tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Rshermr]

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked.

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

Becoming a libertarian without that single factor would prove whomever became one to be an idiot. Which you, with your post, have again proven.

So instead we should jump on the central planner bandwagon. Yea, pass. You were saying something about being an idiot...

But then, again, you have opinion. No impartial source agrees with you. So, we should believe you, right??? Because you are an impartial and authoritative source. In your own mind.

 

[kiwiman127]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

with non-partisan facts.

 

[jasonnfree]

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

The "American" Left never quite grasps that communism sucked so badly they built walls to keep people IN

So you like to believe. I know of no single progressive that does not know exactly how bad the ussr administration and economics were. Only foolish, illiterate don tools believe what you believe. Again, me boy, you are proving my statements. You are incapable of actual rational thought.
Communism, like libertarianism, never has had and never will have a chance to succeed. Simply goes against what the people of any nation want. And in the end, the people will get rid of either communism or libertarianism. Only neo-cons believe differently.

China's doing pretty good economically for a communist country.

 

[jasonnfree]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

Wait a minute Edward. First you say communism can't succeed then you praise China for being an economic success. Which one is it?

 

[Rshermr]

You are avoiding your problem, me boy. You are following an economic policy that does not work.

Actually, it worked beautifully.

I did not say anything that is not truth.

Yes, you did. You said the US was not a libertarian economy before the Progressive movement. That is not true.



You're repeating your lies, again.

America until the early twentieth century for starters. Those economies doing best today, while not true libertarian economies, are a damn site closer than the more centrally planned economies that are failing all around us. Which economies are doing better...Greece, Italy, Portugal (central planners all of them) or Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Switzerland (far more libertarian like)?



"It was in America that the ideas and practices of liberty initially went furthest— and thus it is not surprising that the modern libertarian movement arose here."

The Roots of Modern Libertarian Ideas | Cato Institute

Golly, that was easy.

Now, the reason you can not find a link from an impartial source backing you up is interesting

Lots of links out there. Your Google search engine broken?

Must be lousy following an economic theory that never lasts for any length of time

1780 until about 1913. Pretty long time. It is true that the nanny staters sucking up to the central planners eventually do infect a good society. Time to rid us of the cancer. Cut it out for good.

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right:

Government-built waterways such as the Erie Canal opened up new areas to westward settlers, while improvements in water transportation, most notably the steamboat allowed better movement the Mississippi River and her tributaries. After the 1840s—considered the Golden Age of the steamboat—a new mode of transportation, the railroad, picked up.
A History of the U.S. Economy

Yup, sure sounds like libertarian economics. Govrnment builds canals for the business interests. Sounds pretty socialist, me boy. And railroads. Could not get rail companies to build them, so gave millions of dollars in free right of way to railroad companies. Yup, sure sounds libertarian.

The east was finally and forever linked to the west with the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. The railroads became the driving economic force of America in the second half of the nineteenth century, backed by governmental land grants and multi-national investments. (America.gov).

Same source, me boy. Multi national american government land grants and investment. Provides the MAJOR source for businesses in the country. Perhaps you should provide a link explaining why that is libertarian economics. Taking the money from the citizens and buying right of ways and investing in private companies.

So, if it was a libertarian economy, we can be certain that corporations were not interfered with by government. Since the feds made sure that the states regulated corporations, maybe we should look at the states involvement with the corporations:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Uh, that pretty much seals the deal.

Perhaps you may find that google works just fine here. There is more. Much, much more. But a libertarian economy??? Right.

Imagine what you could learn if you actually tried to look at impartial sources of the economics of this country, even in the early years. Perhaps you can now understand why those saying the us had a libertarian economy in those early years do not even find it worth addressing. You would be laughed out of a college econ class.

 

[Oldstyle]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

Wait a minute Edward. First you say communism can't succeed then you praise China for being an economic success. Which one is it?

China started booming when they got away from central planning and went with more free market solutions, Jason. Communism starved millions to death in China and now that the Chinese are moving away from communism their economy is taking off. They haven't gotten that message yet in North Korea and THEIR economy is still in the Stone Age.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are avoiding your problem, me boy. You are following an economic policy that does not work.

Actually, it worked beautifully.



Yes, you did. You said the US was not a libertarian economy before the Progressive movement. That is not true.



You're repeating your lies, again.

America until the early twentieth century for starters. Those economies doing best today, while not true libertarian economies, are a damn site closer than the more centrally planned economies that are failing all around us. Which economies are doing better...Greece, Italy, Portugal (central planners all of them) or Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Switzerland (far more libertarian like)?



