5 ms·

"The turning point came with the triumph of modern libertarianism, with its sophisticated, Orwellian method of hiding corporate power behind the rhetoric of ind

"The turning point came with the triumph of modern libertarianism, with its sophisticated, Orwellian method of hiding corporate power behind the rhetoric of individual liberty" Had me until the part about the "triumph of libertarianism," a system which has never been tried anywhere.

igravious 11y ago
Exactly, isn't neo-liberalism the moniker we generally use to describe the set of ideas that cluster around Friedman and his subscribers? As in, neo-liberal policy. Is the author equating "modern libertarianism" with neo-liberalism?
pron 11y ago
Libertarianism was tried in the US during the Gilded Age[1], and failed spectacularly. Power quickly consolidated in the hands of the (unelected) very few, and in a form of modern feudalism, much of the population came to live under the boot of the robber barons and called on the government to save them. That's how the strong American federal government came to be. The US is one of the few places where government regulation actually came about to free people from libertarianism. Somewhat ironically, Ayn Rand came to the US in the aftermath of the backlash, not knowing that all of her ideas had been tried and the mess they caused cleaned up not long prior to her arrival. [1]: Of course, some would say that the US in the Gilded Age wasn't really libertarian, but it was closer to true libertarianism than anyone has ever gotten to true communism. So anyone who says libertarianism hasn't failed because it hasn't been tried must admit the same about communism.
- novalis78 11y ago
  ...you mean the age that propelled a backwater colony to riches and turned it into a global super power?
  - pron 11y ago
    Yes, that one, and in the process turned large portions of the population into serfs to the point where they cried for help. No one will deny the great progress the US made in the gilded age, but no one would say it is an age one we'd like to repeat (as its name suggests, it is not generally regarded as a good period in American history; important? certainly; interesting? absolutely; but good? not really). The USSR made tremendous progress during Stalin's various five-year plans, but that, too, is something no one wishes to repeat. Both cases prove that it is possible to make great leaps by enslaving your populace. Of course, we've known that since the Romans. The trick is not to make progress. The trick is to preserve your values while still making progress. Communism and Libertarianism are two ideas that had their chance. They both yielded quick leaps forward but also ruined the lives of millions. Their proponents would claim that neither was really tried in its true form -- and both camps would be absolutely right -- but I think most people have the good sense to trust that any further experiment (of either) would turn out similar enough to previous ones.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Communism and Libertarianism are two ideas that had their chance. [citation needed] I don't know about communism. Where libertarianism is concerned, there is no evidence for it being tried beyond a post facto shoehorning of the Gilded Age as "libertarian" for what was just economic liberalism. Sounds like people who criticize it don't have any idea of what it entails.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Libertarianism was tried in the US during the Gilded Age It's very popular among some people to quote the Gilded Age as an alleged failure of libertarianism, but they can never seem to pinpoint just exactly how it was libertarian. Certainly, the climate was economically liberal... and that was about it. The Gilded Age was about industrialization, not any political order. There was no one there to "try" anything. I assume China and Singapore are libertarian, too?
  - pron 11y ago
    It is similarly popular among some to paint libertarianism as some lofty ideal distant from any actual human history so that post facto it can never have been tried so it always holds its promise. China and Singapore are most certainly not libertarian as they impose very strong central government regulations, whereas gilded-age America had a small and weak government, and was almost devoid of regulation (at least de facto; any de jure regulation could be skirted with bribes). The result was neo-feudalism, which came as a surprise to no one as feudalism has grown organically in almost every society with a weak government in human history, and with similar results -- a handful of people enjoying the product of the miserable masses.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      There's the whole elephant in the room of de jure segregation and disenfranchisement that significantly weakened the demand side's ability to engage in voluntary contracts. That's not some incidental thing to gloss over, but a clear case of crippling binary intervention. There were plenty of land grant programs at the time, such as the Homestead Act. The state, through common law, retained eminent domain and condemnation of private land for nominally "public" purposes. There were several immigration restriction acts passed that served as a free trade barrier. Let's not forget that the railroads which characterized the Gilded Age were kickstarted by government initiative in the form of the Pacific Railroad Acts, which ensured land and bond grants. There were at least a dozen tariff acts passed by the time the Gilded Age was emerging, and indeed U.S. trade policy was quite protectionist back then. The U.S. have also been involved in plentiful military interventions, some overseas, others covered by the Monroe Doctrine, since the earliest days for economic and hegemonic reasons. The federal government was weaker, but not as much as often presented. They tried wholesale embargoes as early as 1807, enacted tariffs, controlled trade (Commerce Clause and other justifications), intervened militarily frequently, and remember that the Constitution in general greatly expanded federal power relative to the prior Articles of Confederation. As such, I'd think it disingenuous to qualify the Gilded Age as "libertarian". There wasn't really so much as a system back then, it was a country in an identity crisis trying to see what worked, and often coming to protectionist conclusions that would foreshadow what was to come (ironically, tariffs are much less of a problem in the present than back then). It was economically liberal... that was it. You can't really characterize it as anything beyond that, the circumstances were rather unique.
ageofwant 11y ago
I've been under the impression that Somalia is a very good example of a practical libertarian society. Am I mistaken ?

