Where has Libertarian philosophy ever been put into practice?

[devilgrrl]

What I'm asking is that Libertarians think that their views are the way things should go. Where and when have their ideas ever been put into practice? How do they know that their philosophy works in the real world?

Because I know of nothing and nowhere that they've led except for Ron Paul (R-TX) is a congressman.

You tell me.

[NoPasaran]

1. Somalia is about as close as you can get

To the libertarian "paradise"

[SteppingRazor]

2. For the record, when it comes to social issues...

I agree with a lot of libertarian stances. I also disagree with almost everything they have to say about economic issues.

That said, I think that you'd have to go way back in history to find anything resembling true libertarianism. Essentially, the earliest civilizations could be said to be libertarian, since there was no central authority -- or if there was, there was certainly no means of enforcing said authorities rule in outlying areas, or even communicating it.

In the modern world, I can't think of any instances of true libertarianism. At the same time, I can't think of any instances of what I believe (civil libertarianism) either. I think it's not a reflection of the political philosophies, but instead a reflection of the fact that, by definition, governments are not libertarian entities. Government, whether liberal or conservative, will tend toward the authoritarian, as opposed to libertarian, side of the scale.

[porphyrian]

3. Which brand of "Libertarian" do you mean?

That's a little like asking "What does a pickle taste like?" Do you mean the official party line ala this link? - http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Or do you mean any libertarian ideas, which could include the creation of this country? Are you specifically targeting libertarian economic policies? The reduced role of government?

While I don't agree with all libertarian stances, they are, in some ways, more inclusive than today's Democratic party. Perhaps that's only because they need membership, I don't know.

[devilgrrl]

8. I'm not quite sure...

because Libertarianism hasn't been properly defined to me. Having said that, judging from some of the responses, no one else seems to know either. Which leads me to say that libertarians always seemed like they're full of shit and from what I'm seeing here they most certainly are. So STFU libertarians and get the fuck off of the road that was paid for with MY tax dollars.

[400Years]

13. The ACLU is somewhat libertarian in nature

and then you have the Libertarian party that tends to be an apologist for corporate control, or at least they often deny the nefarious nature of capital.

So as the other poster pointed out, you have to address exactly what you are referring to.

Look at the difference in feelings about politics in the grassroots of the democratic party versus what some of those at the top do.

[porphyrian]

27. Heh, that's precisely what I don't like about their party line.

That, and believing in privatization, which has been proven time and again to be more expensive and less effective than even the most wasteful government program. I'm all for social freedoms, though, as long as no one steps on mine.

[DBoon]

4. Anarcho-Communism was practiced in the Ukraine

For a few years after the 1917 revolution, until Lenin crushed it

During the Spanish Civil War (~1937), Anarcho-Syndicalists ran much of the province of Catalonia

These are anti-capitalist ideologies that are also anti-statist. Not like most folks who call themselves libertarian nowadays.

I think the libertarian label has been captured by the right and that the left needs to recapture it.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Thunder Dome

I saw it best illustrated in a Mel Gibson movie.

[Marr]

6. The US in 1890's.

If anything is a threat to capitalism, it's unrestrained capitalism.

[Cleita]

7. Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Things were pretty much in anarchy then. Also, any society that has an underclass that they exploit, leaves that underclass pretty much twisting in the wind. Law is enforced only if the underclasses victimize the privileged classes with petty crimes. Other than that, if the people want services they have to provide them for themselves. They are basically on their own for day to day survival These are the places you see shanty towns growing around the edges of cities.

In Latin American, these slums pretty much operate by rule of the gangs who are the strongest, much like our inner cities have in the past. The police, politicians and more privileged classes don't bother with these people unless they are looking for cheap labor or a new maid.