"It was in America that the ideas and practices of liberty initially went furthest— and thus it is not surprising that the modern libertarian movement arose here."

The Roots of Modern Libertarian Ideas | Cato Institute

Golly, that was easy.



Lots of links out there. Your Google search engine broken?



1780 until about 1913. Pretty long time. It is true that the nanny staters sucking up to the central planners eventually do infect a good society. Time to rid us of the cancer. Cut it out for good.

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right:

Yup, sure sounds like libertarian economics. Govrnment builds canals for the business interests. Sounds pretty socialist, me boy. And railroads. Could not get rail companies to build them, so gave millions of dollars in free right of way to railroad companies. Yup, sure sounds libertarian.

The east was finally and forever linked to the west with the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. The railroads became the driving economic force of America in the second half of the nineteenth century, backed by governmental land grants and multi-national investments. (America.gov).

Same source, me boy. Multi national american government land grants and investment. Provides the MAJOR source for businesses in the country. Perhaps you should provide a link explaining why that is libertarian economics. Taking the money from the citizens and buying right of ways and investing in private companies.

So, if it was a libertarian economy, we can be certain that corporations were not interfered with by government. Since the feds made sure that the states regulated corporations, maybe we should look at the states involvement with the corporations:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Uh, that pretty much seals the deal.

Perhaps you may find that google works just fine here. There is more. Much, much more. But a libertarian economy??? Right.

Imagine what you could learn if you actually tried to look at impartial sources of the economics of this country, even in the early years. Perhaps you can now understand why those saying the us had a libertarian economy in those early years do not even find it worth addressing. You would be laughed out of a college econ class.

As usual your knowledge of railroad economic history is as lacking as your knowledge of most economics! ( What DO you have knowledge in, Rshermr?)

The right of way land was not "free". In return for being given land the railroads were required to ship US Government goods without charge...something that continued up until after WWII. The US Government came out WAY ahead on that deal so it's hard to see how anyone could describe what took place as a "free" transfer of land.

Once again you're a day late and a dollar short...

 

[theHawk]

Raegan increased the military, which I don't really consider "the government" because they don't govern anybody.

I don't think anyone ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative, he could of done a lot more to cut welfare and other useless government agencies.

So I guess your arguement is that just because Raegan and Bush really weren't as fiscally conservative as we would of liked, the idea of being fiscally conservative is fallacious? Kind of a stupid premise isn't it?

But I suppose you'll explain to us how increasing the debt by trillions more is a better route than at least trying to cut the enormous spending our government is addicted to.

The federal government has been aptly described as an insurance company with an army. You want to take the army part out of the discussion and that's OK. Let's take the insurance company part out too, as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are far more efficient than private companies providing similar services. What's left? And just what parts of it are "useless"?

Folks like you generally want to cut things like the FDA and, oh well, so what if a couple hundred thousand people die each year from tainted drugs made in China? But corporate welfare is peachy keen because you don't see it. You can see food inspectors and food stamp recipients, but where have you observed the domestic production deduction and the transfer pricing rules?

You're not dumb, you just go after what you can see and let your imagination run wild. It's the stuff you don't see that is the real waste and corruption.

Social Security is far more efficient? SS is on the verge of going bankrupt.

Useless programs are welfare, Department of Education, and the EPA definately need to go. Not all agencies should be done away with, but they almost all need to be scaled back.

 

[eflatminor]

But to those who understand, CATO is a joke when it comes to impartial information.

You go with that...

 

[eflatminor]

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right

No one ever claimed the US was a pure libertarian society with no government meddling in any way, shape or form. You nanny state central planners have infected attempts to do so since the beginning of time. However, that does not change the fact the US was the most libertarian economy to date before the Progressive era and it THRIVED. You want to point out the relatively few cases of meddling during that period, fine, but that does not change the fact that the more socialistic we've become the more harm than good that's been done.

We're suggesting, "me child", that we move in the direction of libertarianism, because that what has worked best in the past and it's what's working best today in countries moving away from socialism.

You're being obtuse and everyone knows it. Ironic you condescendingly call others "boy" when that's exactly how you choose to debate.

 

[Rshermr]

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right

No one ever claimed the US was a pure libertarian society with no government meddling in any way, shape or form. You nanny state central planners have infected attempts to do so since the beginning of time. However, that does not change the fact the US was the most libertarian economy to date before the Progressive era and it THRIVED. You want to point out the relatively few cases of meddling during that period, fine, but that does not change the fact that the more socialistic we've become the more harm than good that's been done.

