# Libertarianism -- sell me **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353 "2004-05-27T15:51:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/81 "2004-05-29T00:18:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by furt > > I was responding to the suggestion/implication that a libertarian nation had never existed and would surely collapse if it did; while the pre-new deal US was by no means perfect, neither was it some sort of complete disaster. I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that what we have now is the best of all possible worlds? But I question your premise here. How was pre-1900 US a libertarian society, if (for most of the period) slavery was permitted, women could not vote, children could work in factories. Inarguably there is MORE freedom in the US now than before 1900. You have to ignore the plight of over half the population to argue otherwise. In other words, when you argue that pre-1900 America was more libertarian than post, you must be saying that freedom from “government regulation” (as embodied by the eeeeevil FDA, EPA, etc.) is more important to libertarians than freedom from slavery and disenfranchisement. Is it? Just curious. > [@](#): > > To deal specifically with what you mention: Slavery is, by its definition anethema to Libertarians. If a monk shoplifts, we don’t blame Buddhism, we blame the monk. Similarly the fact that slavery was allowed it does not mean the ideals of the founding fathers were lacking; just that early America lacked the moral resolve to live up to them. We can respect the “founding fathers” (though several held slaves) without worshiping them. I see no reason to try to “live up to” them, they lived in a completely different time and place. Their most important contribution was not creating a system of “limited government” – the real debt we owe to them is that they created a system with the flexibility to **adapt to changing circumstances**. And the world has changed – greatly – since the late 1700s. And in any case, when you talk about the ideals of the founding fathers, which ones are you talking about? Jefferson? Madison? Adams? Their ideas were far from identical, and if they lived today would probably have quite different views on the merits of present-day liberalism vs conservatism vs libertarianism, etc… In fact, since they clearly understood the value of separation of powers, I suspect many of them would have been in favor of strong, regulatory government as a counterweight to growing corporate power (basically nonexistent in their day). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/82 "2004-05-29T01:09:40Z")
Okay, I have a question-if there is no need for minimum wage laws, companies will pay what is fair-then why did we have a need for them in the first place? Why was it that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, working conditions were so shitty? People were regularly abused by their employers. Why is that? What would prevent something like this from happening again? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/83 "2004-05-29T01:21:13Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Several years ago, after growing tired of both the Republican and Democratic parties turning their backs on the traditional American values of individual freedom and state’s rights and heading down the same globalist path, went in search of a third party, one that espouses both a strict adherence to the original intent of the Constitution and an America first philosophy. Just curious… What on the god’s green earth made you think that giving gigantic multinational megacorporations complete control over everything would slow globalization? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/84 "2004-05-29T04:21:10Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, I have a question-if there is no need for minimum wage laws, companies will pay what is fair-then why did we have a need for them in the first place? Did we? Need them I mean? For what exactly? I realize that there was a lot of agitation for them. Are you suggesting that the masses calmly and critically debated the issue and decided based on economic circumstances that a minimum wage was necessary? > [@](#): > > Why was it that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, working conditions were so shitty? Compared to what? They were shitty compared to what we have now? To conditions back in the home country? To conditions on the farm? > [@](#): > > People were regularly abused by their employers. What exactly do you think abuse is? Remember it is not always appropriate to judge people of the past with the morality of the present. What passes for abuse now might simply be a way of life 100 or 200 years ago. > [@](#): > > Why is that? What would prevent something like this from happening again? I’ve got a better question. What specifically has the minimum wage law improved? Have slums disapeared? Have debtors prisons? (Careful with that one, it is a trick question. Take for granted the most crime is the result of poverty.) ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/85 "2004-05-29T04:27:05Z")
