intervention by the government andthe abolition of slavery was a way of setting the markets free. It's the opposite - anti slavery laws are a great example of why libertarianism is unrealistic: humans are naturally cruel and unfair to each other if they can get ahead, and anti slavery laws were a type of government action which DID interfere with the free market but DID also produce a social benefit that is hard to deny.

If you call yourself a libertarian but you would prohibit slavery, you are contradicting yourself - such a person simply believes in less government than we have at present which is still fundamentally a capitalist-democratic viewpoint.

I've pointed this out many times on this forum, but people who profess to be libertarians amazingly don't see prohibiting a certain item in the interest of a social good is contrary to their professed beliefs.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well the massive technological and scientific strides we have taken from baning the rocks together to computer controlled space vessels have also brought us to the brink of nuclear armageddon, is science also bad?

Sure libertarian philosophy is peaceful. Capitalist philosophy is peaceful. Socialist philosophy is peaceful. Communist philiosophy is (after a bit of a class struggle) peaceful.

All it takes is a few bad apples in any system, but at least states are able to if not remove the bad apples then at least cordon them off. Under libertarianism you respect the bad apple's rights so much that you don't mind him building a nuclear missile silo next door to you.

toiletduck

I don't really think you get libertarianism if you think it's compatible with slavery.

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely libertarians (who define themselves, not as mere advocates of laissez faire capitalism, but as rejecters of any sort of government intervention) would have no problem with slavery

I respectfully suggest you read more and think more about libertarianism before coming out with that kind of, erm, thing. Anyone who's read an introduction to libertarianism would understand the rather gaping fallacy in that statement.

HavingCrack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely libertarians (who define themselves, not as mere advocates of laissez faire capitalism, but as rejecters of any sort of government intervention) would have no problem with slavery? Slaves were just a commodity to be bought and sold. Indeed, several people made a lot of money in the export of this valuable commodity (many of whom were from the same countries as the slaves I might add).

Moreover, it is highly skewed thinking to say that permitting slavery was an intervention by the government andthe abolition of slavery was a way of setting the markets free. It's the opposite - anti slavery laws are a great example of why libertarianism is unrealistic: humans are naturally cruel and unfair to each other if they can get ahead, and anti slavery laws were a type of government action which DID interfere with the free market but DID also produce a social benefit that is hard to deny.

If you call yourself a libertarian but you would prohibit slavery, you are contradicting yourself - such a person simply believes in less government than we have at present which is still fundamentally a capitalist-democratic viewpoint.

I've pointed this out many times on this forum, but people who profess to be libertarians amazingly don't see prohibiting a certain item in the interest of a social good is contrary to their professed beliefs.

This is a bit of a mixed up argument. Libertarians believe you have no right to physically harm another person which would surely come under the auspices of slavery. I agree the two contradict each other slightly but the rights of the individual trump the rights of the free market every time. At least thats my understanding of it anyway.

Nuravictus

I used to be a libertarian until I realised how much money I could get off the state for doing nothing. Its amazing. I am now a Socialist.

Anyhow I be more serious, one of the tenants of any libertarian government would be the requirement that all men/woman are born free & equal, with the same chance in life as any other person whom they made encounter. Free from the input of the government to either suceed or to fail. To make it simple, for slavery to exist the government must enforce it with laws, if a government only has law's against hurting other people slavery can not exist.

Truely at the end of the day poverty is as important as been rich any libertarian culture, the general feeling been that the poor shall provide a cheap labour force enabling the best to escape the reach of poverty. Living in poverty create's a drive, a drive to make it out. Living on 196 Euro a week with Rent Allowance does not.

Eliot Rosewater

It's pretty simply at an abstract level, really. Libertarians believe in the idea of self-ownership: that you own your body and what you do with it. I think it's quite obvious that the concept of someone else owning you (that is, slavery) contradicts this principle to the extreme.

Also, I don't see how you could think an ideology that tries to restrict governmental control of the individual would be sympathetic to other people controlling that individual.


It's worth pointing out that some libertarians are more libertarian than others. Political labels themselves and the recent slur campaign (;)) give the impression of one homogeneous school of thought. It would seem to me that I'm the least libertarian of the known libertarians here, though that may or may not be true.

johnnyskeleton

toiletduck wrote: »

I don't really think you get libertarianism if you think it's compatible with slavery.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I respectfully suggest you read more and think more about libertarianism before coming out with that kind of, erm, thing. Anyone who's read an introduction to libertarianism would understand the rather gaping fallacy in that statement.