[TheFarseer]

9. liaise-fare economics

possibly during the gilded age? To me Libertarianism is an ideal that can never become a reality. The best example is a farmer that just wants to grow his crops, sell them for a fair price, raise his family and take care of his land as he sees fit with no government regulation to mess with. Sounds good, but that can never be in practice, because the robber barons(Railroad, Grain elevator, energy companies, equipment dealers will rob you blind without any regulation. Hell they already are. I think most midwesterners are somewhat libertarian, but they don't understand that the republicans are taking advantage of this tendency. They are always trying to scare rural people that the government will take away your fertilizer or that they will take away your land and turn it into a wetland. Instead of the government screwing you over, they are having the corporations screw you over.

Ranting - not sure this makes the point I want it too, but I'll post it anyway.

[izzybeans]

10. Cote d voire "war of all against all" and all that.

[durutti]

11. Chile and New Zealand are the examples they always like to cite.

They were disasters: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/econexper.html

[ozarkvet]

12. With a capital "L" or lower case "l"

Some rural counties are pretty lower-case l libertarian, with fairish results.

I grew up very rural (as-in no shoes until I went to 1st grade), and we had almost no property taxes and correspondingly almost no tax-paid-for services --- including things like a fire department.

To use the fire department example, you could pay some pretty nominal (like $25) fee per structure and get fire protection.

We bought it for the house, grandpa's house, and the big barn. But we didn't for some rental houses (really shacks) and other structures, because the bill would have totaled over $500 a year.

As a result, when one of the rental houses (for which we got $125/month in rent --- when occupied and that only happened during harvest) got struck by lighting, it just burned up.

We sucked it up -- because we chose to take that risk.

Every couple years there would be some free rider whose house burned down who would bitch and moan, and someone (who lived in the more suburban part of the county and/or on a small lot with a trailer) would propose a property-tax-paid-for fire department, and we would all vote it down in favor of the voluntary system because we didn't want to have to pay for universal protection that we did not want.

A true libertarian system (as opposed to Libertine or Anarchy) merely pushes the decisions down to the lowest level possible and goes out of its way to protect individual decisions.

Basically, you leave me alone; I leave you alone.

It is very attractive to me, perhaps because of my rural roots.

[400Years]

14. good post

[ozarkvet]

17. Thanks!

Liberal and libertarian are not necessarily inconsistent.

Think:

Gay marriage --- who cares if the state is not in the marriage business? Between the two people and (if they so choose!) God.

Pot (just don't sue when you wreck your car, life, and/or get lung cancer)

And any other manner of lifestyle choices.

It is what the concept of "states" were designed for.

We got into this we-all-have-to-do-it the same in Berekeley and Dallas mindset somewhere in the last century.

No, let the Dallas people do it their way, and the Berekeley do it their way and they just need to tolerate each other enough to use one currency --- barely.

[liberal43110]

21. Not a free rider

If fire protection services were optional unless you chose to pay for them, then this person was not a free rider. The person may have been upset or indignant or wishing he had paid for fire protection services. But a free rider is someone who enjoys a public good and avoids contributing to its provision. This person avoided contributing to the provision of fire services, and, as a consequence, did not receive the services.

You may not like that person's behavior, but he is not a free rider.

[ozarkvet]

26. Attempted free rider, then

Point is the same.

[sandnsea]

15. The Mariana Islands n/t

[400Years]

16. is that the place tom delay was messing around in?

according to wikipedia:

"The Commonwealth also benefits from substantial subsidies and development assistance from the federal government of the United States."

I wouldn't call that libertarian.

[sandnsea]

19. Yes

“Instead of trying to impose redtape and mandates on the people of the CNMI , we should look to the CNMI as a model of reform. Like the CNMI , Washington should provide tax relief for the American people. We should recognize that pro-business policies create jobs. And we should recognize that free trade creates prosperity. The CNMI is proof positive that these policies work.” Tom Delay

Delay called it "a perfect petri dish of capitalism". The Marianas were one of the most unregulated places on the planet, exactly what the libertarians want. This is also what the Mexico guest worker program is based on.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=668

[curt_b]

18. Libertarianism on the Left & Right

Much of the confusion about libertarianism seems to stem from confusing the contemporary US Libertarian right with a tendency on the radical left that is sometimes described as libertarian socialism. On the right the ideological perspective centers around The Cato Institute. From their mission statement:

http://www.cato.org/about/about.html
“The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace.“

A Wikipedia entry more accurately describes this outlook in strategic terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
“Libertarianism is a political philosophy that strongly advocates the maximization of individual rights, private property rights, and free market capitalism. Specifically, libertarianism holds that a person's freedom to dispose of his body and private property as he sees fit should be unlimited as long as that person does not initiate coercion on others. Libertarians define "coercion" as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud), that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals would use their body or property.”