igravious 11y ago

Exactly, isn't neo-liberalism the moniker we generally use to describe the set of ideas that cluster around Friedman and his subscribers? As in, neo-liberal policy. Is the author equating "modern libertarianism" with neo-liberalism?

pron 11y ago

Libertarianism was tried in the US during the Gilded Age[1], and failed spectacularly. Power quickly consolidated in the hands of the (unelected) very few, and in a form of modern feudalism, much of the population came to live under the boot of the robber barons and called on the government to save them. That's how the strong American federal government came to be. The US is one of the few places where government regulation actually came about to free people from libertarianism. Somewhat ironically, Ayn Rand came to the US in the aftermath of the backlash, not knowing that all of her ideas had been tried and the mess they caused cleaned up not long prior to her arrival. [1]: Of course, some would say that the US in the Gilded Age wasn't really libertarian, but it was closer to true libertarianism than anyone has ever gotten to true communism. So anyone who says libertarianism hasn't failed because it hasn't been tried must admit the same about communism.

novalis78 11y ago
...you mean the age that propelled a backwater colony to riches and turned it into a global super power?
- pron 11y ago
  Yes, that one, and in the process turned large portions of the population into serfs to the point where they cried for help. No one will deny the great progress the US made in the gilded age, but no one would say it is an age one we'd like to repeat (as its name suggests, it is not generally regarded as a good period in American history; important? certainly; interesting? absolutely; but good? not really). The USSR made tremendous progress during Stalin's various five-year plans, but that, too, is something no one wishes to repeat. Both cases prove that it is possible to make great leaps by enslaving your populace. Of course, we've known that since the Romans. The trick is not to make progress. The trick is to preserve your values while still making progress. Communism and Libertarianism are two ideas that had their chance. They both yielded quick leaps forward but also ruined the lives of millions. Their proponents would claim that neither was really tried in its true form -- and both camps would be absolutely right -- but I think most people have the good sense to trust that any further experiment (of either) would turn out similar enough to previous ones.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Communism and Libertarianism are two ideas that had their chance. [citation needed] I don't know about communism. Where libertarianism is concerned, there is no evidence for it being tried beyond a post facto shoehorning of the Gilded Age as "libertarian" for what was just economic liberalism. Sounds like people who criticize it don't have any idea of what it entails.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Libertarianism was tried in the US during the Gilded Age It's very popular among some people to quote the Gilded Age as an alleged failure of libertarianism, but they can never seem to pinpoint just exactly how it was libertarian. Certainly, the climate was economically liberal... and that was about it. The Gilded Age was about industrialization, not any political order. There was no one there to "try" anything. I assume China and Singapore are libertarian, too?
- pron 11y ago
  It is similarly popular among some to paint libertarianism as some lofty ideal distant from any actual human history so that post facto it can never have been tried so it always holds its promise. China and Singapore are most certainly not libertarian as they impose very strong central government regulations, whereas gilded-age America had a small and weak government, and was almost devoid of regulation (at least de facto; any de jure regulation could be skirted with bribes). The result was neo-feudalism, which came as a surprise to no one as feudalism has grown organically in almost every society with a weak government in human history, and with similar results -- a handful of people enjoying the product of the miserable masses.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    There's the whole elephant in the room of de jure segregation and disenfranchisement that significantly weakened the demand side's ability to engage in voluntary contracts. That's not some incidental thing to gloss over, but a clear case of crippling binary intervention. There were plenty of land grant programs at the time, such as the Homestead Act. The state, through common law, retained eminent domain and condemnation of private land for nominally "public" purposes. There were several immigration restriction acts passed that served as a free trade barrier. Let's not forget that the railroads which characterized the Gilded Age were kickstarted by government initiative in the form of the Pacific Railroad Acts, which ensured land and bond grants. There were at least a dozen tariff acts passed by the time the Gilded Age was emerging, and indeed U.S. trade policy was quite protectionist back then. The U.S. have also been involved in plentiful military interventions, some overseas, others covered by the Monroe Doctrine, since the earliest days for economic and hegemonic reasons. The federal government was weaker, but not as much as often presented. They tried wholesale embargoes as early as 1807, enacted tariffs, controlled trade (Commerce Clause and other justifications), intervened militarily frequently, and remember that the Constitution in general greatly expanded federal power relative to the prior Articles of Confederation. As such, I'd think it disingenuous to qualify the Gilded Age as "libertarian". There wasn't really so much as a system back then, it was a country in an identity crisis trying to see what worked, and often coming to protectionist conclusions that would foreshadow what was to come (ironically, tariffs are much less of a problem in the present than back then). It was economically liberal... that was it. You can't really characterize it as anything beyond that, the circumstances were rather unique.

ageofwant 11y ago

I've been under the impression that Somalia is a very good example of a practical libertarian society. Am I mistaken ?