[Khenlein]

On monopolies and Government intervention in the economy:

" We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice."

"The arbitrary and high-handed actions of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration invade property rights, raise costs and unjustly impose upon the business community........ We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act."

" Government fiscal and monetary measures that artificially foster business expansion guarantee an eventual increase in unemployment rather than curtailing it. Government programs are inefficient, paternalistic, demeaning and invasive of privacy..... We call for the immediate cessation of such fiscal and monetary policies, as well as any governmental attempts to affect employment levels. We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act. We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work. To speed the time when governmental programs are replaced by effective private institutions we advocate dollar-for-dollar tax credits for all charitable contributions"

The Libertarian Party advocates, as it seems, an end to any Governmental (public) oversight over monopolies, workplace working conditions, the age of workers, etc etc.

If I may inquire, how would Libertarian America differ in from late 19th Century America? When a few massive monopolies excersised enormous economic, and consequently, political power. Becoming as great a threat to Liberty as any landed aristocracy of eras past. When coal mines and unsafe factories were filled to capacity with children, as young as five or six. Never mind gurantees of minimum wages (which presently, are far from being a 'living wage').

And if you could, refrain from ringing the bell of personal choice, saying those people could have choosen another path. As I, do not for a moment believe that mothers would send their pre-adolescent children to work in dangerous conditions, if they believed they had any choice whatsoever.

Rather, I would prefer someone to make clear how future Libertarian America would differentiate itself from that previous America, and why (thats assuming of course, that Libertarians wouldn't see that America as the ideal).

P.S-
" Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing."

What precisely does this mean?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

To begin with, 19th century America wasn't as it's usually characterized. Megacorporations did not dominate the economy at all. The economy was comprised mostly of small businesses (financed by personal equity built through savings, not loans). Large corporations certainly did exist, but none were dominant. Even Standard Oil, frequently cited, was not a monopoly. It controlled 90% of the market at its peak (less than Microsoft today), a position it reached primarily through relentless cost-cutting and savvy marketing. While some amounts of political pressure were used, Standard Oil mainly competed in the market--it rarely resorted to government protection, as corporations today do all the time. Soon, huge new oilfields were discovered in Texas and Oklahoma--by Standard's new competitors, Gulf Oil and Phillips. By the time Standard Oil was broken up, it controlled less than 10% of the market (the breakup was primarily politically motivated by Standard's competitors).

What happened in the late 19th century was that financiers and industrialists, along with their backers in the Republican Party, attempted to recreate the axis between government and big business which had dominated the 18th century. This arose out of the fact that in the late antebellum new entrepreneurs, armed with up to date capital equipment (often backed by venture capital), were able to outcompete established businesses and grab huge amounts of market share. Thanks to the fact that from 1841 the banking system was completely free of regulations (the Bank of the United States had been abolished in 1832, and the various state banks were outlawed in 1841), it was quite easy for someone with a good idea to obtain financing. Furthermore, the low tariff rates of the time meant that business faced overseas competition as well (primarily from Great Britain, but also from Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and other European countries). Dismayed with all this competition, the established industrial concerns and financiers turned the government for help. Thus, the Republican Party, a neo-mercantilist party more reminiscent of Colbert than Smith in philosophy, was born.

The Republic Party sought to establish a huge wall of protectionism and use state power to restrict competition and subsidize favored interests. To pay for this, it intended to use tariff revenues from the South. Dixie wouldn't play ball, so it had to be invaded. With the Confederacy vanquished, the mercantilist program could impede full-scale. The first steps, protectionism and national banking, were quickly completed. By the end of the Civil War, the basic tariff rate was 54% (effectively pricing out most imports), and the National Banking System had been established. The NBS gave three national banks a monopoly on note issue, and they were permitted to emit credit to their member banks under certain rules. While the notes had to be backed by specie, fractional note issue was permitted. Since these banks effectively held monopolies on credit creation, they could overinflate the currency, which led to the introduction of something previously not seen in the United States--the business cycle (aside from the wave of bank failures in 1819 related to large-scale mining collapses in the west). Furthermore, the restriction of competition meant that it was now more difficult for entrepreneurs to gain financing (though still very easy compared to today). The government also introduced an income tax, primarily designed to impose costs on new entrepreneurs (and to finance the unpopular but very expensive Civil War), but this was declared unconstitutional in 1878. The last plank of the program was subsidization, which began with the government financing of the transcontinental railroads. Railroads received free or significantly discounted land, and government coercion was used to force yeoman farmers to sell their land undercost. Jesse James, whom you may have heard of, committed his crimes in response to the government-sanctioned crimes of the railroad companies. There were a number of other subsidies as well, though they're not worthing going through (one amusing one is that the federal government paid a bounty to fishermen for all cod caught).