Forgive me **furt** , but I must address this one point. > [@Ace\_Face](#): > > How was pre-1900 US a libertarian society, if (for most of the period) slavery was permitted, women could not vote, children could work in factories. Inarguably there is MORE freedom in the US now than before 1900. You have to ignore the plight of over half the population to argue otherwise. He is not saying that pre-1900 America was a libertarian society. Merely that it was more libertarian than post 1932 America. Additionally he was not claiming that it was a utopia. Merely that it did not collapse in an orgy of monopolistic frenzy. > [@](#): > > In other words, when you argue that pre-1900 America was more libertarian than post, you must be saying that freedom from “government regulation” (as embodied by the eeeeevil FDA, EPA, etc.) is more important to libertarians than freedom from slavery and disenfranchisement. Is it? Just curious. In other words, when you argue that post 1932 America is more liberal than pre, you must be saying that freedom to impose “government regulation” (as embodied by the great and glorious FDA, EPA, etc.) is more important to liberals than freedom from global warming, acid rain and the inflated power of global coorporations. 😉 The only point is that an economy without an FDS, EPA, or other new deal organizations is not necessarily one which has or even endorses slavery. It does not follow that such a society is against woman’s sufferage. The issues probably have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/86 "2004-05-29T04:43:31Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Did we? Need them I mean? For what exactly? I realize that there was a lot of agitation for them. Are you suggesting that the masses calmly and critically debated the issue and decided based on economic circumstances that a minimum wage was necessary? This is why I find Libertarians funny. Why assume that the decision to enact a minumum wage was “based on economic circumstances?” It was based on the fact that life was shitty and income disparity was huge. Are you really that ignorant about the labor movement? > [@](#): > > Compared to what? They were shitty compared to what we have now? To conditions back in the home country? To conditions on the farm? Compared to what they could have been. Are you going to bust out the “American abuse of prisoners is bad? Compared to Saddam?” next? I don’t care if the factory next door has walls of flame, if yours has poison needles shooting from the walls, it doesn’t make it right. > [@](#): > > What exactly do you think abuse is? Remember it is not always appropriate to judge people of the past with the morality of the present. What passes for abuse now might simply be a way of life 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it is alright? We shouldn’t be constantly striving to advance our civilization? > [@](#): > > I’ve got a better question. What specifically has the minimum wage law improved? Have slums disapeared? Have debtors prisons? (Careful with that one, it is a trick question. Take for granted the most crime is the result of poverty.) When was min wage supposed to make slums magically disappear and cure debtors? How is your Libertarian policy of no min wage going to make the situation any better? What if the Feds paid as much money to bail out poor debtors as they did to bail out corporations? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/87 "2004-05-29T04:58:14Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > This is why I find Libertarians funny. Why assume that the decision to enact a minumum wage was “based on economic circumstances?” It was based on the fact that life was shitty and income disparity was huge. Are you really that ignorant about the labor movement? Let’s not get snippy shall we? Is your analysis any more accurate than simply saying that people eventually got the idea that they could vote for the government to force their employers to give them a raise? Is this really what you mean when you say we need the minimum wage? > [@](#): > > > [@pervert](#): > > > > Compared to what? They were shitty compared to what we have now? To conditions back in the home country? To conditions on the farm? > > Compared to what they could have been. Are you going to bust out the “American abuse of prisoners is bad? Compared to Saddam?” next? I don’t care if the factory next door has walls of flame, if yours has poison needles shooting from the walls, it doesn’t make it right. I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by this. Could you try it again without the sarcasm? > [@](#): > > > [@pervert](#): > > > > What exactly do you think abuse is? Remember it is not always appropriate to judge people of the past with the morality of the present. What passes for abuse now might simply be a way of life 100 or 200 years ago. > > Which means it is alright? We shouldn’t be constantly striving to advance our civilization? What!? Where did I ever say that any particular practice was alright? I think if you read it again, you will find that I merely asked for him to define what he meant by abuse. Some people think that paying wages is in and of itself abuse. > [@](#): > > When was min wage supposed to make slums magically disappear and cure debtors? What was it supposed to do? The post I replied to did not make this clear. > [@](#): > > How is your Libertarian policy of no min wage going to make the situation any better? Well, it will open the possibility for lower wage jobs. That could mean more people employed. For instance. But to be fair, I was only questioning assertions made and asking for clarification of terms used. I don’t think I suggested that repealing the minimum wage would make anything in particular better. > [@](#): > > What if the Feds paid as much money to bail out poor debtors as they did to bail out corporations? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. You are really a funny person when you try. Thank you very much. I needed that laugh. Do you really think that the money spent by the government to bail out corporations even comes close to the money spent on welfare? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/88 "2004-05-29T05:10:45Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Is your analysis any more accurate than simply saying that people eventually got the idea that they could vote for the government to force their employers to give them a raise? Is this really what you mean when you say we need the minimum wage? The people didn’t vote for the government to force their employers to give them a raise, unless you think the majority of Americans made well below minimum wage? > [@](#): > > I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by this. Could you try it again without the sarcasm? No. What do you mean, “compared to what?” You are making the claim that companies would establish the same careful guidelines for employee safety and welfare on their own? > [@](#): > > What!? Where did I ever say that any particular practice was alright? I think if you read it again, you will find that I merely asked for him to define what he meant by abuse. Some people think that paying wages is in and of itself abuse. Ooh, show me one of those people. I’d like to punch them in the face. > [@](#): > > Well, it will open the possibility for lower wage jobs. That could mean more people employed. In jobs like…? > [@](#): > > Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. You are really a funny person when you try. Thank you very much. I needed that laugh. Do you really think that the money spent by the government to bail out corporations even comes close to the money spent on welfare? See my earlier post regarding how perfect and happy things are in Libertaria, where everyone who can’t work lies in the street until someone puts them out of their misery. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/89 "2004-05-29T05:44:03Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > The people didn’t vote for the government to force their employers to give them a raise, unless you think the majority of Americans made well below minimum wage? Yes. Well, ok, not strictly speaking. But the point is that most of the populous movement had more to do with people using the government to grab things than it did with abstract political ideals. > [@](#): > > No. What do you mean, “compared to what?” You are making the claim that companies would establish the same careful guidelines for employee safety and welfare on their own? Uhm, where exactly am I making that claim? Why do you feel the need to lie so blatently? > [@](#): > > Ooh, show me one of those people. I’d like to punch them in the face. Define wage slave. > [@](#): > > In jobs like…? The typical example is the movie usher. Some jobs are not worth minimum wage. I am not suggesting that you can raise a family of 5 in New York on such wages. But again, to be fair I was not nore have I ever (in this thread) suggested that repealing the minimum wage will have the effects you are accusing me of claiming. > [@](#): > > See my earlier post regarding how perfect and happy things are in Libertaria, where everyone who can’t work lies in the street until someone puts them out of their misery. Well, there is a fine line between humor and gross oversimplification bordering on intentional encouragement of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/90 "2004-05-29T08:16:45Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, I have a question-if there is no need for minimum wage laws, companies will pay what is fair-then why did we have a need for them in the first place? > > Why was it that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, working conditions were so shitty? People were regularly abused by their employers. > > Why is that? What would prevent something like this from happening again? Some damn fine questions. I think I see where **pervert** was coming from when he tried to answer you, but I think he missed the forest for the trees. Starting with the minimum wage question, pervert was right when he asked if we _really_ needed an minimum wage. Minimum wages cause unemployment, plain and simple. If you advocate a minimum wage, then you’re advocating putting some people at the bottom end of the income bracket out of work so that those who are lucky enough to find jobs get paid better. It’s a trade-off, and opponents of the minimum wage say it isn’t worth it. How does increasing unemployment among the poor help fight poverty? No easy answer here, but regardless of whether you support or oppose a minimum wage, it’s essential to be aware of this trade-off. Now to the really juicy stuff: Why are things better now than in the past? I think your average libertarian would say that the individual’s freedom to better their own position through free-market exchange has, over time, added up to benefit society as a whole **despite** the interference caused by an an overly intrusive government. In other words, the argument goes that it’s not the FDA that made food safe or OSHA that insured we don’t work in dangerous environments. Instead, our society simply became wealthy enough that even the poorest among us were eventually able to afford untainted food and could find employment in safe workplaces. That’s why, they say, things aren’t so shitty anymore. Different libertarians will, of course, have different views, but I think that’s a decent summary, though it does reflect my own perceptions of the ideology. And my own perceptions are that lib’ism, though it does have some truth to it, can be naive and simplistic. Environmental protection is a great example. A business which makes buckets of money by polluting has no incentive to reduce the damage it causes. Without regulation, the harm caused by the pollution can easily outweigh whatever advantages the business gains from a cheaper production process. In other words, without regulation, there would be exceptionally little preventing a business from causing massive environmental harm if the owners felt there was a buck to be made. This would be a regression to earlier, shittier times. And I can imagine that a deregulated workplace would undergo a similar regression for low income workers, exactly as you fear. Lib’ism has a lot of good things going for it. Regulations can be stupider’n hell, and high taxation in the name of asinine bureaucratic expenditures are doubly onerous. The pure libertarian ideal espoused by some, however, strikes me as unconscionably stupid, and I think your questions really do cut to the heart of pure lib’ism’s problems. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/91 "2004-05-29T10:37:23Z")
