American History Is Not Libertarian History?

Does government action produce better outcomes? Certainly, it can (not always). What is the evidence? Look at the economic expansion in the United States since the 19th century - do you think the power of capital markets to allocate capital into this quantum leap of economic progress wasn’t helped by government action?

Of course it was.

But don’t misconstrued the point - just because government action works some of the time means it works all the time, or that more is always better. As you note, there are always trade-offs, and there is always a law of diminishing returns with government action.

But the remains - sometimes it is necessary for society to restrict liberty in an effort to ameliorate or prevent entirely some end results that are too intolerable for society (or too expensive to fix after the fact). It’s important to leave a lot of space in the middle where people are free to do what they want and live with the consequences - generally. But some consequences are so bad, societt has to intervene.

And is some cases - like broken families - society isn’t so much “nosing” and intruding into their business - rather, it is forced to fill in the power vacuum and intervene to provide something very important (indeed, essential) that some have destroyed through their “freedom of choice”.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That depends on how you look at it I would think. Does the U.S. government intervene more or less than those of the past? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.[/quote]
Freudian slip?
[/quote]

I don’t follow.[/quote]

You asked whether the United States interferes more or less than past governments and answered “no.” You should have answered either “more” or “less” if you believe one or the other is true. Your “no” would be the proper answer for someone who believes the United States government is just like others.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That depends on how you look at it I would think. Does the U.S. government intervene more or less than those of the past? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.[/quote]
Freudian slip?
[/quote]

I don’t follow.[/quote]

You asked whether the United States interferes more or less than past governments and answered “no.” You should have answered either “more” or “less” if you believe one or the other is true. Your “no” would be the proper answer for someone who believes the United States government is just like others.[/quote]

Lol, I suppose you’re right… I would say they intervene less than governments of the past.

[quote] H Factor:

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. Your asking government officials to all come to the same conclusion about how much government is the minimum amount we need? [/quote]

Far from impossible, that is the work handled by a democracy, and take a look around - as of 2015, managing that balance through democracy has works out fairly well.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] H Factor:

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. Your asking government officials to all come to the same conclusion about how much government is the minimum amount we need? [/quote]

Far from impossible, that is the work handled by a democracy, and take a look around - as of 2015, managing that balance through democracy has works out fairly well.
[/quote]

That is a matter of opinion, but I would agree that it’s not like it is a horrible existence to live in this country. Although I would counter that it would be even better if more freedom was given to citizens instead of less. Surely you would agree with the numerous unintended consequences of government intervention? It’s not as if every action taken doesn’t produce a new set of issues that may have been avoided if market mechanisms were allowed to produce more freely.

Can you expand on the issue of social libertarianism though? You mentioned it and I asked for examples and then you talked about capital.

Social libertinism? Sure.

Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.

Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.

Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?

And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?

The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.

It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.

[quote]H factor wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, but I would agree that it’s not like it is a horrible existence to live in this country. Although I would counter that it would be even better if more freedom was given to citizens instead of less. Surely you would agree with the numerous unintended consequences of government intervention? It’s not as if every action taken doesn’t produce a new set of issues that may have been avoided if market mechanisms were allowed to produce more freely.

Can you expand on the issue of social libertarianism though? You mentioned it and I asked for examples and then you talked about capital.
[/quote]

I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Social libertinism? Sure.

Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.

Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.

Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?

And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?

The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.

It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.[/quote]

I don’t think women, gays, blacks etc would share your rose tinted nostalgia for a time where women were relegated to being a domestic servant, gays were imprisoned and criminalised and blacks were repressed and murdered.
The past was not as free as it currently is.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, but I would agree that it’s not like it is a horrible existence to live in this country. Although I would counter that it would be even better if more freedom was given to citizens instead of less. Surely you would agree with the numerous unintended consequences of government intervention? It’s not as if every action taken doesn’t produce a new set of issues that may have been avoided if market mechanisms were allowed to produce more freely.

Can you expand on the issue of social libertarianism though? You mentioned it and I asked for examples and then you talked about capital.
[/quote]

I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)[/quote]

Why are libertarians frothing at the mouth over tax rates and regulation but ignore and don’t publicly call for the removal of two heavy regulations and impositions of the free market. LLC’s and Child labour.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Why are libertarians frothing at the mouth over tax rates and regulation but ignore and don’t publicly call for the removal of two heavy regulations and impositions of the free market. LLC’s and Child labour.
[/quote]

Why should libertarians have a problem with LLCs? Other than to point out that government should not play a role in their recognition, libertarianism is not concerned with such matters.

I have a problem with child labor laws. I actually tried to point that out in either this thread or another, earlier today.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Social libertinism? Sure.

Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.

Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.

Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?

And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?

The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.

It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.[/quote]

I don’t think women, gays, blacks etc would share your rose tinted nostalgia for a time where women were relegated to being a domestic servant, gays were imprisoned and criminalised and blacks were repressed and murdered.
The past was not as free as it currently is.[/quote]

As absurd a non-sequitur as I have seen in PWI. Traditional family structures have no correlation to Jim Crow or female political and economic equality. Just because all existed in the past doesn’t mean a return to one means a return to all.

Just awful.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, but I would agree that it’s not like it is a horrible existence to live in this country. Although I would counter that it would be even better if more freedom was given to citizens instead of less. Surely you would agree with the numerous unintended consequences of government intervention? It’s not as if every action taken doesn’t produce a new set of issues that may have been avoided if market mechanisms were allowed to produce more freely.