We're suggesting, "me child", that we move in the direction of libertarianism, because that what has worked best in the past and it's what's working best today in countries moving away from socialism.

You're being obtuse and everyone knows it. Ironic you condescendingly call others "boy" when that's exactly how you choose to debate.

Lets see, step, what you ACTUALY said. Post 15, this thread:

I said:

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked.

AND, you said:

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

So, you did NOT disagree with me that there had never been a single case where a libertarian economy had worked??
Really, step, a little bit of integrity would be helpful. That is one of the problems with trying to have a discussion with a libertarian. The concept of libertarian economy, for instance, can mean anything that they want. Hell, there are libertarians who argue that the us TODAY is libertarian. But commonly, like you, step, they believe that any developing economy that has come from the dark ages to a agrarian economy on it's way to a whatever it will be some day, is LIBERTARIAN. The fact that it has all sorts of non libertarian government controls that are providing guidance and support for those capitalists running the business of that country is of no concern. Regardless, the libertarian mind, as is yours, tries as hard as possible to find a way to point to that fledgling economy and call it a libertarian success. Though, inevitably, that economy moves AWAY from libertarian capitalism and toward socialist capitalism. Always. And yet, libertarians always believe that if ONLY the population of the country would turn to libertarian ideals all would be great.
What IS true is that as libertarian based economies start to develop, they ALWAYS fail. And they do so for a simple reason. The people of those countries do not like being exploited by the corporatists that evolve into more and more powerful factors int their economies. Now, while the libertarians would like to suggest it is great for them, it NEVER EVER IS GREAT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY.
So, we are back to the same old thing. You are a libertarian with no libertarian economy to point to as a successful model. You are simply groping to point at starting economies, even those with a great deal of governmental involvement, as being libertarian successes. What they are, of course, are economies with both socialist and capitalist characteristics on their way to developing into something. And yet, with around 200 countries in this world, you can find none, not even a single nation, that has gone on to develop into a libertarian paradise. Which, me boy, makes libertarians look like what they are: economic idealists who's ideal is incapable of EVER working. And, of course, it makes libertarians like you immaterial. You just do not pass the giggle test, me boy.

Wish I could claim this quote. But it was by OLDFART on the first page of this thread. You have proven him SO correct:

If you find a thinking conservative, please send them my way. I want a picture for my scrapbook as they are an endangered species.

And, me boy, thinking conservatives obviously include libertarians. You are definitely one that has given up thinking, and moved to dogma. Good for you.
And relative to how I chose to debate, me boy, it is with truth. I see all libertarians regardless of age as simply boys waiting who will give up the idiocy prior to reaching puberty.

 

[Rshermr]

But to those who understand, CATO is a joke when it comes to impartial information.

You go with that...

Jesus, step. You are such a tool:

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974
Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if any one with an ounce of integrity wanted to research something regarding libertarian economies, why would you go to the very site set up to support it. You must be an idiot if you believe that is where you would ever find impartial information about the concept that they are set up and PAID to support.

So, got it. All can now see where you spend you time, and why your drivel is what it is. Just do everyone a favor, and admit prior to your posts that you are not at all interested in impartiality, or therefor, truth.

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, it worked beautifully.



Yes, you did. You said the US was not a libertarian economy before the Progressive movement. That is not true.



You're repeating your lies, again.

America until the early twentieth century for starters. Those economies doing best today, while not true libertarian economies, are a damn site closer than the more centrally planned economies that are failing all around us. Which economies are doing better...Greece, Italy, Portugal (central planners all of them) or Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Switzerland (far more libertarian like)?



"It was in America that the ideas and practices of liberty initially went furthest— and thus it is not surprising that the modern libertarian movement arose here."

The Roots of Modern Libertarian Ideas | Cato Institute

Golly, that was easy.



Lots of links out there. Your Google search engine broken?



1780 until about 1913. Pretty long time. It is true that the nanny staters sucking up to the central planners eventually do infect a good society. Time to rid us of the cancer. Cut it out for good.

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right:

Yup, sure sounds like libertarian economics. Govrnment builds canals for the business interests. Sounds pretty socialist, me boy. And railroads. Could not get rail companies to build them, so gave millions of dollars in free right of way to railroad companies. Yup, sure sounds libertarian.


Same source, me boy. Multi national american government land grants and investment. Provides the MAJOR source for businesses in the country. Perhaps you should provide a link explaining why that is libertarian economics. Taking the money from the citizens and buying right of ways and investing in private companies.

