# Is 19th Century U.S.A. the closest we've been to a Libertarian Ideal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110 "2014-04-14T20:00:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/41 "2014-04-15T13:25:08Z")
One other non-libertarian aspect of the 19th century - how easy it was to commit people to asylums against their will, and [how often this was done to the merely eccentric, non-conforming, or troublesome.](https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/6687) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/42 "2014-04-15T13:31:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What time and place in the 19th century would be the _most_ Libertarian to you? Without thinking too much or doing any research, I’d say something like “Small-town Maryland in 1829, provided I had convinced myself that Blacks, Mexicans, Indians and women were less than full, rational human beings” (which of course, lots of people did). But I really have no idea what the laws/enforcement there were like. As Human Action noted, we tend to forget how common moral laws were then. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/43 "2014-04-15T13:32:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Well, lets explore the Libertarian ideas that have been discussed in the thread the OP originated from. For instance, did workers have the right to unionize without threats from either the government or private goons hired by bosses? Let’s say the bosses decided to just fire those who form a union-How easy was it to form a competing company? Libertarianism is, simply put, the non-aggression principle. The barriers of entry to firms is irrelevant. In an ideal libertarian society workers could unionize, but bosses could hire private “goons” only to protect property. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/44 "2014-04-15T14:09:50Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Libertarianism is, simply put, the non-aggression principle. The barriers of entry to firms is irrelevant. > > In an ideal libertarian society workers could unionize, but bosses could hire private “goons” only to protect property. Applying this concept to the OP, how Libertarian would you say the U.S.A. in the 19th century was? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/45 "2014-04-15T14:15:33Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > Back in the 19th century U.S. remember we had people drafted for the Civil War, the government funding major transportation improvements, a postal monopoly… People in this thread seem to be assuming that government funding of transportation is necessarily against libertarian principles. Actually, from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, the best-known advocates of economic freedom have always acknowledged that government has a role in building roads and other infrastructure. In the USA circa 1820, the government did those things. Contrast that to, for instance, Spain or Russia, where for centuries the government spent its money mainly on the military, plus lavish lifestyles for the rulers. Infrastructure in those countries was allowed to languish. The USA’s system was definitely more libertarian. As for a draft, it’s certain true that the USA had one during the Civil War. In the early part of the 19th century, the USA had no draft and at most a small standing army. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/46 "2014-04-15T14:35:52Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > During the 19th Century, the US had chattel slavery. True enough. The way I see it, in the nineteenth century the USA was close to a libertarian ideal, by relative standards. But levels of freedom varied greatly. White people in the North generally had a great deal of freedom to live in their homes without harassment, create and run businesses with low levels of regulation, and manage their own finances. Black people in the South had none of these freedoms, nor did Native Americans. So what was the result? White people in the North, on average, by the year 1900, had prosperity far greater than anyone on earth could have imagined a few generations earlier. Blacks in the South and Native Americans on reservations were mired in poverty. It matches exactly what libertarian theory predicts: economic freedom leads to prosperity, while lack of freedom leads to poverty and stagnation. Doubtlessly if the USA had extended full economic freedom to Blacks, women, Native Americans and other groups earlier in its history, our country’s prosperity would have been even greater than it was. But as it was, it was still quite impressive. Economic freedom in 19th (and 20th) century America also led to enormous progress in science and technology: far more than the rest of the world combined. Americans invented the telephone, the light bulb, the electric grid, the assembly line, the airplane, the tractor, … The list could continue for quite a while. The free-market economy not only rewarded those who invented new things. It also rewarded people who rapidly adopted new technology. An American farmer had a strong motivation to employ the latest technology to maximize his yield, since he’d get more profit from a higher yield. In Russia or China, a farmer had no motivation to improve his farm, because he generally wasn’t allowed to keep profits. And the same basic thing was true for all kinds of businesses. