The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

The question libertarians just can?t answer - Salon.com

Libertarian Tom Woods answers this question on his blog, by asking a series of other questions.

For some reason, the finger-waggers at Salon think they’ve got us stumped with this one: “If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country in the world ever tried it?”

So this is the unanswerable question? What’s supposed to be so hard about it? Ninety percent of what libertarians write about answers it at least implicitly.

Let’s reword the question slightly, in order to draw out the answer. You’ll note that when stated correctly, the question contains an implicit non sequitur.

(1) “If your approach is so great, why doesn’t local law enforcement want to give up the money, supplies, and authority that come from the drug war?”

(2) “If your approach is so great, why don’t big financial firms prefer to stand or fall on their merits, and prefer bailouts instead?”

(3) “If your approach is so great, why do people prefer to earn a living by means of special privilege instead of by honest production?”

(4) “If your approach is so great, why does the military-industrial complex prefer its revolving-door arrangement and its present strategy of fleecing the taxpayers via its dual strategy of front-loading and political engineering?”

(5) “If your approach is so great, why do businessmen often prefer subsidies and special privileges?”

?The Question Libertarians Just Can?t Answer? | Tom Woods

However, there are a few comments I'd like to make regarding the article.

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

Here we see that the author doesn't really have a firm grasp on libertarianism. Privatized Social Security and school vouchers are not libertarian-approved policies. A libertarian would not privatize Social Security, a libertarian would abolish Social Security and let people prepare for their own retirements in any way that they choose to do so. A libertarian is also uninterested in school vouchers, and would rather privatize education completely and let schools compete for the business of children's parents by offering different rates and styles of education.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

As for this, my question is: Can the author point out to us one absolutely liberal or progressive country, and one absolutely conservative country? There are no such countries. Governments are never purely one ideology or another for any sustained period of time. The Soviet Union was forced to enact certain market reforms even under Lenin, and even today China's "communist" government openly embraces the market in many instances.

Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?

How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.

Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!

The only response to this is that correlation does not equal causation. That Mauritius is allegedly more economically free does not mean that that is the reason that their infant mortality rate is higher than the U.S.'s. Rather, it's likely that, even if they technically have a freer economy, their economy is not as developed as the United States. Nor is the Heritage Foundation claiming that Mauritius is better than the U.S. in general. Their claim has only to do with economic freedom, not development as a whole.

So basically, what we have here is a poor attempt to discredit libertarianism, which is easily answered as evidenced by Tom Woods' response, a series of incorrect statements regarding libertarianism and history, and a few illogical extrapolations from economic freedom indicies from a few conservative, not even libertarian, think tanks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

The question libertarians just can?t answer - Salon.com

Libertarian Tom Woods answers this question on his blog, by asking a series of other questions.

For some reason, the finger-waggers at Salon think they’ve got us stumped with this one: “If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country in the world ever tried it?”

So this is the unanswerable question? What’s supposed to be so hard about it? Ninety percent of what libertarians write about answers it at least implicitly.

Let’s reword the question slightly, in order to draw out the answer. You’ll note that when stated correctly, the question contains an implicit non sequitur.

(1) “If your approach is so great, why doesn’t local law enforcement want to give up the money, supplies, and authority that come from the drug war?”

(2) “If your approach is so great, why don’t big financial firms prefer to stand or fall on their merits, and prefer bailouts instead?”

(3) “If your approach is so great, why do people prefer to earn a living by means of special privilege instead of by honest production?”

(4) “If your approach is so great, why does the military-industrial complex prefer its revolving-door arrangement and its present strategy of fleecing the taxpayers via its dual strategy of front-loading and political engineering?”

(5) “If your approach is so great, why do businessmen often prefer subsidies and special privileges?”

?The Question Libertarians Just Can?t Answer? | Tom Woods

However, there are a few comments I'd like to make regarding the article.



Here we see that the author doesn't really have a firm grasp on libertarianism. Privatized Social Security and school vouchers are not libertarian-approved policies. A libertarian would not privatize Social Security, a libertarian would abolish Social Security and let people prepare for their own retirements in any way that they choose to do so. A libertarian is also uninterested in school vouchers, and would rather privatize education completely and let schools compete for the business of children's parents by offering different rates and styles of education.



As for this, my question is: Can the author point out to us one absolutely liberal or progressive country, and one absolutely conservative country? There are no such countries. Governments are never purely one ideology or another for any sustained period of time. The Soviet Union was forced to enact certain market reforms even under Lenin, and even today China's "communist" government openly embraces the market in many instances.

Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?

How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.

Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!

The only response to this is that correlation does not equal causation. That Mauritius is allegedly more economically free does not mean that that is the reason that their infant mortality rate is higher than the U.S.'s. Rather, it's likely that, even if they technically have a freer economy, their economy is not as developed as the United States. Nor is the Heritage Foundation claiming that Mauritius is better than the U.S. in general. Their claim has only to do with economic freedom, not development as a whole.