So, if it was a libertarian economy, we can be certain that corporations were not interfered with by government. Since the feds made sure that the states regulated corporations, maybe we should look at the states involvement with the corporations:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Uh, that pretty much seals the deal.

Perhaps you may find that google works just fine here. There is more. Much, much more. But a libertarian economy??? Right.

Imagine what you could learn if you actually tried to look at impartial sources of the economics of this country, even in the early years. Perhaps you can now understand why those saying the us had a libertarian economy in those early years do not even find it worth addressing. You would be laughed out of a college econ class.

As usual your knowledge of railroad economic history is as lacking as your knowledge of most economics! ( What DO you have knowledge in, Rshermr?)

The right of way land was not "free". In return for being given land the railroads were required to ship US Government goods without charge...something that continued up until after WWII. The US Government came out WAY ahead on that deal so it's hard to see how anyone could describe what took place as a "free" transfer of land.

Once again you're a day late and a dollar short...

Said like a true conservative tool. What percentage of those goods were government goods, me boy. Kind of forgot that. Because that percentage was too small to matter.
Your drivel is never worth thinking about. Just clutter. But to prove it, I thought since I was doing nothing, I would just throw in a few facts to disprove your ignorant rant:

The largest government subsidies in U.S. history financed the railroad boom. Between 1862 and 1872, Congress gave the railroad companies more than 100 million acres of public land and over $64 million in loans and tax breaks…
Fact Checking Claims about the Transcontinental Railroad | Now and Then: an American Social History Project blog

By 1883, the cost ot the US government for railroad subsidies had reached nearly $124M. And those railroad companies were selling off thousands of acres of their free land, making millions of dollars. Yup, no subsidy there.
THE SUBSIDIZED RAILROADS. - View Article - NYTimes.com

So, as a self proclaimed history major, you come at me saying I am ignorant of railroad history. Sorry, oldstyle, as usual, you have no game. Back to the dishes.

 

[eflatminor]

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right

No one ever claimed the US was a pure libertarian society with no government meddling in any way, shape or form. You nanny state central planners have infected attempts to do so since the beginning of time. However, that does not change the fact the US was the most libertarian economy to date before the Progressive era and it THRIVED. You want to point out the relatively few cases of meddling during that period, fine, but that does not change the fact that the more socialistic we've become the more harm than good that's been done.

We're suggesting, "me child", that we move in the direction of libertarianism, because that what has worked best in the past and it's what's working best today in countries moving away from socialism.

You're being obtuse and everyone knows it. Ironic you condescendingly call others "boy" when that's exactly how you choose to debate.

Lets see, step, what you ACTUALY said. Post 15, this thread:

I said:

AND, you said:

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

So, you did NOT disagree with me that there had never been a single case where a libertarian economy had worked??
Really, step, a little bit of integrity would be helpful. That is one of the problems with trying to have a discussion with a libertarian. The concept of libertarian economy, for instance, can mean anything that they want. Hell, there are libertarians who argue that the us TODAY is libertarian. But commonly, like you, step, they believe that any developing economy that has come from the dark ages to a agrarian economy on it's way to a whatever it will be some day, is LIBERTARIAN. The fact that it has all sorts of non libertarian government controls that are providing guidance and support for those capitalists running the business of that country is of no concern. Regardless, the libertarian mind, as is yours, tries as hard as possible to find a way to point to that fledgling economy and call it a libertarian success. Though, inevitably, that economy moves AWAY from libertarian capitalism and toward socialist capitalism. Always. And yet, libertarians always believe that if ONLY the population of the country would turn to libertarian ideals all would be great.
What IS true is that as libertarian based economies start to develop, they ALWAYS fail. And they do so for a simple reason. The people of those countries do not like being exploited by the corporatists that evolve into more and more powerful factors int their economies. Now, while the libertarians would like to suggest it is great for them, it NEVER EVER IS GREAT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY.
So, we are back to the same old thing. You are a libertarian with no libertarian economy to point to as a successful model. You are simply groping to point at starting economies, even those with a great deal of governmental involvement, as being libertarian successes. What they are, of course, are economies with both socialist and capitalist characteristics on their way to developing into something. And yet, with around 200 countries in this world, you can find none, not even a single nation, that has gone on to develop into a libertarian paradise. Which, me boy, makes libertarians look like what they are: economic idealists who's ideal is incapable of EVER working. And, of course, it makes libertarians like you immaterial. You just do not pass the giggle test, me boy.

Wish I could claim this quote. But it was by OLDFART on the first page of this thread. You have proven him SO correct:

If you find a thinking conservative, please send them my way. I want a picture for my scrapbook as they are an endangered species.

