4 ms·

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 voluntar

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.

pron 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. How is disenfranchisement relevant? And why would legal segregation matter when blacks were a small part of the population? You could say that the USSR being autocratic is also not something incidental to gloss over (and I'd argue a far greater deviation from the ideal). Feudalism has always had "demand-side" problems, with or without legal roadblocks. > There were plenty of land grant programs at the time... The federal government was weaker, but not as much as often presented... Sure, but all of it amounted to very little regulation compared to any modern Western countries. > You can't really characterize it as anything beyond that, the circumstances were rather unique. True, but again, it was still closer to the libertarian ideals than the USSR ever was to communism, and it would be at least as equally disingenuous to conclude that we can't draw any conclusions from that era to libertarianism. Bear in mind that the Gilded-Age America was only the latest such experiment in the West. All other (older) examples of weak governments gave rise to feudalism and similar results. So while libertarianism later created a well-formed political theory behind free markets and low regulation, it is a stretch to claim that its practices have never been tried. If a valid experiment can be nothing short of full global libertarianism, then it will forever be a beautiful utopia in the minds of the precious few who still prescribe to that ideal.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  When you have structural barriers around the right to contract, then yes, that's a practical issue with your libertarian narrative. Sure, but all of it amounted to very little regulation compared to any modern Western countries. We actually have an even better example of a contemporary Western nation achieving great results through economic liberalization: the United Kingdom repealing the Corn Laws and abandoning mercantilism circa the 1840s. Agrarians and formerly rural landowners did get shafted in the process of industrialization (as it tends to occur), but free trade policies were a boon for everything else. But there's also the whole problem of just looking at macro-level "regulations" without taking into account the vastly different social and technological climate. See below. True, but again, it was still closer to the libertarian ideals than the USSR ever was to communism Smells of a fallacy of composition. it would be at least as equally disingenuous to conclude that we can't draw any conclusions from that era to libertarianism You can, but it's very limited. The Lucas critique demonstrates that analyzing historical macrotrends in of itself is useless because of a lack of policy-invariance. You need good microfoundations for proper modeling. Hence my assertion that calling the Gilded Age a "libertarian failure" is so simplifying as to be little but a political provocation. You're echoing the old Methodenstreit debate all over again. If a valid experiment can be nothing short of full global libertarianism, then it will forever be a beautiful utopia in the minds of the precious few who still prescribe to that ideal. No, it doesn't have to be a "global libertarianism". The problem is again, you're extracting one component (relative economic liberalism, but still ignoring barriers to voluntary relations) in specific complex time periods as a catch-all argument against "libertarianism" even though you clearly do not have the proper microfoundations of libertarian theory to even make such a judgment at all.
  - pron 11y ago
    > We actually have an even better example Thing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an extreme ideology. A liberal economy is great and regulation is great, but they so far seem to work best when both are applied in moderation. So far, all attempts to significantly increase one or the other have failed. It is, of course, possible that they weren't taken far enough, and something happens at a point more extreme from the ones tried -- a change of trend -- but there it is reasonable to believe that this is not the case. > analyzing historical macrotrends in of itself is useless because of a lack of policy-invariance This applies to any ideology, especially the extreme ones. Like I said, it is in the clear interest of utopians to keep their dreams unrealized. What better way to do it than to disregard as invalid any form of approximation? This, too, is something we have seen over and over. > You're echoing the old Methodenstreit debate all over again. Historians are careful not to try to predict the future, but sometimes certain things can strike a familiar chord, especially when utopian ideologies are concerned. But let me state my original point more clearly: Libertarianism has been tried to a similar extent as any extreme ideology ever has. Whether you want to take that as "libertarianism, just like most other extreme ideologies, has never been tried" or as "libertarianism, like other extreme ideologies, has been approximated and failed" is up to you. Whether you find this satisfying or not as an objection to the ideology is up to, and it was not my intention to claim that we can predict the exact outcome of a full realization of libertarianism based on history. Personally, I don't need to, because I find libertarianism to be the morally repugnant brainchild born of pure intentions[1]. > but still ignoring barriers to voluntary relations Because I studied history in grad school I can tell you with a relatively high degree of certainty that the greatest barriers to voluntary relations -- or, rather, the most economically significant barriers -- have rarely been legal (in fact, the ability of the state to effectively enforce its laws is rather new, and is far, far more recent than feudalism), but economic. I don't know if you can extrapolate from that to the future or not (historians are careful about extrapolation), but so far that has been the case. It is true that certain groups of people have suffered terribly due to legal restrictions, but they (naturally) were never a majority. It is the majority (who are mostly poor or poor-ish) whose freedoms are restricted via economic means. [1]: it is an ideology that effectively lets the rich keep all their power, but takes it away from the poor, whose power is in their numbers and in coming together to regulate, and thus somehow balance, the power of the rich; I favor letting anyone use their power equally, like in an anarchy or a social-democracy; I can accept libertarianism as possibly working well in some imagined, fresh-born society, a society of spherical cows, if you will, but not in our real-life society, in our real world

