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.