On the contrary, I think that those who support Libertarianism do not fully understand what they are advocating, in the way that an armchair socialist who advocates Communism does not really get what it is about.

The fundamental tenant of Libertarianism is not social liberty (that is the fundamental tenant of Liberalism, a completely different animal althogether) but an unregulated free market, completely free from government intervention. Such government intervention as is permissable is only such as is necessary to enforce contracts and protect property. This is how it is described by donegalfella among others.

Let's look a little more closely at that, since a number of posters have been happy to look at instances of where government intervention had bad results and concluded therefrom that all government interference in the market is bad.

However, the abolition of slavery is a great example of intervention in the free market. The free market, which has no morals other than those of its worst two players, had no objection to the sale of slaves. Whereas someone born free was entitled to freedom, it would appear that someone who was a slave was seen by the market as no more than a commodity. This was not set up by some evil state permitting slavery, but was rather a preexisting state of affairs that only ended by government intervention in that market.

So that's one example of government intervention which was a good thing, no?

Now, if you believe in government intervention where it is good, but not where it is bad, you are not a libertarian, who by definition believes that all government intervention in the market is bad.

As was said on another thread, drugs, weapons, poisons and child pornography are all perfectly marketable commodities. If you are a libertarian, you believe that all should be made available subject only to the market and to the enforcement of contracts. And some "Libertarians" on this forum would agree that weapons, drugs and poisons should all be sold and that it is up to individual freedom to decide what is best for them (or in the case of weapons, to be better armed than the next person). But when it comes to child porn, few if any believe that it should be legal. Yet I see no qualitiave difference between child porn and the other items which we as a society decide to prohibit. It may be argued that child porn injures children, but so do drugs and weapons and even still, if that is the only argument under libertarianism to prohibit it, then the prohibition should be on the use of real children in the creation of child porn, no?

To be honest, and I hope I'm not being too insulting or gilb in saying this, people who call themselves libertarians are really just people who believe in less government intervention, not the complete removal of government intervention. Because the true meaning of libertarianism relies on humans being fundamentally decent to each other, and in such a perfect world the idea of slavery, child porn or killing another person would simply not occur to people.

HavingCrack wrote: »

This is a bit of a mixed up argument. Libertarians believe you have no right to physically harm another person which would surely come under the auspices of slavery. I agree the two contradict each other slightly but the rights of the individual trump the rights of the free market every time. At least thats my understanding of it anyway.

Maybe so, but the more concessions they make to personal liberty and socially regulated behaviour, the closer they become to Liberal Laissez faire Democracy. In other words, Libertarians simply don't understand that much of what makes people decent and respectful to each other is the state, however many flaws the state has. In the absence of this necessary social contract to behave in civil society life is nasty brutish and short. Yet that is what Libertarians would have us live in in pursuit of their utopian paradise.

johnnyskeleton

Nuravictus wrote: »

Anyhow I be more serious, one of the tenants of any libertarian government would be the requirement that all men/woman are born free & equal, with the same chance in life as any other person whom they made encounter. Free from the input of the government to either suceed or to fail. To make it simple, for slavery to exist the government must enforce it with laws, if a government only has law's against hurting other people slavery can not exist.

No, you have it backwards. To prevent slavery the governmetn must prevent it by anti slavery law. That is the history of slavery it existed long before the concept of the modern state.

Or to put it another way, if you say the government should not intervene except for A, B and C, then you are not a Libertarian you are a liberal democrat.

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's pretty simply at an abstract level, really. Libertarians believe in the idea of self-ownership: that you own your body and what you do with it. I think it's quite obvious that the concept of someone else owning you (that is, slavery) contradicts this principle to the extreme.

Also, I don't see how you could think an ideology that tries to restrict governmental control of the individual would be sympathetic to other people controlling that individual.

Ah, so libertarians will impose individual liberty on people, much like the US bringing peace to Iraq by blasting the hell out of it.

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Such government intervention as is permissable is only such as is necessary to enforce contracts and protect property.

