Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ergo, it's a fantasy that cannot work in the real world.
Well, I don't think its a complete fantasy. I think the root of libertarianism. Is a complete lack of trust of the government. The only way to move in the direction of libertarianism. Is for the government to show how corrupt and wasteful it is. The only reason we have seen such a surge of libertarianism in recent years. Is because more and more people have completely lost faith in the ability of the government to do basically anything at all.
The reason the US government started on such a libertarian note. Was that the United States was created as a result of a complete disdain for the British government, and its constant abuses of power(which in hindsight, weren't even that bad).
The only way to maintain a libertarian government. Is if you can sustain that mistrust of the government basically indefinitely. I have been trying to come up with a way to maintain a constant mistrust of our government. But it seems like the only effective ways to roll back the government. Would be privatizing education(public schools support government agendas) and supporting more diversity(especially open-immigration, ironically enough).
By breaking the country into a series of "communities". It would divide the country so much ideologically, that no one would trust anyone else with any power whatsoever. For instance, the Amish aren't going to be in favor of big government. I mean, what do you think the Amish think about taxes?
I suppose I meant "more libertarian". As in, the United States was far more libertarian in the past than it is today.
Why did America become "less libertarian"? Because of jealousy, greed, and fear.
In my mind, what libertarianism looks like in practice. Would be something similar to the "Amish" communities in America. Which is basically what America more looked like in the past, under a more limited government.
Are the Amish an example of a failed state? I mean, which will collapse first, the Amish communities of this country, or the US government?
With that said. I don't particularly like to use the Amish as an example of what libertarian society would look like in particular. Because they have an aversion to technology. But rather, libertarianism tends to favor "tight-knit" voluntary communities, of "like-minded" people. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily have an aversion to technology. But libertarianism probably isn't very capable of supporting "large cities".
A libertarian nation, would generally favor small towns, independent farmers/producers, and religion(regardless of what Penn Jillette thinks). It would look a lot more like what Thomas Jefferson wanted for America. Than New York City.
So basically libertarians can't survive outside of small town rural communities which is why it has never worked in any city or country. The US was never libertarian, but one could say the rural parts of the country were because they were sparsely populated and much easier for handful of people to govern themselves, but the cities were nothing libertarian.
So basically libertarians can't survive outside of small town rural communities which is why it has never worked in any city or country. The US was never libertarian, but one could say the rural parts of the country were because they were sparsely populated and much easier for handful of people to govern themselves, but the cities were nothing libertarian.
I would mostly agree with that statement. Cities have never really been libertarian. And there are a variety of problems when it comes to cities.
First, cities historically have largely been built as a result of government spending or control in some way. I mean, if you look at modern America. A very large number of the largest cities are state capitols(and that wasn't always the case), even more of them are located directly next to military bases, or they rely heavily on state-subsidized colleges, or are the location of a Federal Reserve bank(and thus become centers of finance). I mean, Washington D.C. is growing in leaps and bounds. Why? Well, for one reason only. It is the nations capital.
If you look at the United States. The tax money raised by the "tariff of abominations" in the early 1800's. Where do you think that money was spent? Easy, it was almost always spent to "encourage American industry". Basically, tax money was raised in the south, then sent to places like New York City to subsidize its industry. To do things like build factories, develop their ports, to build railroads, etc. And then of course, the national banks of the United States had always been located in New York City, making it the de facto center of national finance(you can thank Alexander Hamilton for that).
Without government spending, American industry wouldn't have grown nearly as rapidly. Or at least it would have been far more "diffuse". Which means, far fewer people would have moved to places like New York City. Because there wouldn't have been nearly as many jobs there. And far more people would have instead went into rural areas, especially in the south. As that "tax revenue" would have stayed in the south instead of being transferred to the north.
I mean, just ask yourself. In a libertarian world. Could New York City even exist? I mean, in my opinion, the elimination of the Federal Reserve banking system alone, would empty out half of New York City. A libertarian government would cause Washington D.C. to shrink to probably 1/10th its current size. A reduction in the size of government, tied in with he elimination of national sponsorship of education, would empty out cities like Boston, and Austin(which rely heavily on government and their colleges).
I mean, name a city that would actually grow in a libertarian state?
Actually most big cities in this country are port cities and major commerce hubs, most capital cities are smaller with a few exceptions.
NYC was founded on being a commerce hub and trade port with its location to the Atlantic and Hudson. NYC would be a big city no matter what form of government was in place.
I don't think there's evidence at all that freer markets = more prosperity. Eastern Europe is in many ways worse off today than it was during the USSR days.
Also countries like Hong Kong and Singapore have some socialistic policies that are overlooked, they are far from Galt's Gulch.I also think they undercount poverty.
I would say though. Sort of ironically, the country would be more dispersed. But yet, more compact.
Think of it like this. Why aren't there slums in America? Well, mostly because slums are illegal.
In the absence of government regulation. I think you you would end up both with a disperse population overall. But in certain areas, you could see a huge increase in population densities.
I like to use the "old New York City" as a frame of reference. Where in the "lower east side". The average two-bedroom apartment had something like ten people living in it. Mostly because people were eager to "save money", and it was a very convenient place to live at the time.