pron 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. How is disenfranchisement relevant? And why would legal segregation matter when blacks were a small part of the population? You could say that the USSR being autocratic is also not something incidental to gloss over (and I'd argue a far greater deviation from the ideal). Feudalism has always had "demand-side" problems, with or without legal roadblocks. > There were plenty of land grant programs at the time... The federal government was weaker, but not as much as often presented... Sure, but all of it amounted to very little regulation compared to any modern Western countries. > You can't really characterize it as anything beyond that, the circumstances were rather unique. True, but again, it was still closer to the libertarian ideals than the USSR ever was to communism, and it would be at least as equally disingenuous to conclude that we can't draw any conclusions from that era to libertarianism. Bear in mind that the Gilded-Age America was only the latest such experiment in the West. All other (older) examples of weak governments gave rise to feudalism and similar results. So while libertarianism later created a well-formed political theory behind free markets and low regulation, it is a stretch to claim that its practices have never been tried. If a valid experiment can be nothing short of full global libertarianism, then it will forever be a beautiful utopia in the minds of the precious few who still prescribe to that ideal.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
When you have structural barriers around the right to contract, then yes, that's a practical issue with your libertarian narrative. Sure, but all of it amounted to very little regulation compared to any modern Western countries. We actually have an even better example of a contemporary Western nation achieving great results through economic liberalization: the United Kingdom repealing the Corn Laws and abandoning mercantilism circa the 1840s. Agrarians and formerly rural landowners did get shafted in the process of industrialization (as it tends to occur), but free trade policies were a boon for everything else. But there's also the whole problem of just looking at macro-level "regulations" without taking into account the vastly different social and technological climate. See below. True, but again, it was still closer to the libertarian ideals than the USSR ever was to communism Smells of a fallacy of composition. it would be at least as equally disingenuous to conclude that we can't draw any conclusions from that era to libertarianism You can, but it's very limited. The Lucas critique demonstrates that analyzing historical macrotrends in of itself is useless because of a lack of policy-invariance. You need good microfoundations for proper modeling. Hence my assertion that calling the Gilded Age a "libertarian failure" is so simplifying as to be little but a political provocation. You're echoing the old Methodenstreit debate all over again. If a valid experiment can be nothing short of full global libertarianism, then it will forever be a beautiful utopia in the minds of the precious few who still prescribe to that ideal. No, it doesn't have to be a "global libertarianism". The problem is again, you're extracting one component (relative economic liberalism, but still ignoring barriers to voluntary relations) in specific complex time periods as a catch-all argument against "libertarianism" even though you clearly do not have the proper microfoundations of libertarian theory to even make such a judgment at all.
- pron 11y ago
  > We actually have an even better example Thing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an extreme ideology. A liberal economy is great and regulation is great, but they so far seem to work best when both are applied in moderation. So far, all attempts to significantly increase one or the other have failed. It is, of course, possible that they weren't taken far enough, and something happens at a point more extreme from the ones tried -- a change of trend -- but there it is reasonable to believe that this is not the case. > analyzing historical macrotrends in of itself is useless because of a lack of policy-invariance This applies to any ideology, especially the extreme ones. Like I said, it is in the clear interest of utopians to keep their dreams unrealized. What better way to do it than to disregard as invalid any form of approximation? This, too, is something we have seen over and over. > You're echoing the old Methodenstreit debate all over again. Historians are careful not to try to predict the future, but sometimes certain things can strike a familiar chord, especially when utopian ideologies are concerned. But let me state my original point more clearly: Libertarianism has been tried to a similar extent as any extreme ideology ever has. Whether you want to take that as "libertarianism, just like most other extreme ideologies, has never been tried" or as "libertarianism, like other extreme ideologies, has been approximated and failed" is up to you. Whether you find this satisfying or not as an objection to the ideology is up to, and it was not my intention to claim that we can predict the exact outcome of a full realization of libertarianism based on history. Personally, I don't need to, because I find libertarianism to be the morally repugnant brainchild born of pure intentions[1]. > but still ignoring barriers to voluntary relations Because I studied history in grad school I can tell you with a relatively high degree of certainty that the greatest barriers to voluntary relations -- or, rather, the most economically significant barriers -- have rarely been legal (in fact, the ability of the state to effectively enforce its laws is rather new, and is far, far more recent than feudalism), but economic. I don't know if you can extrapolate from that to the future or not (historians are careful about extrapolation), but so far that has been the case. It is true that certain groups of people have suffered terribly due to legal restrictions, but they (naturally) were never a majority. It is the majority (who are mostly poor or poor-ish) whose freedoms are restricted via economic means. [1]: it is an ideology that effectively lets the rich keep all their power, but takes it away from the poor, whose power is in their numbers and in coming together to regulate, and thus somehow balance, the power of the rich; I favor letting anyone use their power equally, like in an anarchy or a social-democracy; I can accept libertarianism as possibly working well in some imagined, fresh-born society, a society of spherical cows, if you will, but not in our real-life society, in our real world