Indeed. And as per the self-ownership axiom, the government would intervene if one individual tried to own another. It would be protecting the private property of the person being enslaved.

Once again, I respectability suggest you read up on what you're talking about. The Irish Liberty Forum has an introduction to libertarianism. The first point is:

The core of Libertarianism is what is called the non-aggression axiom (NAA):
NAA: no one may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical violence against the person or property of another.

Which contradicts slavery. As I said, the fact that slavery and libertarianism are incompatible should be immediately obvious to anyone who had done some background reading.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ah, so libertarians will impose individual liberty on people, much like the US bringing peace to Iraq by blasting the hell out of it.

Absolutely. Gung ho! The first thing a libertarian government would do would nuke the world.

(Of course, the above statement intends to associate libertarianism with violence which is, once again, a contradiction.)

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed. And as per the self-ownership axiom, the government would intervene if one individual tried to own another. It would be protecting the private property of the person being enslaved.

Once again, I respectability suggest you read up on what you're talking about. The Irish Liberty Forum has an introduction to libertarianism. The first point is:



Which contradicts slavery. As I said, the fact that slavery and libertarianism are incompatible should be immediately obvious to anyone who had done some background reading.



Absolutely. Gung ho! The first thing a libertarian government would do would nuke the world.

(Of course, the above statement intends to associate libertarianism with violence which is, once again, a contradiction.)

If that is Libertarianism, how is it any different to Liberal Laissez Faire Democracy? After all, Liberal Democracy is merely a form of ensuring the correct compromise between the rights of different individuals through the mechanism of the state. If the state does not enforce this balance then either it is not enforced or enforced by some other mechanism (e.g. universally accepted philiosophy and ethical code)?

What I find wrong with Libertarianism is its utter lack of realism. It assumes that we will all adopt this philosophy and be decent to each other of our own volition and the reason why the state will not intervene is because the state simply does not need to intervene.

I think it is a little naieve to believe such a thing is possible, much as the ideal of communism is simply unachieveable because of humans' need to distinuish themselves.

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If that is Libertarianism, how is it any different to Liberal Laissez Faire Democracy?

What is your definition of "Liberal Laissez Faire Democracy"? The work "liberal" has been bastardised from its traditional usage of denoting ideologies which maximise the rights of individuals. I would sometimes use the word "libertarian" and "liberal" interchangeably, but now increasingly less as Irish people begin to import the 21st century American definition of "liberal".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What I find wrong with Libertarianism is its utter lack of realism. It assumes that we will all adopt this philosophy and be decent to each other of our own volition and the reason why the state will not intervene is because the state simply does not need to intervene.

I think the problem here is that you're confusing libertarianism with, say, anarcho-capitalism. As per the introduction to libertarianism I quoted above, libertarians see the state as the upholder of individual liberty and property.

People would not have a choice as to whether they respect other individuals; they would have to.

johnnyskeleton

I get the impression, and forgive me if it sounds insulting, that people who call themselves libertarian are often people who support Austrian school policies but think that libertarian sounds cooler. Libertarianism to my mind means ayn rand stuff

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I get the impression, and forgive me if it sounds insulting, that people who call themselves libertarian are often people who support Austrian school policies but think that libertarian sounds cooler. Libertarianism to my mind means ayn rand stuff

You're really scraping the barrel here, to be frank, if this is the only way you can get in digs in at libertarianism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarianism; slavery and trying to sound cool aren't included.

Austrian schools economics are exactly that: economics. "Libertarianism" is a more convenient political term. If you think libertarians avoid the Austrian labelling, then you should equally criticise social democrats and Labour parties for not calling themselves Keynesians. But anyway, libertarians don't avoid the term, in fact Ron Paul is constantly mentioning it. It's compatible with libertarianism, but it's more an economic term than a political one. Hence, the "Libertarian Party". Hence, everyone, including non-libertarians, calling it libertarianism.

Additionally, I don't see how the term is "cooler". It's gotten a bad name for itself here on boards.ie, judging by all the abuse that gets thrown at it and, occasionally, its supporters.

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You're really scraping the barrel here, to be frank, if this is the only way you can get in digs in at libertarianism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarianism; slavery and trying to sound cool aren't included.

