tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post1129309883474483605..comments2023-04-14T03:44:27.772-04:00Comments on Tom Mullen's Blog: The Forgotten RightTom Mullenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-29264030221221748112009-06-04T21:48:58.029-04:002009-06-04T21:48:58.029-04:00Yes, Anonymous, it was. In fact, you can look up ...Yes, Anonymous, it was. In fact, you can look up many of these verfiable facts right on the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis' website, although the argument that pre-industrial revolution peasants were better off than the working class of the 19th century (who enjoyed indoor plumbing, shorter working hours, less debilitating work, and most of all, mass consumption) is quite frankly almost too laughable to respond to.Tom Mullenhttp://www.tommullen.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-84343342984470823192009-05-09T01:30:00.000-04:002009-05-09T01:30:00.000-04:00In AMerica during her first century, the gap betwe...In AMerica during her first century, the gap between rich and poor was closing, wealth was being distributed over a wider and wider group of people in a growing middle class, and upward mobility was the greatest it has ever been in history.<br />******<br />Ah yes, the gap was closing between Rockefeller, Gould, Vanderbilt, et al and the immigrants to Ellis Island...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-26323478379331616382009-04-05T14:24:00.000-04:002009-04-05T14:24:00.000-04:00Solerso,I believe your misconception revolves arou...Solerso,<BR/><BR/>I believe your misconception revolves around this statement:<BR/><BR/>"the moment a libertarian conceeds the need for a government strong enough to actually govern, they are moving away from libertarianism"<BR/><BR/>Libertarians are not anarchists. They do not deny the need for government, and as far as how "strong" it is, I don't believe that is relevant. The relevant question is "what does that government do?" The answer is that libertarians believe, as I did point out on the firedog blog, that the purpose of government is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says it is: to secure individual rights, including the right to keep the fruits of one's labor.<BR/><BR/>You argue that such a society has never existed: you are wrong. The United States of America was such a society for almost its first century and a half, and that is precisely why it was so wildly successful. Yes, there was inequality in the distribution of property - of course there will always be when acquisition of property is self-determined. That is not unjust - it is perfectly just. The underlying premise to a "libertarian" society (I put it in quotes, because the 20th century word "libertarian" describes nothing more than the original, founding principles of liberty that the USA was founded upon) is that each individual has a right to the fruits of his/her labor. The most sacred property is a person's labor itself - inseparable from his person. The "progressive" movement seeks to deny this right, letting society consfiscate this most sacred property to achieve societal goals. However, if each individual in society is protected, all of society is protected. If each individual's property (their labor and anything produced by their labor) is protected, justice reigns over all. When "society" is allowed to consfiscate the individual's property, then injustice occurs. If you look back at history, the gap between rich and poor has been the widest in societies that did not respect property rights - the USSR, Communist China, etc. - yes, those societies had wealthy elites. In AMerica during her first century, the gap between rich and poor was closing, wealth was being distributed over a wider and wider group of people in a growing middle class, and upward mobility was the greatest it has ever been in history.<BR/><BR/>Since 1913, when "social justice and a world safe for democracy" became the goal of government, at the expense of individual rights, all of those trends have reversed. THey will continue to follow their present course until individual rights - including the most important, property rights - are restored.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-20219453018045630582009-04-03T15:19:00.000-04:002009-04-03T15:19:00.000-04:00Hi tom. You responed to my post, over at FDL, that...Hi tom. You responed to my post, over at FDL, that libertarianism would devolve into feaudalsim. you mentioned something about a "mountain to climb". I guess since you didnt say why you think im wrong, you think that its prima facie. You responded to another post but completely ignored everything i said. If im wrong in thinking that libertariansim would lead to a feaudalistic society tell me why.<BR/>libertarians invoke the idea that property is one of the "god given" "natural rights" but leave it at that. governments arent hypothetical constructs, but have evolved over thousands of years to cope with real conflicts. in a libertarian society, i have the right to aquire porperty and wealth, as long as i dont "harm: anyone else physically. in the history of the human species such a society has never existed. as long as people have needs for food , housing, clothing, health, and and long as they neeed and want toys like jewlry, musical instruments, furniture, etc..they will want to aquire them. because some are batter at, and or in a better position to get them than others, there will always be inequality. a system which ignores class inequity, encourages more inequity in distribution of property. heres where libertariasm fails, because people arent solitary creatures. they form communities. those communities who have less will seek a remedy. in all of human history that remedy inevitably is force. show me a single historical instance where this isnt true. without a strong government to keep the peace and settle disputes, and with the power to enforce, then armend factions will fight littel wars with each other non-stop. the moment a libertarian conceeds the need for a government strong enough to actually govern, they are moving away from libertarianism, and into something else. i say thats feaudalsim, with the most powerful forming allainces to battel each other and poular uprisings. i cant imagine why anyone would want to live in such a world. can you imagine the horror of living in a city like los angeles under those conditions? but we have a model for what it would look like when it achieved some kind of equlibriam. medieval europe, without the hertiditary aristocracy. large cities ruled by doges, merchant barons, and the countryside ruled by warlords.eventually, i believe that those wealthy and powerful landowning clans WOULD form an heriditary aristocracy as well. Unavoidable, relentless, self serving human nature would shape such a society as it always has. im not a libertarian scholar, but i have 6000 years of recorded history on the side of my argument.solersohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14384736286615189367noreply@blogger.com