In theory this approach appears analogous to a populous “rugged individualism”. In practice it resists all attempts at economic, environmental and civil rights regulation. Often a libertarian critique of public policy sounds remarkably progressive, but quickly deteriorates into a far right attack on entitlements and democratic regulatory principles. A great example is Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano, a former NJ Superior Court judge. His recent book “Constitutional Chaos” includes a blistering attack on The Patriot Act. Listening to him launch the book on Cspan2 BookTV (held at the Cato Institute) you might have thought you were listening to a progressive civil libertarian. The punch line is that he ultimately equates the loss of individual liberties of the Patriot Act with the loss of wealth through progressive taxation.

On the left, the label is less useful. As DBoon posted above there was tendency on the working class left that operated in late 19th century Europe and early 20th century USA that resisted an extremely aggressive attack by Capital. Class warfare seems to have a clearer focus than today and working class struggles were often framed by a growing Marxist influence. While some on the left embraced a proto-Leninist model of seizing state power, others felt that ceding state power to anyone (regardless of class) was little improvement over capitalist domination. These were the Anarcho-Syndicalists and their allies. Later in the 20th Century the breakdown of the Stalinist model which substituted a central coordinator class for a capitalist one led some on the left to question the need for either free market or centrally planned principles of economic organization. This resulted in a variety of political solutions from some strains of the European Green movement proposing micro-economies that were totally self-sufficient to Participatory Economics a values based Economic theory developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Throw in the Autonomist Marxism of Toni Negri and Michael Hardt and very different approaches uncomfortably fit under the same label. Again from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
“Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state. Some of the best known libertarian socialist ideologies are anarchism (particularly anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism), council communism, autonomist Marxism, and social ecology. However, the terms Anarcho-Communism and Libertarian Communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Anarcho-Communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of both private control over the means of production and the state, considering both of these to be unnecessary and harmful institutions.”

[txaslftist]

20. No where.

Libertarianism, like socialism and communism, has never been fully implemented anywhere.

Socialism is always defeated by the forces of capitalism.
Communism is always defeated by the forces of common sense.
Libertarianism is always defeated by the law of the jungle.

[Darranar]

22. Nowhere, in part because of a central flaw in their thinking.

The authoritarian structures they support lead inevitably to the ones they oppose.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. Nice, succinct answer!

[toddaa]

24. Most recently the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico

These are probably not the kind of libertarians you are referring to, but the ELZN is an anarcho-socialist movement that had some success. Unfortunately, NAFTA pretty much wiped out what little gains the movement had made by causing the price of grain to plummet.

It's very important for DUers to understand that libertarianism and anarchism are NOT compatible with capitalism. American libertarianism grew out of the individual anarchist writings of people like Max Stirner and Benjamin Tucker. While they influenced the rise of the American Libertarian Party, they are by no means representative of anarchist thought. The predominant anarchist thinkers are collectivists, like Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and more recently Noam Chomsky.

Anarchism is not really a system of government. Its more accurately described as process by which people remove authoritarian control over their lives. Do some research on the Zapatistas if you want to learn more about how anarchist collectivism can work.

[Ally McLesbian]

25. I've never met a "true" libertarian.

All the so-called "libertarians" I've ever met are closet conservatives. They favor abortion bans, for example, which is inconsistent with libertarian positions.

The worst offenders in this regard are LGBT "libertarians" who are really Log Cabiners but refuse to own up to it for fear of ostracism from the mainstream LGBT community. Well, I think Log Cabiners ought to be ostracized from ALL communities, gay and straight.