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/47 "2014-04-15T15:05:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So what was the result? White people in the North, on average, by the year 1900, had prosperity far greater than anyone on earth could have imagined a few generations earlier. Blacks in the South and Native Americans on reservations were mired in poverty. It matches exactly what libertarian theory predicts: economic freedom leads to prosperity, while lack of freedom leads to poverty and stagnation. Doubtlessly if the USA had extended full economic freedom to Blacks, women, Native Americans and other groups earlier in its history, our country’s prosperity would have been even greater than it was. But as it was, it was still quite impressive. Don’t the facts as you describe them equally support an interpretation that Northern whites benefited from the fact that they had _more_ freedom than everyone else? Certainly if everyone were treated more equally\* the outcome would be more _fair_, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it would have worked out well to treat everyone the same as the richest and most privileged group was historically treated. Maybe less “economic freedom” for Northern whites and more for everyone else would have been optimal. - For some appropriate definition of “equally”, anyway… what that definition is seems to me to be a separate and contentious issue. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/48 "2014-04-15T15:22:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Applying this concept to the OP, how Libertarian would you say the U.S.A. in the 19th century was? Acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge of history, I find the OP impossible to answer. There just isn’t enough information. How many assaults were there in Georgia in 1891? How dutifully were property rights recognized in 1875 NYC? The federal government was at its most libertarian between the end of reconstruction and McKinley, but I wouldn’t call it ideal. Big business had quite an influence. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/49 "2014-04-15T15:29:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So what was the result? White people in the North, on average, by the year 1900, had prosperity far greater than anyone on earth could have imagined a few generations earlier. How does this gel with Americans have prosperity in 2014 far greater than anyone on Earth could have imagined a few generations earlier (real GDP per capita has gone from about $10k per around 1950 to about $45k per today), while the growth of government services has exploded? One isn’t going to say this is the most libertarian of times and hence that is why growth is so much greater today, right? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/50 "2014-04-15T16:59:23Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Don’t the facts as you describe them equally support an interpretation that Northern whites benefited from the fact that they had _more_ freedom than everyone else? Certainly if everyone were treated more equally\* the outcome would be more _fair_, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it would have worked out well to treat everyone the same as the richest and most privileged group was historically treated. Maybe less “economic freedom” for Northern whites and more for everyone else would have been optimal. I don’t think so. Comparing the Northern and Southern USA, the north jumped out to an economic lead early and stayed that way, because the northern economy was based on economic freedom while the southern was not. Not only were black slaves (and later black sharecroppers) desperately poor, but the entire South was poor relative to the North. (And in fact still is.) Besides which, it’s simply logical that slavery is bad for the economy, relative to a free economy. Shall we list the reasons? (1) When you have slaves, you have to spend vast resources keeping them as slaves, because they don’t want to stay that way voluntarily. All the effort that went into imprisoning slaves, torturing slaves, chasing escaped slaves, and so forth was, from an economic perspective, going down the toilet. (2) Slaves had little motivation to work hard, since they lacked the profit motive. In fact, some slave owners were aware of this and let slaves earn small amounts of money, precisely to give them the profit motive. But people who can keep all the profit from their endeavors are the ones who work hardest. (3) Owners generally denied their slaves any type of education, and educated people are more productive than uneducated. (4) A slave society necessarily tends to be against economic progress and development, because people have a general sense that progress and development will encourage the slaves to become restless and discontent. One need only compare the amount of paved roads, railroads, canals, and telegraphs in the southern and northern states, circa 1860, to see this at work. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/51 "2014-04-15T17:17:01Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > And let’s forget that there WAS a Civil War. The bloodiest war the US has ever been involved in. > > Oh, and I don’t think Slavery is a core Libertarian value. I could be wrong. The Grant administration was also unfortunately very corrupt, but there was plenty of corruption between business and the government both before and after Grant’s administration in the 19th century. There’s a whole [slew of scandals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals) from Grant’s two terms, from the Black Friday Gold Panic of 1869 to the Whiskey Ring, the Trading Post Ring, and the Safe burglary conspiracy with a half dozen or more major scandals in between. Add to that other scandals like the [Emma Silver Mine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Silver_Mine) and the [Crédit Mobilier scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America) which started during Lincoln’s administration. 19th Century America isn’t exactly a paradigm for government and big business not getting into bed with each other. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/52 "2014-04-15T19:34:51Z")