Big business now felt reasonably secure, and they attempted to form large cartels (trusts in the vernacular of the day) which would dominate the economy. However, a problem emerged. The economy was still very free. Every time a cartel formed, it was either broken by one of the members, or new entrepreneurs smashed it. The leading financiers of the day then agitated for regulation to prevent "exploitation" of consumers. This bore fruit in 1871, with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The result of the ICC was that small railroad operators went out of business as a result of fines imposed and expensive regulation, so the railroads consolidated to a much smaller number of operators. In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. This was primarily due to the lobbying of Morgan, who hoped that it could be used against his business enemies, the Rockefellers, Kuhns, Loebs, etc. While it was indeed used against them, it was also used against him, as each faction had various backers in government. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, tended to back Morgan, whereas his successor, Taft, tended to back Rockefeller.

While railroads had reaped the benefits of regulation, other industries were not. They only had the basic aid of protectionism, which had been slashed under Cleveland to a basic rate of 28% (low enough that many now again faced overseas competition, especially, oddly enough, in the production of bicycles from Japan). Furthermore, financing was still, from their perspective, far too easy for entrepreneurs to attain. As a result, the Federal Reserve System, the progressive income tax, and the FTC were created. The Federal Reserve System, created to "smooth out the business cycle", has only aggravated it. Since its creation in 1913, the dollar has lost 96% of its value. Previously, the dollar tended to appreciate in value. The real reason for the creation of the Fed was to restrict credit to entrepreneurs and to allow large banks to further inflate currency and create credit out of thin air. As the credit created had no backing whatsoever, it tended to restribute wealth to the financial sector (especially after 1971, when the last backing of specie disappeared). The income tax we've already touched upon, and the FTC was designed to do for industry, commerce, and finance what the ICC had done for railroads. The results, from the point of view of big business, was very successful. Big business came to increasingly dominate the economy, and it became far more difficult for new entrepreneurs to compete against big business. The political backers of this program reaped rewards as well, as the government, armed with the power to create credit and the power to tax incomes, was able to greatly increase its scope and size. Since the creation of the income tax and Federal Reserve System in 1913, federal spending (inflation adjusted) has increased [sic] 13,592%.

As to your other concern, child labor, minimum wage, and unsafe working conditions, the primary problem with your concerns here is that that median incomes, productivity, and living standards today are far higher than they were then. To ban child labor in, say, 1880, would mean that an immigrant family in New York would starve, since the labor of the child was needed to feed the family. To ban child labor in, say, 1960, was irrelevant in terms of survival. While some families would be impacted, no one would starve, and few would be tossed out on the street. As it was, child labor was banned in 1935, the primary reason being FDR's pandering to big labor, primarily the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The minimum wage was created for the same reason. By banning child labor and imposing a minimum wage, low skilled labor was priced out of the market. This benefitted big labor, as union members were (relatively) highly-skilled and more productive. It is for this reason, despite today's relatively low minimum wage, that 26% of teenagers are unemployed (remember that unemployment is defined by persons seeking work who are not employed, not all those without jobs).