I do not consider the Robber Baron capitalism cited by Guin to be even close to libertarianism — remember that the philosophy is based upon the Noncoercion Principle. The abuse she references was the result of partnerships between Mr. Tycoon and Senator Fatcat who together used government power and private wealth to steal land, indenture children, and line their own pockets with profit. Men were not free to leave their employers, form unions, or start competing companies because they were always under the threat of visits from Mr. Tycoon’s thugs. Senator Fatcat, meanwhile, drafted legislation and supported regulations that institutionalized the coercion. Analyzing that zeitgeist as though it were an implementation of libertarianism is absurd to the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/92 "2004-05-29T12:04:55Z")
> [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > Starting with the minimum wage question, pervert was right when he asked if we _really_ needed an minimum wage. Minimum wages cause unemployment, plain and simple. If you advocate a minimum wage, then you’re advocating putting some people at the bottom end of the income bracket out of work so that those who are lucky enough to find jobs get paid better. It’s a trade-off, and opponents of the minimum wage say it isn’t worth it. How does increasing unemployment among the poor help fight poverty? No easy answer here, but regardless of whether you support or oppose a minimum wage, it’s essential to be aware of this trade-off. And let’s not forget to mention that minimum wage laws are a tenet of fascism. Funny thing about that, those who advocate increasing the minimum wage (liberals) are quick to label their opposition (conservatives) as fascists. Just one of the instances I refer to as a “through the looking-glass worldview”. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/93 "2004-05-29T12:26:45Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Just curious… What on the god’s green earth made you think that giving gigantic multinational megacorporations complete control over everything would slow globalization? What the hell are you talking about? "Giving gigantic multinational megacorporations **complete control over everything**?? No party is advocating that, Republicrats or Demopublicans. But the onus of NAFTA and GATT and other such treaties falls on the status quo, not the Libertarian party. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/94 "2004-05-29T12:53:53Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > How does this square with the belief that your body is your property, with all of the rights and responsibilities that this entails, and can be seized if you ‘default’ on an obligation? Ummm… It doesn’t; because I don’t think that? > [@](#): > > Most of the services and waste in government that are complained about evolved to serve the needs of the people. I don’t see why, assuming we started over from scratch as a Libertarian society, that they would not be voted back into existence in the course of a generation or so. Probably true; people. myself included tend to look for ways to evade responsibility and make it someone else’s problem, and government is a great tool for that. I think a very good case can be made that GWB and the founding fathers are wrong in thinking that freedom is the desire of all people, and that instead history shows that authoritarian rule is the default setting. Could be that our evolutionary psychology tends toward a pack mentality in which we all want an “Alpha Male.” I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/95 "2004-05-29T13:12:35Z")
> [@The Asbestos Mango](#): > > Um, because there are fewer available workers in the more highly skilled occupations, so employers are willing to pay a premium for their services? In other words, employers have to compete for workers, and paying a higher rate brings in more applicants, so employers have the ability to pick and choose and assure themselves of a better quality of worker. In other words, the worst-case scenario you describe would only play out for people whose labor is worth less than minimum wage. And therefore all companies cannot follow suit in cutting wages - only those who employ primarily minimum wage employees. Currently [about 3% of all employees in the US earn an hourly rate at or below minimum wage.](http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm) For your scenario to be plausible, you are going to have to explain how a pay cut for 3% of the US labor force is going to have such widespread ripple effects as to cause a contraction in the economy. This is especially true because eliminating the mimimum wage reduces the entry costs of hiring a new laborer, and thus more people have the opportunity to work and gain experience so as to raise their earning levels above mimimum wage. **Left Hand of Dorkness** , the same logic applies to your scenarios. What stops companies from doing exactly as you say, but only reducing their wages to $5.15 per hour? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/96 "2004-05-29T13:17:03Z")