Sorry for not showing up till the second page in a thread started by quoting me. I was originally responding to the following statement. > [@Another libertarian debate thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/289): > > My argument there would be that all historical experience seems to show that the kind of anti-government non-regulation proposed by libertarians ends up causing social strife and instability and great injustices, in labor markets, in health care, in the social safety net, in the ability of small businesses to compete fairly with giant multinationals, and throughout society. There is often the sentiment, as has already expressed in this thread, that libertarianism is somehow equivalent to anarchy, and will lead to society falling apart. I’m not putting up (late)19th century US as some sort of exemplar of libertarian ideals that should be emulated, but as a real world setting which approximated the ideas of limited regulation. It resulted, not in an unsuccessful and anarchist failure, but in the richest and most powerful country in the world, a great magnet for immigration from all around the world. It may not ensure a great life for every single person, but it can certainly be associated with lots of things we regard as positives - growth, innovation, improving standards of life on average. _Not_ social strife and instability and great injustices. The greatest social strife in the period was the result of the most _non_-libertarian of practices - slavery. On the flip side we have the real world setting which approximates the ideas diametrically opposed to libertarianism, i.e communism and its close counterpart socialism. The real world setting that most closely approximated their ideas were the Soviet Union, pre 1980’s China, pre 1990’s India. I really don’t feel like listing down the mind boggling human suffering that took place in these areas because too much power was concentrated in the hands of government. I will instead quote Amartya Sen, himself a very ‘left’ oriented thinker, on Hayek > [@](#): > > A third contribution of Hayek is of particular interest to those on the left of the political spectrum. Hayek’s critique of state planning is mainly based on a subtle psychological argument. He was particularly concerned with the way centralised state planning and the huge asymmetry of power that tends to accompany it may generate a psychology of indifference to individual liberty. As Hayek put it: “I have never accused the socialist parties of deliberately aiming at a totalitarian regime or even suspected that the leaders of the old socialist movements might ever show such inclination.” One of Hayek’s central points was that “socialism can be put into practice only by methods of which most socialists disapprove”. > > We can hardly ignore the massive accumulation of evidence - before and after publication of The Road to Serfdom - of tyrannical use of bureaucratic power and privilege, and the political and economic corruption that tends to go with it. Hayek’s central point here was to note that even though socialism has a strongly ethical quality, that is not in itself adequate to guarantee that the results of trying to implement it will be in line with its ethics, rather than being deflected and debased by the psychology of power and the influence of administrative arbitrariness. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/53 "2014-04-15T19:38:19Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > How does this gel with Americans have prosperity in 2014 far greater than anyone on Earth could have imagined a few generations earlier (real GDP per capita has gone from about $10k per around 1950 to about $45k per today), while the growth of government services has exploded? One isn’t going to say this is the most libertarian of times and hence that is why growth is so much greater today, right? For most of the time since 1950, the USA has had the most economic freedom of any nation, possibly excepting midgets such as Hong Kong and Luxembourg. And for most of that time the USA has been the wealthiest nation on Earth, possibly excepting midgets such as Hong Kong and Luxembourg. I believe that for a short time we trailed Japan in GDP per capita. Japan also had one of the world’s most free economies. Where there’s economic freedom, there’s prosperity. So what about the fact that we have more government in the USA today than in 1950. [Well we certainly do](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SbEbx4MWJrI/AAAAAAAACfA/AIxIVAJ5tTc/s400/Government-Spending-Graph.PNG). That’s not to say that government control has expanded in every sector. Generally speaking, one sees more growth in sectors that aren’t regulated, or are lightly regulated. There’s been enormous growth in the areas of computer hardware and software, internet, and wireless, where companies can offer what they want, more or less. On the other hand, when one looks at industries that are heavily regulated, one sees much less embrace of change. Take trucking. Or taxi driving. Or car manufacturing. Trucking doesn’t seem to have improved much since the government regulation began. American car manufacturers don’t rule to world the way they once did. Instead, foreign car companies have bitten into their market share by being more willing to embrace change. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/54 "2014-04-15T19:51:41Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > On the flip side we have the real world setting which approximates the ideas diametrically opposed to libertarianism, i.e communism and its close counterpart socialism. The real world setting that most closely approximated their ideas were the Soviet Union, pre 1980’s China, pre 1990’s India. And Norway, Sweden, Germany… I’m never surprised when Libertarians “forget” to include countries where Socialism actually works. Everyone likes to cherry pick their data and Libertarians are no exception. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/55 "2014-04-15T19:52:08Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > But how much of America’s economic success was due to its political system? Let’s face it, we had an entire continent full of natural resources to exploit. We’d have had to have had an incredibly bad political system to screw up in a situation like that. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not really. Mexico didn’t have the farmland that the United States had. Mexico has plenty of farmland and it exports many crops. But in comparison to the USA, Mexcian farming is backwards and always has been. Some farms in Mexico are still plowed by donkeys. Mexico’s economic system hasn’t motivated individuals to embrace change and work hard the way America’s has. The fact is much clear in the oil industry. Mexico has vast amounts of oil but the state-run oil industry hasn’t been able to exploit it and generate wealth. In America oil production was in the hands of private enterprise starting in the 19th century. Many people worked hard and earned vast amounts of money by producing oil. They still do. There are a lot of countries with abundant natural resources that remain poor: Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Iran. There are a lot of countries without much in the way of natural resources that are among the world’s richest: Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark. Those on the first list give their people very little freedom. Those on the second list give their people a lot of freedom. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/56 "2014-04-15T19:55:40Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > And Norway, Sweden, Germany… I’m never surprised when Libertarians “forget” to include countries where Socialism actually works. Norway, Sweden, and Germany have some of the world’s most free economies. The [Index of Economic Freedom](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) puts them at #32, #20, and #18 respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/57 "2014-04-16T00:51:02Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The Grant administration was also unfortunately very corrupt, but there was plenty of corruption between business and the government both before and after Grant’s administration in the 19th century. There’s a whole [slew of scandals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals) from Grant’s two terms, from the Black Friday Gold Panic of 1869 to the Whiskey Ring, the Trading Post Ring, and the Safe burglary conspiracy with a half dozen or more major scandals in between. Add to that other scandals like the [Emma Silver Mine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Silver_Mine) and the [Crédit Mobilier scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America) which started during Lincoln’s administration. 19th Century America isn’t exactly a paradigm for government and big business not getting into bed with each other. However, many if not most of these scandals involved business corrupting government officials. Certainly government forcing business to take some action would not be libertarian, but how about business forcing of strongly influencing government? If this is anti-libertarian, then libertarians should support strong anti-lobbying laws and campaign finance reform which would keep businesses from effectively bribing legislators. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/58 "2014-04-16T01:57:07Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > And Norway, Sweden, Germany… I’m never surprised when Libertarians “forget” to include countries where Socialism actually works. Everyone likes to cherry pick their data and Libertarians are no exception. Norway, Germany and Sweden are most definitely not socialist countries. In fact, the time when one of them was close to socialism - Sweden around the 1990s - it had to cut back on government spending and reform its welfare model quite severely in the because it just wasn’t sustainable. Nor is it advisable to draw lessons on public policy from Scandinavian countries(not that they hold out the lessons you seem to think they do) - they have very small and homogeneous populations. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/59 "2014-04-16T02:03:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If this is anti-libertarian, then libertarians should support strong anti-lobbying laws and campaign finance reform which would keep businesses from effectively bribing legislators. I would think libertarians are very much against crony capitalism. One of the pluses libertarians see in reducing the power of government to regulate is that it reduces incentives to bribe. I think it’s a matter of who and what you trust. If you trust government, then the philosophy that you ascribe to would want government to have more power. If you trust competition and market forces, you would want governments to have less power. I personally don’t think that either model fits ALL situations. I certainly lean towards the side of markets and competition in almost all cases that do not involve externalities though. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110/60 "2014-04-16T02:06:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But how much of America’s economic success was due to its political system? Let’s face it, we had an entire continent full of natural resources to exploit. We’d have had to have had an incredibly bad political system to screw up in a situation like that. Are you aware of what is known as the resource curse? Countries with abundant natural resources tend to have poorer development outcomes on average, not better. > **[Resource curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)** > > The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the hypothesis that countries with an abundance of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and certain minerals) have lower economic growth, lower rates of democracy, or poorer development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to the adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or i In... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-19th-century-u-s-a-the-closest-weve-been-to-a-libertarian-ideal/686110.md?page=4)