So basically, what we have here is a poor attempt to discredit libertarianism, which is easily answered as evidenced by Tom Woods' response, a series of incorrect statements regarding libertarianism and history, and a few illogical extrapolations from economic freedom indices from a few conservative, not even libertarian, think tanks.

That was very well written and intuitive. I'm glad there are people like you who are Libertarians. You represent us well. Knowledge is power!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Mr. Woods shouldn’t waste his time responding to stupid questions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Exposing the Racist History Of Libertarianism And Murray Rothbard - Business Insider

How Ron Paul's Libertarianism Supports Racism -- Daily Intelligencer

Lakhota, that is patently false. That was debunked a long time ago. It was shown that he did not write the letter to which he was attributed.

Racists: Ron Paul Isn't Racist - Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach - News - The Daily Pulp

Ron Paul Newsletter Wrongly Painting Him As Racist

 

[S.J.]

It WAS tried, and it worked. The country it was tried in was the United States.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why is it that every Authoritarian state since antiquity has experienced an episode (if not several episodes) of genocide and severe oppression?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8fl0vy44GO0]Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lakhota]

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube

That old stuff proves nothing. Paul is a master manipulator.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube

That old stuff proves nothing. Paul is a master manipulator.

Your argument has been destroyed. Go slink back to bed, Lakhota.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Mr. Woods shouldn’t waste his time responding to stupid questions.

I agree! See? I agree more with you than you think!

Mr. Woods needs to spend his time on more productive things, other than answering trolls who know nothing about Libertarianism.

 

[editec]

I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.

In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.

If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.

MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.

Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.

There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.

So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.

BAsically if you query a self proclaiMing libertarian, they seem to definte libertarianism as

THE STUFF I PERSONALLY APPROVE OF.​

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

 

[editec]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

 

[dblack]

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now.

Addictions have a way of resolving themselves. Junkies usually either clean up their act or die early.

 

[dblack]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

I think you're getting a skewed picture from political message boards and blogs. Shall we judge all liberals by their most vocal proponents? (e.g. Lakhota)

 

[dblack]

I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.

In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.

If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.

MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.

Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.

There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.

So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.

[bolding mine]

We'll get on that. Right after the rest of you define liberalism or conservatism once and for all. Seriously, I couldn't disagree more with this claim.

Part of the reason libertarians get such guff is because we actually DO define our principles and try to adhere to them - far more so than Democrats or Republicans. We actually ask the hard questions about the purpose, benefits and drawbacks of government - and attempt to answer them. That's both the reason why many people like us and the reason why so many think we're loons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.

In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.

If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.

MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.

Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.

There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.

So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.

BAsically if you query a self proclaiMing libertarian, they seem to definte libertarianism as

THE STUFF I PERSONALLY APPROVE OF.​

The Non-Aggression Principle.

That is what all libertarians agree on, the differences coming in the application of the principle.

 

[Ravi]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The author of the Salon article debunked this rather well:

Ever since colonial times, states had engaged in public poor relief and sometimes created public hospitals and asylums. Tracinski to the contrary, there were also two massive federal welfare programs before the New Deal: the Homestead Act, a colossal redistribution of government land to farmers, and generous pension benefits for Union veterans of the Civil War and their families. Much earlier, the 1798 act that taxed sailors to fund a small system of government-run sailors’ hospitals was supported by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton alike.

Libertarians: Still a cult - Salon.com

More at the link.

The better question is: why do libertarian based societies fail, always.

 

[dblack]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The author of the Salon article debunked this rather well:

Ever since colonial times, states had engaged in public poor relief and sometimes created public hospitals and asylums. Tracinski to the contrary, there were also two massive federal welfare programs before the New Deal: the Homestead Act, a colossal redistribution of government land to farmers, and generous pension benefits for Union veterans of the Civil War and their families. Much earlier, the 1798 act that taxed sailors to fund a small system of government-run sailors’ hospitals was supported by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton alike.

Libertarians: Still a cult - Salon.com

More at the link.

The better question is: why do libertarian based societies fail, always.

Because fascism is a particularly insidious virus. Looks like we're gearing up for another round in fact. Buckle up!

 

[Ravi]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The author of the Salon article debunked this rather well:

Ever since colonial times, states had engaged in public poor relief and sometimes created public hospitals and asylums. Tracinski to the contrary, there were also two massive federal welfare programs before the New Deal: the Homestead Act, a colossal redistribution of government land to farmers, and generous pension benefits for Union veterans of the Civil War and their families. Much earlier, the 1798 act that taxed sailors to fund a small system of government-run sailors’ hospitals was supported by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton alike.

Libertarians: Still a cult - Salon.com

More at the link.

The better question is: why do libertarian based societies fail, always.

Because fascism is a particularly insidious virus. Looks like we're gearing up for another round in fact. Buckle up!

Great answer. The belief that anything that isn't libertarian IS facist is probably the number one reason libertarianism remains a cult.