I'm not trying to get digs in, that's genuinely how it seems to me. A lot of the links to "what libertarianism is" etc are really just trying to change what it is about. There is either the libertarian in the sense of believing that government, insofar as it exists at all, should only be concerned with the enforcement of contracts and protection of property. Then there is the libertarian in the sense of anyone who believes in freedom. Clearly, however, when speaking about a Libertarian with a capital L, as in the political ideology, it is the former, notwithstanding that a lot of other types of liberal and social democratic views describe themselves as libertarian.

It's either a cogent set of beliefs or its not, and if not then there is no point in talking about a "Libertarian country" when all liberal countries could be considered so.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Austrian schools economics are exactly that: economics. "Libertarianism" is a more convenient political term. If you think libertarians avoid the Austrian labelling, then you should equally criticise social democrats and Labour parties for not calling themselves Keynesians. But anyway, libertarians don't avoid the term, in fact Ron Paul is constantly mentioning it. It's compatible with libertarianism, but it's more an economic term than a political one. Hence, the "Libertarian Party". Hence, everyone, including non-libertarians, calling it libertarianism.

No, I don't think that libertarians avoid the austrian labelling, but rather austrian model minded people misuse the term libertarian to describe themselves. Like a socialist calling themselves a communist.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Additionally, I don't see how the term is "cooler". It's gotten a bad name for itself here on boards.ie, judging by all the abuse that gets thrown at it and, occasionally, its supporters.

That's because it is used as a generic term to subsume all liberal views. I have many views in common with the austrian school, and I am likewise a big believer in personal liberty. But I am not a libertarian and I don't like the creeping rebranding of Libertarianism into whatever youre having sir as long as its free.

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

...notwithstanding that a lot of other types of liberal and social democratic views describe themselves as libertarian.

Yeah, now that you mention it I do know a girl who once said to me "I'm a libertarian, but I still believe in the welfare state". I just haven't been exposed to many people like that, so I didn't see where you were coming from. I think all of the libertarians on boards.ie are pretty genuine.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, I don't think that libertarians avoid the austrian labelling, but rather austrian model minded people misuse the term libertarian to describe themselves.

Yes, but my understanding of Austrian economics is that it tries to minimise government interference in the economy. So unless they're conservatives (who hypocritically bemoan government interfering in business, but are all for using the government to enforce their moral values) I see it as natural that they would identify with libertarianism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't like the creeping rebranding of Libertarianism into whatever youre having sir as long as its free.

I don't either; we've already had the term liberalism robbed from us by the American Left (or Right, I'm unsure who first branded American "interventionists" liberals).

I suppose you could develop the point into a wider discussion on the utility of political labels. I don't think you're ever going to get a term that is hard and fast: different adherents of the same ideology will naturally still differ in their views.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Keynes must be spinning in his grave, oh wait 1838

aside:
There might be hope for more liberty in Ireland, I was catching up on PrimeTime after weeks holiday and noticed how at the start of the show several turf protesters complained about the state interfering in their lifes

edit 2: I cant honestly think of an example of a truly libertarian state/country (a contradiction?) but there are plenty of examples of cities, countries and regions flourishing when the people are given (or win) more freedoms, this country included some might say
There probably will never be a libertarian country, but that doesn't mean there's no need to move towards more liberty on the political compass. Then again atheism (rejection of faith and deity) was a minority "position" once upon a time, so there's something to think of ...

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think all of the libertarians on boards.ie are pretty genuine.

I have my doubts. There are some extreme free marketeers on tpp but I doubt, even if they have some sympathy for the Libertarian position, that they would ever call themsevles that.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, but my understanding of Austrian economics is that it tries to minimise government interference in the economy. So unless they're conservatives (who hypocritically bemoan government interfering in business, but are all for using the government to enforce their moral values) I see it as natural that they would identify with libertarianism.

Whether you minimise or remove completely government interference is I think the key difference. The idea of government having any powe other than to enforce contracts to keep the peace is anathema to libertarianism. Austrian school economics is based more on a case by case basis i.e. the idea of providing some level of social welfare is consistent with austrian school, although it should never reach the point at which it interferes with the operation of the free market (e.g. rent allowance putting an artificial floor on rents). However, libertarianism is about the extremes - if you believe that some social welfare, state provided services or regulation is acceptable, I don't think you are a libertarian.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't either; we've already had the term liberalism robbed from us by the American Left (or Right, I'm unsure who first branded American "interventionists" liberals).

