Something I have noticed about 'libertarians' and 'conservatives' (note they are becoming all but indistinguishable these days) in America is their blatant reactionism. They elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they intentionally give people the impression that these figures were part of an unattainable past. In other words, the history-as-myth method teaches people that America's greatest days are behind it, and the only way for America to get 'better' is by 'reverting' to some mythical-pre-age of American libertarian utopia, lost in the grains of time ages ago....

Furthermore they are always dishonest about historical controversies and the flaws of America's historical figures.

I've noticed that libertarians are always referring to the 'founding fathers' and the glorious days of 'freedom' that America had after the it's separation from Great Britain, always posting those paintings of the first Congress thing, and treating them in a deified way.

They almost categorically reject 'primary sources' as a way of looking at history, and fail to grasp that when America's economy was most 'Laissez-faire' was when inequality, poverty and ignorance was most rife. They almost sound like fascists glorifying the 'traditional values' of our feudal past, and it's medieval 'heroes'. This is all opposed to a grassroots Marxist view of history, which looks at class reality as the basis for historical development

Well Britain and the British people are certainly a lot better off now than they were in the 1840s, that came through democratic liberal reform though. The Northern Mariana Islands provide a pretty good demonstration of laissez-faire economic libertarianism and I sure wouldn't want to live under it.

The time when America was most laissez-faire just happened to coincide with the time when America was poorest. China is by no means a laissez-faire economy, yet inequality, poverty and ignorance are also rife there. It just so happens that China's GDP is $5,500 per capita. Hong Kong, on the other hand, has a poverty rate close to America's despite being the freest economy in the World. This is because Hong Kong is a highly industrialized country.

Of course, perfect laissez-faire isn't socially or economically optimal in all cases. It isn't economically optimal for a developing country because without an industrial policy it will generally just settle into its low place in the industrial value added chain, a victim of its own comparative advantage ironically enough. It isn't socially optimal because it allows poor people to live in worse conditions than they should in a developed nation. While I myself do not consider it unfair for unskilled labor compensation being low (after all it's low-value work, and either the result of bad choices or a stop-gap for young people), but I don't consider the $1.90 an hour McDonald's pays in Hong Kong acceptable.

That said, while it isn't the best option, laissez-faire capitalism is far from the worst method of resource distribution.

__________________
Hometown: Arecibo, PR
Ideology: Radical centrism
Beliefs: Social liberalism, localism, producerism, supply-side economics, Austrian economics, realism, reformism, utilitarianism, populism.
Religion: Secular Humanism

Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
Economic Left/Right: 0.62

"Who doesn't enjoy looking at boobies? To do otherwise would be simply un-American.” -catzmeow

HAHAHA Yeah, and we all see how well that turned out.

There is very little ideology tying libertarianism and what passes for conservatism together these days.
The point of libertarianism is maximum individual freedom. It has nothing to do with material wealth except to say that when the government becomes more of a threat to your wallet than your neighbor, it's even worse because while your neighbor will pick your pocket for free, you get to pay your government for the privelige.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Proof-hunter

Ventura/ Paul '12

You know absolutely nothing about Libertarians, but don't let that stop you. Keep pompously pontificating.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Poverty was more a result of the time period were limited technology meant far less resources going around. Inequality and ignorance were a result of the attitudes still lingering from those dirty brits who had just been kicked out. Today if we went back to Laissez-fair unemployment and cost of living would plummet.

Traditional values suck.

__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!

You're post in one big ad hom, you know that's a logical fallacy right?

Try and come up with something a little better next time, oh and please don't be so intentionally misleading.