> [@Ace\_Face](#): > > But I question your premise here. How was pre-1900 US a libertarian society, if (for most of the period) slavery was permitted, women could not vote, children could work in factories. Inarguably there is MORE freedom in the US now than before 1900. You have to ignore the plight of over half the population to argue otherwise. > > In other words, when you argue that pre-1900 America was more libertarian than post, you must be saying that freedom from “government regulation” (as embodied by the eeeeevil FDA, EPA, etc.) is more important to libertarians than freedom from slavery and disenfranchisement. Is it? Just curious. Not at all. Slavery and Disenfranchisement were bad, wrong, and anti-Liberty, period. They were allowed becuase the culture was inherently racist and sexist, as we now use those terms. > [@](#): > > We can respect the “founding fathers” (though several held slaves) without worshiping them. I see no reason to try to “live up to” them, they lived in a completely different time and place. And I don’t. And if you reread what I posted I was not challenging you to live up to them, but pointing out that they did not live up to it themselves. I don’t think the fact that Jefferson was a Slaveholder means his ideas on government are wholly obsolete, rather I think it indicates he was a hypocrite (as are we all) and unwilling to live up to his own ideals. > [@](#): > > Their most important contribution was not creating a system of “limited government” – the real debt we owe to them is that they created a system with the flexibility to **adapt to changing circumstances**. And the world has changed – greatly – since the late 1700s. Fine and I respectfully disagree; I think both were important. If you look at the context, there was no precedence for “limited government.” > [@](#): > > And in any case, when you talk about the ideals of the founding fathers, which ones are you talking about? Jefferson? Madison? Adams? Their ideas were far from identical, and if they lived today would probably have quite different views on the merits of present-day liberalism vs conservatism vs libertarianism, etc… > > In fact, since they clearly understood the value of separation of powers, I suspect many of them would have been in favor of strong, regulatory government as a counterweight to growing corporate power (basically nonexistent in their day). Mebbe. Dunno. All we have to go on is what they actually did write in their time, and the kind of system they actually did create. And generally, I’d like our system to look a little more like thiers. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/97 "2004-05-29T14:13:59Z")
My own small contribution to the library: [Why Libertarianism Won’t Work (Reason No. 5,472)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=22657) …in which we discuss my argument that a libertarian system would be an ephemeral thing. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/98 "2004-05-29T14:42:20Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, I have a question-if there is no need for minimum wage laws, companies will pay what is fair-then why did we have a need for them in the first place? > > Why was it that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, working conditions were so shitty? People were regularly abused by their employers. > > Why is that? What would prevent something like this from happening again? And therein lies a central flaw of Libertarianism: the failure (or refusal) to learn from the past. Why do we have minimum wage laws? Because a majority of us decided it was a good idea. Why do we have an FDA? Because the absence of food and drug regulation proved unacceptable. Why do we have Social Security? Because without it, people too old to work were living (or more to the point, dying) in abject poverty. These government “intrusions” did not spring up from nothing. They were responses to real problems. Real problems which would surely arise again if the laws in question were undone. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/99 "2004-05-29T14:42:48Z")
What government has not been ephemeral? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353/100 "2004-05-29T14:44:02Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > And therein lies a central flaw of Libertarianism: the failure (or refusal) to learn from the past. > > Why do we have minimum wage laws? Because a majority of us decided it was a good idea. Why do we have an FDA? Because the absence of food and drug regulation proved unacceptable. Why do we have Social Security? Because without it, people too old to work were living (or more to the point, dying) in abject poverty. > > These government “intrusions” did not spring up from nothing. They were responses to real problems. Real problems which would surely arise again if the laws in question were undone. Could you reply to my reply to Guin’s reply? Here it is again for your convenience: I do not consider the Robber Baron capitalism cited by Guin to be even close to libertarianism — remember that the philosophy is based upon the Noncoercion Principle. The abuse she references was the result of partnerships between Mr. Tycoon and Senator Fatcat who together used government power and private wealth to steal land, indenture children, and line their own pockets with profit. Men were not free to leave their employers, form unions, or start competing companies because they were always under the threat of visits from Mr. Tycoon’s thugs. Senator Fatcat, meanwhile, drafted legislation and supported regulations that institutionalized the coercion. Analyzing that zeitgeist as though it were an implementation of libertarianism is absurd to the extreme. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-sell-me/247353.md?page=6)