Sure in America it is nothing more than a cuss word anymore!

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I suppose you could develop the point into a wider discussion on the utility of political labels. I don't think you're ever going to get a term that is hard and fast: different adherents of the same ideology will naturally still differ in their views.

This is it because you need to have the flexibility of thought to deal with any situation. I am usually seen as quite left wing by those on the right, or quite right by those on the left, but I have scared fairly right wing people with my views on allowing banks to fail and shocked those on the right with my views on what worker's rights really are.

As an aside, I also think that all ideologies are flawed and hence my preference for that which can do the least amount of damage i.e. regulation depending on the level of risk associated with the industry. If anything I'm a skeletonist(TM).

Denerick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely libertarians (who define themselves, not as mere advocates of laissez faire capitalism, but as rejecters of any sort of government intervention) would have no problem with slavery? Slaves were just a commodity to be bought and sold. Indeed, several people made a lot of money in the export of this valuable commodity (many of whom were from the same countries as the slaves I might add).

Moreover, it is highly skewed thinking to say that permitting slavery was an intervention by the government andthe abolition of slavery was a way of setting the markets free. It's the opposite - anti slavery laws are a great example of why libertarianism is unrealistic: humans are naturally cruel and unfair to each other if they can get ahead, and anti slavery laws were a type of government action which DID interfere with the free market but DID also produce a social benefit that is hard to deny.

If you call yourself a libertarian but you would prohibit slavery, you are contradicting yourself - such a person simply believes in less government than we have at present which is still fundamentally a capitalist-democratic viewpoint.

I've pointed this out many times on this forum, but people who profess to be libertarians amazingly don't see prohibiting a certain item in the interest of a social good is contrary to their professed beliefs.

I have to take massive objection to that point. You assume that a Libertarian does not take an equal perspective of all races and peoples. People are not property. That is a fundamental principle. Therefore Libertarianism is incompatible with slavery. I think you'll have to work a little harder as that is a rather weak critique.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't either; we've already had the term liberalism robbed from us by the American Left (or Right, I'm unsure who first branded American "interventionists" liberals).

I suppose you could develop the point into a wider discussion on the utility of political labels. I don't think you're ever going to get a term that is hard and fast: different adherents of the same ideology will naturally still differ in their views.

The problem with Libertarianism is that nobody wants it in practise. Most people can sympathise with the underlying critiques of the Welfare State and socialism in general - however when really forced to envisage what a Libertarian society would look like, most recoil in horror. People simply do not want to live in a society without a civil society, or live in a culture that believes the remit of the State is to have no remit. For all the problems that are inherent in a statist system, abolishing it altogether is to most people, an unconscionable and terrifying prospect. People simply do not want the State to be tiny - they want the safety and security of society to protect them from the wolves. They look at their local landlord, the local thug, or the local pawnbroker and think 'Jesus ****ing Christ, not that shower'

EDIT: The landlord = greedy, uncontrolled capitalism, The thug = black market moneylender/mafia, The Pawnbroker = last resort (Think of tear filled children as the father pawns the bike, or heartbroken wife forced to pawn her ring to pay the water bill (Which presumably costs 10 times more in an unregulated system)

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

I have to take massive objection to that point. You assume that a Libertarian does not take an equal perspective of all races and peoples. People are not property. That is a fundamental principle. Therefore Libertarianism is incompatible with slavery. I think you'll have to work a little harder as that is a rather weak critique.

No, I don't assume there is anything doctrinally wrong with libertarianism. I believe it is completely unrealistic and unworkable.

Who enforces this principle of equality if not government? But in order to do so the government must intervene in the market. Which is not allowed in Libertarianism.

Put another way, lets suppose that under libertarianism prostitution is legal and unregulated. But some people are being lulled into it and being forced to work in that area against their will. This is happening at present where prostitution is illegal and where it is legal but regulated. So how practically (and I emphasis practically because libertarianism is great in theory when you say everyone is equal, but in reality requires an enforcement mechanism) do you stop this from happening? More importantly, in order to weed out the slavery aspect you need to regulate the legitimate operates fairly rigourously.

Or are you one of those who believes that the free market will step in to make sure that there is no slavery, a sort of efficient private NGO, like fair trade coffee, but for prostitutes (except of course I would imagine that they would need to be a little more than 20% slavery free).

