Because that’s the way things are set up now. But they did do things like sitting on or swimming in their money back in the day. Have you ever seen Versailles or the Pyramids? Or an ante-bellum cotton plantation? There was one guy at the top and everybody else was dirt beneath his feet. And no serf or slave was ever going to work his way up to the top. If you were born on the bottom, you lived and died at the bottom.
That’s a little vaguer that what I was looking for, but it’s a start. Yes, I also agree Representative government is good. We are in agreement there.
Now, can you see the difference between (1) setting slaves free and (2) taxation or restrictive regulation, such as a trade barrier?
In the first instance, the people/government worked to REMOVE the threat of force and coercion from the lives of its citizens, and ensuring their basic freedoms.
In the second, the people/government INVOKE force and coercion, on certain segments of the populace, to expropriate resources from them and/or prevent voluntary transactions from occurring between two consenting parties.
Do you agree, or not agree, that there is a major difference between the two?
So, the US was libertarian economically, but all the bad economic stuff was the fault of… leprechauns?
Lemme guess. You’re going to come back now and talk about whether JP Morgan put salt on his porridge.
No, I’m not going to tell you whether J.P. Morgan put sugar on his porridge, just ask you what in God’s name any of these things have to do with Libertarianism. They were not Libertarian in any way, and that’s not a true Scotsman because they did not guarantee individual rights and freedom to trade without interference. Fedualism, slavery, theocracy != Libertarianism. That’s ridiculous. I might as well tell you that Obama’s bailout can never work because Genghis Khan’s armies raped and pillaged a bunch of people. That’s about how much relevant those topics have. I really want to know why you can’t see that; it’s so aggravating. I try to argue for Libertarianism and am somehow supposed to explain the results of history’s most liberty-lacking societies.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: IMM, that’s a very important distinction I don’t think they get or want to get. Libertarian governments only use retaliatory force, which is force to stop people from violating others’ rights.
Uh, you claimed it was libertarian. I’ll quote ya:
So, it was libertarian, or it wasn’t. You already said it was, but now you want to say the bad things had nothing to do with libertarianism. Well, at best, libertarianism allowed these horrific things to come into existence or continue in existence. At worst, libertarianism fostered and encouraged those things.
Chattel slavery was part of our “economic system” in the first 100 years of the US. You know, those years where “the US economy exploded in growth under libertarianism”? Those years? Those slaves? You remember the ones? Is any of this ringing any bells?
I said some parts of the past were good. That’s all. Specifically, I said the part about having the government exercise little regulation of the economy was a good idea. I did not say slavery, child labor, or any of those other things were good, and the past would have been better without those things. Many of the head Nazis were vegetarians. That doesn’t mean vegetarians are evil, or that they wouldn’t have been better people had they not been Nazis; did their vegetarianism foster and encourage their Nazism? If they had been omnivores, would they not have been Nazis?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: And I never said the 19th century was completely libertarian. I was using that there as shorthand for “had a relatively libertarian economic system compared to the present” in the context of talking about the economy. I made no similar comment about the **social **aspects of libertarianism, which the 19th century most certainly did not have, but with which you seem obsessed.
Slavery, in any case, is a bad economic idea, not even considering the moral aspect. People are far more productive as free laborers than as slave laborers. You see that: the big evil business owners are actually harmed by enslaving people. The only reason for racial discrimination was that people thought blacks were inferior; not that it would be a better economic idea to enslave them.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: You also seem to assume that for one person to get richer, everyone else has to get poorer. Why? Unless you’re secretly a mercantilist, there is no reason to believe this.
I don’t think I’ve seen such frantic backpedaling in weeks. You went from all swoony to repudiating in just a couple of hours!
Though I don’t exactly gather how how slavery, child labor, and robber barons are suddenly “social” rather than “economic” factors, it’s probably my obsessions getting in the way of my understanding.
It is. I don’t know what else to tell you, but are being quite obtuse. Do you understand the concept of individual rights? One half of libertarianism is economic freedom; the other half is social freedom. Neither is Libertarianism without the other. Can’t you see that? Slavery and child labor have nothing to do with social freedom, and most robber barons were actually taking advantage of corrupt government policies and oppressing workers by force rather than actually working through the free market. Those things also have nothing to do with social freedom.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: And I’m not backpedaling, frantically or otherwise. You are simply trying to twist my words around so that they say something else other than what I meant. That is not debating. That is “gotcha ya” crap.
Vox, first you need to decide what Libertarianism actually is and what Libertarians actually want to do. Libertarians tend to be real vague about where they draw the line. Some of them are basically Republicans who want to legalize marijuana and some of them are anarchists who want to abolish all laws. Please define how your version of Libertarianism is different from what we have now.
I think I’m going to leave you alone to carry the ball, Vox.
jsgoddess is about the last person making reasonably cogent arguments from the other side, and even she (he?) now seems to be wandering off into the weeds.
It’s a shame. This is about the 10th time I’ve tried to participate in a reasonable discussion of Libertarianism on this board. There are some truly interesting topics to discuss on the splits, differences, tradeoffs and borders between individual liberty and ‘the good of society’, but we never seem to get there.
We always seem to quickly degenerate into ridiculous arguments that make the thread an attempt to argue against nonsense.
Good luck. I’ll be watching.
Pretty much the same thing I just asked Vox. There’s a lot of laws I think should be repealed. I vote for Democrats and Republicans and they repeal laws. How is Libertarianism different?