And, me boy, thinking conservatives obviously include libertarians. You are definitely one that has given up thinking, and moved to dogma. Good for you.
And relative to how I chose to debate, me boy, it is with truth. I see all libertarians regardless of age as simply boys waiting who will give up the idiocy prior to reaching puberty.

Your childish rants boil to down to this: If there hasn't been an society that was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT libertarian, I'm going to to plug my ears and claim libertarian ideas have no value.

What we all have shown conclusively is that those societies that have embraced libertarian values prosper to a far greater extent than those that embrace statism.

No economy or society or country has ever been 100% anything. There are always conflicting forces that push matters one way or another. But everyone knows this. What is clear is that you are more interested in being a tool than reasonable discourse. Good luck with that.

 

[eflatminor]

Now, if any one with an ounce of integrity wanted to research something regarding libertarian economies, why would you go to the very site set up to support it.

When mainstream media or the hopelessly leftest influenced universities these days begin to even consider the subject, we'll go to them. Until then, we have those that have taken the time to research the subject.

You continue to expose your unwillingness to debate in a reasonable fashion. You're not interested in dialog, only attacks. You remind me of a schoolyard bully. Not too bright but always willing to fight.

Good luck with that too.

 

[Oldstyle]

Lets see about that libertarian economy, me boy. Free enterprise, no government help. Just let the free market go. So, we should expect that the economy prospered with no help from the gov, right:

Yup, sure sounds like libertarian economics. Govrnment builds canals for the business interests. Sounds pretty socialist, me boy. And railroads. Could not get rail companies to build them, so gave millions of dollars in free right of way to railroad companies. Yup, sure sounds libertarian.


Same source, me boy. Multi national american government land grants and investment. Provides the MAJOR source for businesses in the country. Perhaps you should provide a link explaining why that is libertarian economics. Taking the money from the citizens and buying right of ways and investing in private companies.

So, if it was a libertarian economy, we can be certain that corporations were not interfered with by government. Since the feds made sure that the states regulated corporations, maybe we should look at the states involvement with the corporations:



Uh, that pretty much seals the deal.

Perhaps you may find that google works just fine here. There is more. Much, much more. But a libertarian economy??? Right.

Imagine what you could learn if you actually tried to look at impartial sources of the economics of this country, even in the early years. Perhaps you can now understand why those saying the us had a libertarian economy in those early years do not even find it worth addressing. You would be laughed out of a college econ class.

As usual your knowledge of railroad economic history is as lacking as your knowledge of most economics! ( What DO you have knowledge in, Rshermr?)

The right of way land was not "free". In return for being given land the railroads were required to ship US Government goods without charge...something that continued up until after WWII. The US Government came out WAY ahead on that deal so it's hard to see how anyone could describe what took place as a "free" transfer of land.

Once again you're a day late and a dollar short...

Said like a true conservative tool. What percentage of those goods were government goods, me boy. Kind of forgot that. Because that percentage was too small to matter.
Your drivel is never worth thinking about. Just clutter. But to prove it, I thought since I was doing nothing, I would just throw in a few facts to disprove your ignorant rant:

The largest government subsidies in U.S. history financed the railroad boom. Between 1862 and 1872, Congress gave the railroad companies more than 100 million acres of public land and over $64 million in loans and tax breaks…
Fact Checking Claims about the Transcontinental Railroad | Now and Then: an American Social History Project blog

By 1883, the cost ot the US government for railroad subsidies had reached nearly $124M. And those railroad companies were selling off thousands of acres of their free land, making millions of dollars. Yup, no subsidy there.
THE SUBSIDIZED RAILROADS. - View Article - NYTimes.com

So, as a self proclaimed history major, you come at me saying I am ignorant of railroad history. Sorry, oldstyle, as usual, you have no game. Back to the dishes.

LOL...you cite two sources that are fully as ignorant on the subject as you are. Your NY Times article is from 1888! It was written before the railroads paid off 100% pf those bonds they were so worried about and long before the savings that the US Government reaped from their arrangement with the railroads.

The truth of the matter is that because the US Government was able to ship it's goods over the rail system for free for almost 60 years they came out way ahead compared to the small amount it cost them to back the bonds.

As for the land that was sold off? Yes, the railroads were required to sell lands adjacent to the railway right of way in order to finance the construction. That land was sold at extremely low rates to homesteaders. It's a method that the Federal Government utilized to populate vast tracks of the so called "American Desert". And for the "cost" to the US Government to do this? Since much of that land was simply seized from American Indians it didn't cost US citizens much at all. Kind of hard to call the giving away of something that didn't belong to you as a "cost".