Can you expand on the issue of social libertarianism though? You mentioned it and I asked for examples and then you talked about capital.
[/quote]

I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)[/quote]

No, they are functionally interchangeable. Both are built on a foundation of non-judgmentalism and a refusal to use opprobrium - cultural, legal, or otherwise - to prevent people from engaging in behavior that leads to bad social results.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)[/quote]

No, they are functionally interchangeable. Both are built on a foundation of non-judgmentalism and a refusal to use opprobrium - cultural, legal, or otherwise - to prevent people from engaging in behavior that leads to bad social results.
[/quote]

False. Libertarianism is concerned solely with the proper use of physical force. A libertarian can, while encouraging others to do the same, exclude anyone he wants from his property; he can discriminate based on sex, race, sexuality, sexual promiscuity, and/or anything he wants.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)[/quote]

No, they are functionally interchangeable. Both are built on a foundation of non-judgmentalism and a refusal to use opprobrium - cultural, legal, or otherwise - to prevent people from engaging in behavior that leads to bad social results.
[/quote]

False. Libertarianism is concerned solely with the proper use of physical force. A libertarian can, while encouraging others to do the same, exclude anyone he wants from his property; he can discriminate based on sex, race, sexuality, sexual promiscuity, and/or anything he wants.[/quote]

As a corollary to that, libertarianism endorses that other people are free to do what they want and the only opprobrium or prohibition expressed as to their behavior is, hey, you can do whatever you want, you just can’t do it on my property if I tell you can’t. That’s the only limitation a libertarian would put on such behaviors, meaning they would otherwise let bad behaviors run free without judgment.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said, and pretty much what every libertarian I have ever encountered has said - and it is based on non-judgmentalism.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I believe that he mentioned social LIBERTINISM, which is very different from libertarianism. In fact, the two are unrelated.

(For anyone having trouble understanding the difference: TB’s position is pretty much equivalent to saying that a libertarian can’t either prefer or encourage others to prefer Fords over Chevrolets. The libertarian position is that regardless of which one prefers, those who prefer the opposite should not be jailed, fined, or killed.)[/quote]

No, they are functionally interchangeable. Both are built on a foundation of non-judgmentalism and a refusal to use opprobrium - cultural, legal, or otherwise - to prevent people from engaging in behavior that leads to bad social results.
[/quote]

False. Libertarianism is concerned solely with the proper use of physical force. A libertarian can, while encouraging others to do the same, exclude anyone he wants from his property; he can discriminate based on sex, race, sexuality, sexual promiscuity, and/or anything he wants.[/quote]

As a corollary to that, libertarianism endorses that other people are free to do what they want and the only opprobrium or prohibition expressed as to their behavior is, hey, you can do whatever you want, you just can’t do it on my property if I tell you can’t. That’s the only limitation a libertarian would put on such behaviors, meaning they would otherwise let bad behaviors run free without judgment.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said, and pretty much what every libertarian I have ever encountered has said - and it is based on non-judgmentalism.
[/quote]

What other prohibition do you want? It’s not non-judgmentalism; it’s non-violation of property rights.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Social libertinism? Sure.

Think about how life looked before what is called the Sexual Revolution, especially in terms of family and the social structure it fit into. Monogamy. Needs of the children put before the needs of the parents. Stability. Moral training. Economic security. Independence from the state.

Then the Sexual Revolution, a libertarian argument that freedom needed to be first among all those antiquated notions and prudish social strictures. People need to be liberated from such conservative restraints.

Eschew monogamy. Wanna cat around? Your needs are more important than keeping it in your pants and staying loyal to the family and the needs of the kids. Wanna swing? Sure, feel free - ignore important social norms that keep families whole and less inclined to disruption. Out of wedlock children? Sure - martiage is outdated and suffocating anyway. Why reinforce such suffocation to the kids?

And so on. Now look - what is left of the family as the safe institution for kids to be raised, especially in places like inner cities or rural areas? Fractured. Kids are lucky to have two parents. Dad can’t keep it in his pants, can’t be tied down to one woman. He is free - but at what expense to his kids?

The family disintegrated, the state steps in the power vacuum to help feed and take care of the kids left behind by dad’s joyous exercise of liberty.

It wasn’t always so, as we all know. Other pressures have hurt, too, but the end result of the norm changing of the Sexual Revolution has doomed more children to suffer because of “liberty’s” erosion of important social institutions that people needed to be “liberated” from.[/quote]

This is a pretty large leap. So because some people started having looser restrictions on accepted societal norms for sex that was followed by all this bad shit in regards to the family? That seems a lot like the X happened and then Y happened and they must be the cause of one another. I think it’s quite the leap. And since we’re praising the great leviathan isn’t it weird that the same time as all this bad family shit happened we expanded the government at an insane pace?

What is your solution though? Where should the government intervene in bedroom decisions to make things better and how? Why don’t we start with your bedroom activities and make sure you are following all government approved bedroom activity because it is important that we force these decisions upon people because the state knows better than individuals.

Look Dads not raising kids is a bad thing…but I don’t think it’s as simple as saying because we have freedom dads don’t raise kids. I think that’s a weird stance to take. Maybe people take less of an initiative to help their own because the government has taken a larger role. Maybe people don’t feel that pressure because the collective will step in and fix all the wrongs.