If you read the book "How the other half lives". It might give you an insight more into the world of the lower east side. Where people of usually a single ethnic background all lived together in very close-quarters, usually on a single street. There was one street for Jews, one for Italians, one for Irish, etc.
Another frame of reference I might use to imagine a libertarian world. Would be "Kowloon walled city".
I think in certain areas close to strategic economic locations(IE a factory, or port, or a stop on a rail line, etc). You would most likely see very dense low-cost housing spring up.
In fact, my view of a libertarian society. Is a world where the government doesn't even build roads. And as a result, transit by rail would be much more cost effective than it is today. The number of rail lines would increase dramatically. And "stops" on the rail lines would have a huge impact on where people would live. Especially the poor.
In my mind, it both sounds awesome, and also, it sounds chaotic. It makes me really excited either way.
I don't think Libertarianism can work. People have too much self interest for that to happen. The issue is in one of the core precepts of Libertarianism, which is equal opportunity with unequal outcomes. When people start to accumulate wealth and influence in society there will be a strong temptation to use those to build up the state to cement those gains, and factions will start doing that and that will basically undermine a Libertarian system that was started from scratch. Converting an existing system to Libertarianism will be even more difficult since those factions already exist, are powerful and are unwilling to give up the reigns of power they control.
Actually most big cities in this country are port cities and major commerce hubs, most capital cities are smaller with a few exceptions.
NYC was founded on being a commerce hub and trade port with its location to the Atlantic and Hudson. NYC would be a big city no matter what form of government was in place.
Look, everyone knows NYC is the largest financial center in the United States. The largest Federal Reserve bank is in New York city. Wall Street is in New York city. Without the Federal Reserve bank and Wall Street, New York City would be a shell of its current self.
Much of the industrial growth of NYC in the 1800's was because of government investment in that industrial growth. In fact, John C. Calhoun derides such "investment" in his 1850 speech to Congress. When he talks about how most new immigrants to America in the 1800's were moving to places like New York City. Causing the population balance between the North and South to swing heavily in the favor of the North. And that that was a result of the "taxes" collected from tariffs in the south, being spent in the North to subsidize industrial growth in places like New York City.
Sure, the reason New York City became the primary center of industry. Was because it had a great location to be the center of trade in the North. But the government certainly helped it along.
Point is, without government interventions. Most major cities in this country would never have grown to their current size. And even more, without the government, they could not maintain their current size.
A good example of this is my city, Oklahoma City. It is the state capitol. And where I live is heavily reliant on Tinker Air Force Base. If the state capitol wasn't here, and if Tinker wasn't here. The population of Oklahoma City would be significantly smaller than it is right now.
If you look around states. Most small towns are emptying out. As a general rule, the only small towns which are "surviving", are usually "county seats". Otherwise, they better have a state college located there, a military base, a prison, or something else of the sort. The government most certainly has completely taken over the economy of most parts of the country.
I would say, the only exception to this rule. Would possibly be "oil towns". Here in Oklahoma, there are plenty of small towns that are doing well as a result of oil and gas exploration in those areas. But they are still small towns, and their growth is basically forever limited unless the government begins spending a bunch of money there.
Look, everyone knows NYC is the largest financial center in the United States. The largest Federal Reserve bank is in New York city. Wall Street is in New York city. Without the Federal Reserve bank and Wall Street, New York City would be a shell of its current self.
Much of the industrial growth of NYC in the 1800's was because of government investment in that industrial growth. In fact, John C. Calhoun derides such "investment" in his 1850 speech to Congress. When he talks about how most new immigrants to America in the 1800's were moving to places like New York City. Causing the population balance between the North and South to swing heavily in the favor of the North. And that that was a result of the "taxes" collected from tariffs in the south, being spent in the North to subsidize industrial growth in places like New York City.
Sure, the reason New York City became the primary center of industry. Was because it had a great location to be the center of trade in the North. But the government certainly helped it along.
Point is, without government interventions. Most major cities in this country would never have grown to their current size. And even more, without the government, they could not maintain their current size.
A good example of this is my city, Oklahoma City. It is the state capitol. And where I live is heavily reliant on Tinker Air Force Base. If the state capitol wasn't here, and if Tinker wasn't here. The population of Oklahoma City would be significantly smaller than it is right now.
If you look around states. Most small towns are emptying out. As a general rule, the only small towns which are "surviving", are usually "county seats". Otherwise, they better have a state college located there, a military base, a prison, or something else of the sort. The government most certainly has completely taken over the economy of most parts of the country.
I would say, the only exception to this rule. Would possibly be "oil towns". Here in Oklahoma, there are plenty of small towns that are doing well as a result of oil and gas exploration in those areas. But they are still small towns, and their growth is basically forever limited unless the government begins spending a bunch of money there.
Wall Street isn't a government program or anything like that, it is heavily regulated by the government these days though, but without the government, it would still exist. New York isn't really a good example for you because New York has always been a major hub, even when the Dutch settled there, it was a good trade route then.
I am sure you are correct about many of the larger midwest cities, many of them do rely heavily on the government to exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