Why you choose to debate historic issues with someone who is a history major amuses me. Why don't you stick to pretending to be an economics major before you prove that you're as equally ignorant of history as you are of economics?

 

[Oldstyle]

No one ever claimed the US was a pure libertarian society with no government meddling in any way, shape or form. You nanny state central planners have infected attempts to do so since the beginning of time. However, that does not change the fact the US was the most libertarian economy to date before the Progressive era and it THRIVED. You want to point out the relatively few cases of meddling during that period, fine, but that does not change the fact that the more socialistic we've become the more harm than good that's been done.

We're suggesting, "me child", that we move in the direction of libertarianism, because that what has worked best in the past and it's what's working best today in countries moving away from socialism.

You're being obtuse and everyone knows it. Ironic you condescendingly call others "boy" when that's exactly how you choose to debate.

Lets see, step, what you ACTUALY said. Post 15, this thread:

I said:

AND, you said:


So, you did NOT disagree with me that there had never been a single case where a libertarian economy had worked??
Really, step, a little bit of integrity would be helpful. That is one of the problems with trying to have a discussion with a libertarian. The concept of libertarian economy, for instance, can mean anything that they want. Hell, there are libertarians who argue that the us TODAY is libertarian. But commonly, like you, step, they believe that any developing economy that has come from the dark ages to a agrarian economy on it's way to a whatever it will be some day, is LIBERTARIAN. The fact that it has all sorts of non libertarian government controls that are providing guidance and support for those capitalists running the business of that country is of no concern. Regardless, the libertarian mind, as is yours, tries as hard as possible to find a way to point to that fledgling economy and call it a libertarian success. Though, inevitably, that economy moves AWAY from libertarian capitalism and toward socialist capitalism. Always. And yet, libertarians always believe that if ONLY the population of the country would turn to libertarian ideals all would be great.
What IS true is that as libertarian based economies start to develop, they ALWAYS fail. And they do so for a simple reason. The people of those countries do not like being exploited by the corporatists that evolve into more and more powerful factors int their economies. Now, while the libertarians would like to suggest it is great for them, it NEVER EVER IS GREAT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY.
So, we are back to the same old thing. You are a libertarian with no libertarian economy to point to as a successful model. You are simply groping to point at starting economies, even those with a great deal of governmental involvement, as being libertarian successes. What they are, of course, are economies with both socialist and capitalist characteristics on their way to developing into something. And yet, with around 200 countries in this world, you can find none, not even a single nation, that has gone on to develop into a libertarian paradise. Which, me boy, makes libertarians look like what they are: economic idealists who's ideal is incapable of EVER working. And, of course, it makes libertarians like you immaterial. You just do not pass the giggle test, me boy.

Wish I could claim this quote. But it was by OLDFART on the first page of this thread. You have proven him SO correct:

If you find a thinking conservative, please send them my way. I want a picture for my scrapbook as they are an endangered species.

And, me boy, thinking conservatives obviously include libertarians. You are definitely one that has given up thinking, and moved to dogma. Good for you.
And relative to how I chose to debate, me boy, it is with truth. I see all libertarians regardless of age as simply boys waiting who will give up the idiocy prior to reaching puberty.

Your childish rants boil to down to this: If there hasn't been an society that was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT libertarian, I'm going to to plug my ears and claim libertarian ideas have no value.

What we all have shown conclusively is that those societies that have embraced libertarian values prosper to a far greater extent than those that embrace statism.

No economy or society or country has ever been 100% anything. There are always conflicting forces that push matters one way or another. But everyone knows this. What is clear is that you are more interested in being a tool than reasonable discourse. Good luck with that.

Rshermr will declare that any society that isn't 100% libertarian doesn't "count" yet if one asks him to list the libertarian based countries that have failed you'll hear nothing but the sound of crickets. That's because...as you've rightly pointed out...no society has ever been 100% anything.

And no matter what source you cite...if it doesn't fit HIS biased viewpoint...he will immediately deem it to be a "con tool site" and not worthy of consideration. That's how "me boy" rolls!

 

[Barb]

Raegan increased the military, which I don't really consider "the government" because they don't govern anybody.

I don't think anyone ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative, he could of done a lot more to cut welfare and other useless government agencies.

So I guess your arguement is that just because Raegan and Bush really weren't as fiscally conservative as we would of liked, the idea of being fiscally conservative is fallacious? Kind of a stupid premise isn't it?