As for safety regulations, there is again the time problem. In the 19th century, society was significantly less developed. Workers were far less productive, capital equipment was often dangerous to operate, and advanced engineering technology did not exist to make mines or even many factories safe. Imposing safety standards at that time would've made mining, forestry, and certain others occupations tremendously expensive. Basically, it would've eliminated the modern industrial division of labor. Per capita accidents and workplace deaths dropped year after year, despite the fact that there were zero safety regulations. Why? Technology improved, and it was to the advantage of employers to improve safety, as no workers want to die. Furthermore, unsafe industries, then as now, did carry high risk premiums. Low safety was compensated for by higher wages. In any case, when safety regulations were first imposed, in 1935, advancing technology had dramatically lowered workplace injuries. Employers could afford to comply with these new regulations without significant costs, and the regulations had little impact on safety. Had these regulations been imposed in the 19th century, on the other hand, an economic holocaust would've been the result.

Now, to answer your question: how would a libertarian society differ from the 19th century?

• The most glaring example is free trade. In the late 19th century, the United States was essentially a closed market. In a libertarian society, there would be tremendous import competition, so competition would intensify, economic efficiency would increase, and consumers would reap the rewards.
  
• No onerous restrictions against pornography, sexual freedom, alcohol, or other issues of personal freedom.
  
• Free banking and free-market money. There would be no national banking system.
  
• No regulatory system designed to assist big business (or regulations for any purpose).
  
• No power of eminent domain, no attempts to coerce private landowners to sell their land below cost to cronies.
  
• No corporate welfare.
  

That about sums it up, though there are other issues.

" Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing."

What precisely does this mean?

It means that the Bureau for Indian Affairs would be dissolved. Reservations would stop receiving federal and state subsidies, and Indians would no longer be subject to a byzantine set a restrictions on how reservation land can be used with regard to hunting, fishing, and access by the public (these regulations are actually far less onerous that what the states typically impose upon landowners outside reservations).

[Khenlein]

Splendid response, I expected a sermon of rhetoric about the onus being on indiviuals or some other tautological recitation (as seems to be the M.O of all the lefties arguing for whatever flavor of the week Socialism they are espousing). Instead, something reasonable, something empirical, as thorough as one can hope for, considering this medium.

Economically, I find myself generally in agreement with Libertarian principles and 'transitional' policies. Especially when they tie into the political (and when do they not?), viz, vastly reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.

It means that the Bureau for Indian Affairs would be dissolved. Reservations would stop receiving federal and state subsidies, and Indians would no longer be subject to a byzantine set a restrictions on how reservation land can be used with regard to hunting, fishing, and access by the public (these regulations are actually far less onerous that what the states typically impose upon landowners outside reservations).

This is what I thought was meant by that plank in the platform. It was just that when I read about restoring property rights, I imagined that could be misconstrued as advocating the 'handing over' of the land mass that constitutes the United States over to the native americans. Obviously, a completly unrealisitic and unfeasible goal, -though not completely without support-.

No onerous restrictions against pornography, sexual freedom, alcohol, or other issues of personal freedom.

I had the good fortune of seeing Mr. Badnarik (sp?) debating along with/against Mr. Cobb on C-Span not too long ago. When asked a question on a subject I can't at the moment remember, he answered something to the effect that "Governments should not legislate morality", which I found to be an odd statement. As it is impossible for a Government not to legislate morality. If said Government makes it illegal to walk down a street nude, they are legislating morality. If they make it legal to walk down a street nude, they are legislating morality. If they simply make no law addressing the subject, they by default make it legal, and are again legislating morality. So, its merely a matter of degree really. All of which leads me to a point -yes, I'm getting to one-.

Libertarianism, is to my understanding, nothing more than the protection of indiviual Liberties and freedoms against any Government encroachment. Great.

The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

How far back, chronologically, do these protections go?-The Platform sensibly leaves abortion well enough alone, as a Libertarian could in good faith and in adherence to Libertarian principles, be either pro-life or anti-life-. And how, since the Government has been disallowed from affirming or negating any particular sexual lifestyle, would said Government decide what constitutes 'abuse', when weighed against familial freedom of action/ideas. As it seems that a Libertarian government would laugh at the notion of an age of consent, this area seems like murky waters to me.-You may see this as a rather small point in an overall very good principal of government, but I am especially sensitive when it comes to protecting children from abuse, especially when it originates within their own homes-.