Are there any historical precedents for a successful libertarian society?

Pretty true. The USA was one huge free trade zone in a era of colonial mercantilism. Caused a enormous boom that are still riding the after shocks of. Woodrow Wilson and FDR and LBJ in particular helpped begin our modern Welfare state

It was pretty libertarian, yeah. For instance it had no central bank, and barely no governmental intervention in the economy (>inb4 muh railroads).

The thing is that "libertarian" is a meme word. The word to describe someone who wanted increased personal freedom and lower governmental oversight was "liberal" but it unfortunately got appropriated by american leftists after ww2.

So yeah, America pre 1913 was probably the most liberal country which has ever existed in history.

then why do libertarians try to make a theory on it if things are just there in front of them historically?

wasn't there valid reason for it tho? as in problems that arouse from that kind of economy?

thanks, saved for later

>then why do libertarians try to make a theory on it if things are just there in front of them historically?
Because 19th century libertarianism was basically laissez faire, i.e. it happened because the government didn't do anything. Modern libertarians don't advocate for laissez faire, they advocate for governmental policy which maximizes and protects individual freedom (which includes things like anti-monopoly laws, which didn't exist in the 19th century)

>Modern libertarians don't advocate for laissez faire, they advocate for governmental policy which maximizes and protects individual freedom (which includes things like anti-monopoly laws, which didn't exist in the 19th century)
I've never seen a libertarian argue for that- most of them elevate their interpretation of personal liberty to a quality which is not only above any other political value, but is the only one worth caring for and makes the others irrelevant.

How are they that retarded? Tariffs were the main source of federal revenue until Wilson.

Tariffs are protectionist not libertarian.

Whats the difference between a tariff and a tax?

they are more libertarian than an income tax

That's what I'm saying. How could a country whose main source of revenue is so protectionist be called libertarian? Sure they let monopolists do whatever they want until the progressive era, but that's not enough to call yourself libertarian: that's just having the bad parts of libertarian philosophy becoming policy.

I don't think so. An income tax doesn't allow the government to control trade at will.

Modern American libertarianism isn't really libertarian. Crypto capitalism but with drugs and sex isn't much of an advancement at all.

libertarian is essentially a modern incarnation of classical liberalism. With its multiple layers of government and changing policies you could argue America was never completely classically liberal, but it was the most liberal country on earth for a long time

It allows them to control how much money you can bring home, which is somewhat worse

Because modern libertatians are dude weed lmao morons. Hayek was in support for anti monopoly laws for instance.

A tariff is a type of tax. A type of tax specifically designed to protect industry in your country from free trade with other countries.

*shrugs*

Any type of tax can't exactly be described as libertarian but taxes specifically designed to distort the economy through government intervention i.e. tariffs could quite easily be described as 'less libertarian' than a flat rate income tax, although a progressive rate is a slightly different kettle of fish.

>A tariff is a type of tax. A type of tax specifically designed to protect industry in your country from free trade with other countries.
How the fuck could this even be libertarian? Americans are so retarded lmao.

>successful libertarian society

>successful
>libertarian
>society

[CITATION NEEDED]

Because laws are made for citizens, not foreigners. Libertarianism is not globalism. You ca support the most extreme free market capitalism within your borders while protecting your economy from foreign competition.

So you're in favour of National Capitalism then? Just say that and don't make out that you're some torchbearer of freedom.

>while protecting your economy from foreign competition.

That's statism though and a very deliberate government intervention in the economy.

I'm not saying it is the only issue on the scale of libertarianism vs statism but it is an example of an extremely interventionist statist policy.

I guess you could call me national libertarian.

> Just say that and don't make out that you're some torchbearer of freedom.
But I am. The most important freedom, which globalists seem to have forgotten, is the freedom of association. Nationalism was actually one of the products of the liberal enlightenment, and various revolutions, such as the dutch revolution and of course the american revolution, were fuelled by the nationalist idea that a people should have the freedom of self-determination.

It's interventionist, but not "extremely interventionist". An extremely interventionist economic policy would be a policy which would control the economy. Putting a flat tax on imported goods affects the economy but it is still in the control of private individuals.

Aren't most historical societies libertarian in some way considering the lack of modern communication and transportation technology that allows government today to be uniquely invasive?

>An extremely interventionist economic policy would be a policy which would control the economy. Putting a flat tax on imported goods affects the economy but it is still in the control of private individuals.

You're splitting hairs, it is an attempt to intervene and exert some level of control over the economy. No one attempts to completely control the economy except in 100% state planning system.

>You're splitting hairs, it is an attempt to intervene and exert some level of control over the economy.
No, there is no control. Does the government control job allocation when it instates an income tax?

Pre 1913 US economically
Pre 1898 US policy wise

No. Relative to history, we're freer to speak and act than we have been before.

>Does the government control job allocation when it instates an income tax?

What? We're discussing tariffs not income tax. And other than the public sector the modern USA makes no attempt to control job allocation.

I think to be libertarian one would also have to abide by the NAP (praise be its name)

>We're discussing tariffs not income tax
They're both taxes. I apologize if my analogy was too intellectually taxing (pun intended)

>They're both taxes. I apologize if my analogy was too intellectually taxing (pun intended)

Now you're just being childish. I was literally discussing earlier in the thread with someone that was arguing the US isn't libertarian because it has income tax now and didn't before.

They aren't an analogy for one another when you are discussing specific economic policy.

But the body that has the authority to judge what is aggression is the body that has authority due to means to aggress.

Well I'm not that person. All I'm saying is that free market capitalism and globalism are not the same thing. Tariffs do not lead to a control of the economy any more that a strong immigration policy restricts the freedom of movement of citizens.

>Tariffs do not lead to a control of the economy

They are a protectionist policy and a form of government control of an economy.

Strong immigration policy would also be statism but that is also a completely different issue in terms of government policy not just something you can make an equvalence to.

I think the NAP is philosophically indefensible and the modern libertarian movement has to move away from it in order to be taken seriously

Explain

Any state requires at least the implicit threat of violence to function. The NAP essentially calls for anarchy, which as we all know does not work.

At a deeper level, humans are animals competing over limited resources. Sometimes aggressive acts are necessary for survival, our biological imperative.

> relative to history

o im fucking laffin

Why?

Other than the obvious technological advances that enable US citizens to voice their opinions there are plenty of previous legal curtailments of Free Speech that have been struck down.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States

> all history is American history

Also those are just two examples. I'm pretty sure there could be a pretty good counter-argument even in American history.

The discussion was about American history as some people were using the early US as an example of libertarianism in answer to OP's question.

>Also those are just two examples. I'm pretty sure there could be a pretty good counter-argument even in American history.

"I'm pretty sure" isn't an actual example though.

The post that you replied to specifically referred to multiple societies so a reply that dismisses all history as American history is not answering the question. The Arab Empire under al-Ummayyad was as liberal as we are today. I can't give you an example in American history because I'm not an expert in American history.

>successful
>libertarian
>society

See

..... How is a authoritarian regime libertarian?

It wasn't really authoritarian except for the communist killings.
What matters the most are the economic policies anyways. They worked, and therefore Libertarianism can work as well.