But I suppose you'll explain to us how increasing the debt by trillions more is a better route than at least trying to cut the enormous spending our government is addicted to.

The military doesn't "govern anybody?" Did you type that with a straight fucking face? And under WHO's watch was the debt tripled? Did you hurt yourself when you hit your head? It's hard to know where to start. With your willful ignorance? With your targeted misinformation? Why don't you help us out with the parts that you're actually stupid enough to believe, and wind your way down to the parts you're willing to lie about to prop those parts up. We (probably not you, but the rest of us) can work from there.

 

[Rshermr]

As usual your knowledge of railroad economic history is as lacking as your knowledge of most economics! ( What DO you have knowledge in, Rshermr?)

The right of way land was not "free". In return for being given land the railroads were required to ship US Government goods without charge...something that continued up until after WWII. The US Government came out WAY ahead on that deal so it's hard to see how anyone could describe what took place as a "free" transfer of land.

Once again you're a day late and a dollar short...

Said like a true conservative tool. What percentage of those goods were government goods, me boy. Kind of forgot that. Because that percentage was too small to matter.
Your drivel is never worth thinking about. Just clutter. But to prove it, I thought since I was doing nothing, I would just throw in a few facts to disprove your ignorant rant:

The largest government subsidies in U.S. history financed the railroad boom. Between 1862 and 1872, Congress gave the railroad companies more than 100 million acres of public land and over $64 million in loans and tax breaks…
Fact Checking Claims about the Transcontinental Railroad | Now and Then: an American Social History Project blog

By 1883, the cost ot the US government for railroad subsidies had reached nearly $124M. And those railroad companies were selling off thousands of acres of their free land, making millions of dollars. Yup, no subsidy there.
THE SUBSIDIZED RAILROADS. - View Article - NYTimes.com

So, as a self proclaimed history major, you come at me saying I am ignorant of railroad history. Sorry, oldstyle, as usual, you have no game. Back to the dishes.

LOL...you cite two sources that are fully as ignorant on the subject as you are. Your NY Times article is from 1888! It was written before the railroads paid off 100% pf those bonds they were so worried about and long before the savings that the US Government reaped from their arrangement with the railroads.

The truth of the matter is that because the US Government was able to ship it's goods over the rail system for free for almost 60 years they came out way ahead compared to the small amount it cost them to back the bonds.

As for the land that was sold off? Yes, the railroads were required to sell lands adjacent to the railway right of way in order to finance the construction. That land was sold at extremely low rates to homesteaders. It's a method that the Federal Government utilized to populate vast tracks of the so called "American Desert". And for the "cost" to the US Government to do this? Since much of that land was simply seized from American Indians it didn't cost US citizens much at all. Kind of hard to call the giving away of something that didn't belong to you as a "cost".

Why you choose to debate historic issues with someone who is a history major amuses me. Why don't you stick to pretending to be an economics major before you prove that you're as equally ignorant of history as you are of economics?

Who is debating, me poor ignorant con. I am not. You are simply posting basic facts. And sorry you have a problem with a 1887 article. Apparently you do not understand that they were perfectly capable of understanding what was going on. So, you are saying that government loans to private industry in a libertarian style economy are a good deal. Great.
funny, my boy, how you never provide a link. Every time you do not, I can feel certain you are lying. Now, I know, you choose to believe what you want. And I know it is not your fault. It is just that malady which has been studied over and over. You need to believe what you want, and are willing to provide any statements necessary to back them up. Problem is, me boy, no one believes delusional people. And, you are delusional.
Cmon, me boy. Tell us again why we financed those railroads. Bring forth that proof of how much the gov saved on shipping. You must have links.
So, perhaps you would like to explain to us all why giving away stolen lands was simply giving something that had no real value. Seems to me that if you look at the railroad companies, you would find that they made way more from the sale of those lands than they ever, ever had to pay back.
Cmon, great history major, why is it those lands that were sold for millions had no value???
By the way, the additional $64 million in loans and tax breaks that the gov gave to the railroads? You seem to have missed that.

Most importantly, me boy, it was step, not me, that suggested that we were a primarily libertarian economy in the early years. Now, do you yet understand why, if that was true, there would not have been millions and millions of dollars given to railroads for building their infrastructure? Did you also not see that all of the regulations of corporations, overall more restrictive than today, would not have happened in a mostly libertarian economy?? Of course not. Because you have the illness that all cons have, which is you want to believe what they want to believe. Dipshit.

