6 ms·

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 amounte

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
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > So far, all attempts to significantly increase one or the other have failed. Actually, there is a very wide range of balances that work and have worked in the modern developed world, and countries in that group have made fairly big changes within that range without failing. There are things outside that proven range, though, and you would be correcet to say that what hardcore libertarian advocates seem to seek [0] seems to be among them. [0] I say "seem to seek" because hardcore libertarians are often much clearer about what they don't want than what they do, and about dismissing every real world example that is raised to suggest problems with their approach with the claim that the problems pointed to are a result not of the relative libertarianess, but the fact that the government involvement in the example, however minimal, was still too much.
  - pron 11y ago
    > there is a very wide range of balances that work and have worked in the modern developed world Oh, absolutely.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree, then. You've already concluded that libertarianism is not simply impractical, but also that it is, as a normative statement, morally repugnant and always leading to rich oligopoly. And that, the power of state regulation actually works for the people by definition. Yet you also mention anarchy as a possible alternative (which is considered by the overwhelming majority of people to be the very definition of impracticality), so I'm not even sure where you stand. Either way, we're going nowhere. I'll cease from here on.
  - pron 11y ago
    > also that it is, as a normative statement, morally repugnant and always leading to rich oligopoly. Those are two separate things and I only assert the former (although I think most libertarians have the best intentions). As to the latter, I just think that whatever evidence we have seems to suggest that this is the case, and it is reasonable to believe it is so (and that does not preclude that it may also be reasonable not to). I'd never make such a strong assertion, though. I also did not conclude that libertarianism is impractical. In fact, I think evidence suggests it is very practical (and systems similar-enough to it, IMO, were the norm throughout most of Western civilization), only it might be quite bad for the majority of people. I mainly just took issue with the statement that libertarianism has never been tried by saying that we did try approximations of it which are no less accurate than all other approximations of similarly extreme ideologies. I do, however, feel that arguments with libertarians often hit an impasse when discussing not ideas but facts -- facts that are hard to conclusively ascertain -- such as the actual dynamics of society. I feel that libertarianism pre-supposes a human dynamics which is at odds with everything I've learned in my (not too many) years of social studies; libertarians, of course, would disagree[1]. > Yet you also mention anarchy as a possible alternative I did no such thing. I simply stated that both anarchy and social democracy ideally allow all people to express their power freely, unlike libertarianism or communism, which are too freedom-constricting for my tastes. I never said anarchy is practical or something I actively strive for; merely that it (as well as social-democracy) is compatible with my moral views. Of course, history has shown that the main problem with anarchy is that it is unsustainable, in that it naturally gives rise to some form of government. [1]: Although the number of libertarians who have actually studied human society is vanishingly small. There are hardly any libertarian sociologists, anthropologists or historians. There are more than a few economists, but economists rarely agree on anything... :)

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

dragonwriter 11y ago
> So far, all attempts to significantly increase one or the other have failed. Actually, there is a very wide range of balances that work and have worked in the modern developed world, and countries in that group have made fairly big changes within that range without failing. There are things outside that proven range, though, and you would be correcet to say that what hardcore libertarian advocates seem to seek [0] seems to be among them. [0] I say "seem to seek" because hardcore libertarians are often much clearer about what they don't want than what they do, and about dismissing every real world example that is raised to suggest problems with their approach with the claim that the problems pointed to are a result not of the relative libertarianess, but the fact that the government involvement in the example, however minimal, was still too much.
- pron 11y ago
  > there is a very wide range of balances that work and have worked in the modern developed world Oh, absolutely.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. You've already concluded that libertarianism is not simply impractical, but also that it is, as a normative statement, morally repugnant and always leading to rich oligopoly. And that, the power of state regulation actually works for the people by definition. Yet you also mention anarchy as a possible alternative (which is considered by the overwhelming majority of people to be the very definition of impracticality), so I'm not even sure where you stand. Either way, we're going nowhere. I'll cease from here on.
- pron 11y ago
  > also that it is, as a normative statement, morally repugnant and always leading to rich oligopoly. Those are two separate things and I only assert the former (although I think most libertarians have the best intentions). As to the latter, I just think that whatever evidence we have seems to suggest that this is the case, and it is reasonable to believe it is so (and that does not preclude that it may also be reasonable not to). I'd never make such a strong assertion, though. I also did not conclude that libertarianism is impractical. In fact, I think evidence suggests it is very practical (and systems similar-enough to it, IMO, were the norm throughout most of Western civilization), only it might be quite bad for the majority of people. I mainly just took issue with the statement that libertarianism has never been tried by saying that we did try approximations of it which are no less accurate than all other approximations of similarly extreme ideologies. I do, however, feel that arguments with libertarians often hit an impasse when discussing not ideas but facts -- facts that are hard to conclusively ascertain -- such as the actual dynamics of society. I feel that libertarianism pre-supposes a human dynamics which is at odds with everything I've learned in my (not too many) years of social studies; libertarians, of course, would disagree[1]. > Yet you also mention anarchy as a possible alternative I did no such thing. I simply stated that both anarchy and social democracy ideally allow all people to express their power freely, unlike libertarianism or communism, which are too freedom-constricting for my tastes. I never said anarchy is practical or something I actively strive for; merely that it (as well as social-democracy) is compatible with my moral views. Of course, history has shown that the main problem with anarchy is that it is unsustainable, in that it naturally gives rise to some form of government. [1]: Although the number of libertarians who have actually studied human society is vanishingly small. There are hardly any libertarian sociologists, anthropologists or historians. There are more than a few economists, but economists rarely agree on anything... :)