Further, the concept of slave is not limited to ownership through physical force. What if you own all the food/accomodation/clothes in a country and demand people work at extortionate rates in order to get some basic provisions from you? Is that not slavery in all but name?

Finally, as was mentioned (I think by yourself) earlier in the thread, early America was modelled on what we now call libertarian principles, but the one policy that contradicted these principles was slavery. But what if they genuinely believed that slavery was acceptable as part of their social mores? The only way then to free the slaves would be to impose a social order upon such people by way of government intervention.

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

The problem with Libertarianism is that nobody wants it in practise. Most people can sympathise with the underlying critiques of the Welfare State and socialism in general - however when really forced to envisage what a Libertarian society would look like, most recoil in horror. People simply do not want to live in a society without a civil society, or live in a culture that believes the remit of the State is to have no remit. For all the problems that are inherent in a statist system, abolishing it altogether is to most people, an unconscionable and terrifying prospect. People simply do not want the State to be tiny - they want the safety and security of society to protect them from the wolves. They look at their local landlord, the local thug, or the local pawnbroker and think 'Jesus ****ing Christ, not that shower'

EDIT: The landlord = greedy, uncontrolled capitalism, The thug = black market moneylender/mafia, The Pawnbroker = last resort (Think of tear filled children as the father pawns the bike, or heartbroken wife forced to pawn her ring to pay the water bill (Which presumably costs 10 times more in an unregulated system)

I agree, but to interpollenate your posts somewhat, consider the thug to be a slave trader.

Denerick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, I don't assume there is anything doctrinally wrong with libertarianism. I believe it is completely unrealistic and unworkable.

Who enforces this principle of equality if not government? But in order to do so the government must intervene in the market. Which is not allowed in Libertarianism.

Put another way, lets suppose that under libertarianism prostitution is legal and unregulated. But some people are being lulled into it and being forced to work in that area against their will. This is happening at present where prostitution is illegal and where it is legal but regulated. So how practically (and I emphasis practically because libertarianism is great in theory when you say everyone is equal, but in reality requires an enforcement mechanism) do you stop this from happening? More importantly, in order to weed out the slavery aspect you need to regulate the legitimate operates fairly rigourously.

Or are you one of those who believes that the free market will step in to make sure that there is no slavery, a sort of efficient private NGO, like fair trade coffee, but for prostitutes (except of course I would imagine that they would need to be a little more than 20% slavery free).

Further, the concept of slave is not limited to ownership through physical force. What if you own all the food/accomodation/clothes in a country and demand people work at extortionate rates in order to get some basic provisions from you? Is that not slavery in all but name?

Finally, as was mentioned (I think by yourself) earlier in the thread, early America was modelled on what we now call libertarian principles, but the one policy that contradicted these principles was slavery. But what if they genuinely believed that slavery was acceptable as part of their social mores? The only way then to free the slaves would be to impose a social order upon such people by way of government intervention.

Whoa boy. I think you're confusing Libertarianism and anarcho-Capitalism. Who says there is no basic law and order in a Libertarian system? Only the most extreme want to privatise the police force and judiciary.

There is a constitution in a Libertarian society. The people are defined and protected from slavery. those who enslave another will face the sanction of the law. I don't know where you are going with this, to be perfectly honest. It is not an intervention in the market as human beings are not property. End of argument. Human beings are clearly defined and there is a legal system which protects the rights of the individual to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' (Or some such jazz)

I'm not a Libertarian by the way. I'm probably somewhere on the centre left, but like to drift left and right on certain issues, much like a pendulum clock...

Denerick

Also, you mention economic slavery. This is a very real and obviously disastrous way of life. On the extreme end we have the indentured servants (Basically white part-slaves from Britain who predated the coming of the much more productive and cheaper black African slaves) They were compelled to serve their master for a certain period (Roughly 5 years) and were then given a retirement, usually a plot of land and a fixed fee. I'm unsure how this would sit in a Libertarian system, but there have been several generations worth of indentured slavery over the years. So long as you have a mortgage, you are an indentured servant. We are all indentured servants in some way or another. We are all slaves when it comes to supplying our own basic needs for survival. Slavery is our state of nature, we will always be beholden to someone or something for survival.