See why it is difficult to deal with a delusional clown like you. You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make a point to prove your agenda. And it never, never works for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Said like a true conservative tool. What percentage of those goods were government goods, me boy. Kind of forgot that. Because that percentage was too small to matter.
Your drivel is never worth thinking about. Just clutter. But to prove it, I thought since I was doing nothing, I would just throw in a few facts to disprove your ignorant rant:


By 1883, the cost ot the US government for railroad subsidies had reached nearly $124M. And those railroad companies were selling off thousands of acres of their free land, making millions of dollars. Yup, no subsidy there.
THE SUBSIDIZED RAILROADS. - View Article - NYTimes.com

So, as a self proclaimed history major, you come at me saying I am ignorant of railroad history. Sorry, oldstyle, as usual, you have no game. Back to the dishes.

LOL...you cite two sources that are fully as ignorant on the subject as you are. Your NY Times article is from 1888! It was written before the railroads paid off 100% pf those bonds they were so worried about and long before the savings that the US Government reaped from their arrangement with the railroads.

The truth of the matter is that because the US Government was able to ship it's goods over the rail system for free for almost 60 years they came out way ahead compared to the small amount it cost them to back the bonds.

As for the land that was sold off? Yes, the railroads were required to sell lands adjacent to the railway right of way in order to finance the construction. That land was sold at extremely low rates to homesteaders. It's a method that the Federal Government utilized to populate vast tracks of the so called "American Desert". And for the "cost" to the US Government to do this? Since much of that land was simply seized from American Indians it didn't cost US citizens much at all. Kind of hard to call the giving away of something that didn't belong to you as a "cost".

Why you choose to debate historic issues with someone who is a history major amuses me. Why don't you stick to pretending to be an economics major before you prove that you're as equally ignorant of history as you are of economics?

Who is debating, me poor ignorant con. I am not. You are simply posting basic facts. And sorry you have a problem with a 1887 article. Apparently you do not understand that they were perfectly capable of understanding what was going on. So, you are saying that government loans to private industry in a libertarian style economy are a good deal. Great.
funny, my boy, how you never provide a link. Every time you do not, I can feel certain you are lying. Now, I know, you choose to believe what you want. And I know it is not your fault. It is just that malady which has been studied over and over. You need to believe what you want, and are willing to provide any statements necessary to back them up. Problem is, me boy, no one believes delusional people. And, you are delusional.
Cmon, me boy. Tell us again why we financed those railroads. Bring forth that proof of how much the gov saved on shipping. You must have links.
So, perhaps you would like to explain to us all why giving away stolen lands was simply giving something that had no real value. Seems to me that if you look at the railroad companies, you would find that they made way more from the sale of those lands than they ever, ever had to pay back.
Cmon, great history major, why is it those lands that were sold for millions had no value???
By the way, the additional $64 million in loans and tax breaks that the gov gave to the railroads? You seem to have missed that.

Most importantly, me boy, it was step, not me, that suggested that we were a primarily libertarian economy in the early years. Now, do you yet understand why, if that was true, there would not have been millions and millions of dollars given to railroads for building their infrastructure? Did you also not see that all of the regulations of corporations, overall more restrictive than today, would not have happened in a mostly libertarian economy?? Of course not. Because you have the illness that all cons have, which is you want to believe what they want to believe. Dipshit.

See why it is difficult to deal with a delusional clown like you. You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make a point to prove your agenda. And it never, never works for you.

LOL...oh, now I'm "delusional" because I point out a glaring flaw in your contention that because the Government paid for the establishment of a transcontinental railroad system it can no longer be called Libertarian? You can be a nation that believes in the Libertarian premise of small government and still work with the Private Sector to facilitate projects like building a transcontinental railroad. What naive folks like you assume is that when the US Government gave that assistance to privately owned railroads they were giving more than they were receiving. The opposite is in fact the case. The primary reason for the US Government pushing the transcontinental railroad was first and foremost from a military standpoint it was needed to protect the vast land mass that we now controlled. The value of the transcontinental rail system from a military standpoint is incredible. Then you add in the addition of a coast to coast telegraph system that was built along with the railroads and you've added the ability to communicate between the far flung coasts and territories in between. Then you add in the additional economic growth from the middle of the nation that resulted from being able to transport goods to and from areas that it was economically impossible to do so before. This was in no way a "give away" to the railroads. Just the ability to ship goods on the rails for free for 60 plus years was an incredible asset to the Federal Government. You seem to think this would have been a trifling amount but with your usual ignorance you overlook how much would have been moved by train from coast to coast in that time period. It wasn't a trifling amount it was a massive amount...and it all went free of charge.