My guess is that they were the fault of bad people. Bad people. That’s it. But it’s also so boring. So let’s emulate what good screenwriters do and pin blame on an identifiable villain – such as libertarians… or priests… or rich people…or young people or ugly people.
Libertarianism neither allowed or encouraged any of those bad items. When you associate those evils with libertarians, that’s fallacy of Guilt By Association.
Protestant pastors wrote passionate essays advocating the morality of slavery. Although I’m not a big fan of organized religion, it would be intellectually dishonest to say the tenets of Protestantism or Baptists “allowed” or “encouraged” slavery. A particular Protestant pastor may have endorsed slavery but that particular person is not the representative or final word on what Protestantism is.
Unfortunately, there is no official document that itemizes the libertarian position, so yes, I guess theoretically, you could pin any negative event on libertarians. The wiki on Libertarianism doesn’t have any specific creedo about endorsing/preventing child labor or slavery. I didn’t look it up but I also assume socialism doesn’t have any specifics about wife-beating and communism doesn’t have doctrines on alcohol abuse. “Russians over-indulge on vodka – therefore communism at best allowed that to happen or at worst fostered that behavior.”
Who did you vote for? I want to vote for them, too, if they actually repeal laws and minimize government.
I don’t have any of those where I live, and I live in hard-core Republican country. Where do you live?
I already said this upthread, but I would (over time; not all at once so as not to completely disrupt the social equilibrium) reduce the government’s function to enforcing law and order (by enforcing contract law, by enforcing the right not to have force used against oneself or one’s property, including the pollution of it, and by maintaining a monopoly on force so as to prevent an armed coup or oppression of the citizenry by pseudo-governments) and national defense (perhaps including pre-emptive attacks and nation-building, but that’s debatable) only. I also think that we should work towards a global government, but one that only includes Westernized or Westernizing countries as representative members. I think the most important step on any Libertarian’s agenda should be proportional representation and a change from the first-past-the-post voting system, so that Libertarians can have a chance of winning because it’s foolish to vote Libertarian now (and to achieve that, I think the best bet is to work within the Republican party and reduce the influence of the social conservatives; I think the Republican base shares more values with Libertarians than the Democratic base). Basically, Libertarians either need to set the system up so that they can be the “right” when it’s left vs. right, or to change the rules so that it can be right vs. left vs. libertarian.
IMM: I’m sorry to hear that, although these threads do have an unfortunate tendency to do that. I am also about to go to sleep and then to school, so I won’t be responding for a while.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
So you appear to be willing to accept the principle that if the majority of the people want to do something they can coerce dissenters into compliance. For example, if I want to build a junkyard in the middle of town and burn tires, you’d say that the townspeople would have the right to prohibit this and arrest me if I refused to comply with that prohibition, correct? And if so, how is your version of Libertarianism significantly different from the system we have now? You’re not arguing for a change in the system; you just want the existing system to change a few laws. And if that’s the case, why not work within one of the two major parties? They have a lot more influence on what laws are enacted and repealed than any third party does.
If you live anywhere in the United States, I can assure you that the Democrats and Republicans have changed a lot more laws than the Libertarians ever have.
What makes you think that true ? The whole reason that Communism had the appeal that it did is that untrammeled capitalism is so horrible that hundreds of millions of people were convinced that anything at all would be better than it. So convinced that they fought wars over it.
Not to mention that I think that a purely libertarian nation would just collapse.
Who said anything about the changing the “basic nature of mankind” ? People have plenty of nastiness already.
As for why people would behave badly that’s because libertarianism is simply evil dressed up as good. It’s an ideology designed to give the stamp of righteousness to all the worst of human impulses. It venerates ruthlessness, cruelty, sociopathy; it hates mercy, compassion, cooperation. The victory of libertarianism would be the victory of evil; only a nation of predators, of greedy sadists would embrace such a philosophy as a culture.
You might as well ask, “How do you know that a nation that elects fascists to power will behave badly ?”
Garbage. Libertarianism is about economic and social tyranny. It’s about crippling the one and only protector of freedom we have - the government - and handing all power to the wealthy. It’s about reducing the majority of the population to cattle to be exploited. It’s about pretending that wealth doesn’t count as power, so you can economically exploit people and pretend that they are free.
If people want to set up a given thing in the middle of town, and other people want to sell that land to them to allow it, then they can do so. If, however, this junkyard can be demonstrated to be harmful (not necessarily *after *it’s built, of course), then it wouldn’t be allowed, as it would be an infringement upon other people’s rights. And of course there can be contracts between the residents of a city or other area not to, say, demolish old houses, or to sell land to people planning to build junkyards. What exactly is your definition of a “different system”? I think this would encompass more than “a few” laws, as well as at least one Constitutional amendment (to repeal the 16th); plus, I forgot to mention that another thing I would support is an decrease in the power of the federal government relative to the states (so not even all the states would have to be Libertarian). I mean, I’m not talking about bringing in the philosopher kings or anything, but it would be quite a change to go from our current paradigm to one were the only functions of the government were law & order and national defense.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: Screw it, Der Trihs, I give up. It was foolish of me to respond to your points in the first place.
It’s right after the part about having to pay the Exxon-PepsiCo Fire Department Corporation in cash, up front*, before they will pull yer grandma out of her flaming nursing home.
*You may qualify for 29.99% APR financing. See your local Fire Chief for details. Credit checks typically take less than 24 hours to complete. So hurry, grandma’s going fast and her screams and choking gasps are bumming the firefighters out.