Jumpin said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Jumpin said:
A libertarian is essentially someone who puts their faith in who has the most money to shape society, rather than democracy.
|
Or more like, a libertarian is some one that puts faith in you and your ability to run your life.
|
In past societies where the laissez faire economy was more prevalent and overall wealth in the western world was even more plentiful, there were HUGE amounts of poverty. Read George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier for an example of how a more libertarian society looks like.
Just look at what happened in Italy when the Medici family gained too much power through their wealth. While Giovanni, Cosimo, and Lorenzo managed to stick to their moralities; future Medicis turned their back on social progress for political gain (turning Galileo over to the Inquisition in order to gain support of the Catholic Church), and outright buying the office of Pope - Leo X was a Medici, he turned religion into a capitalist enterprise, selling indulgences (a passage to heaven) in exchange for cash - this caused Luther to label him as the Anti-Christ, consumed with greed - and ultimately brought Europe to hundreds of years of conflict and war which continue into the contemporary era.
The major change from the Industrial era to the current era is that we evolved into a stronger society. Public governments elected by the people, although not perfect, are CERTAINLY a better alternative than to put faith in non-elected powers to make sure that the standard of living for all peoples of all abilities is maintained. Many many of those who make larger profits do so on their merits of an ability and lack of empathy in the exploitation of others - these people should not be the ones we allow to have the wealth of the nation. Society would suffer heavily under libertarian economics.
|
Of course, you forget the times before lassiez-faire capitalism was rampant. Don't you think that society was better off under such systems as opposed to serfdom and merchantilism of the pre-18th century societies? You compare today's economies to those of 200 years ago, and assume that the only reason they are better today is the lessening of lassiez-faire capitalism, yet I'd argue its the progress of society and not the rampant changes to capitalism.
The largest strides of progress for humanity were made when lassiez-faire capitalism was rampant. We went from a pre-industrial society that degraded women and the infirmed, poverty wasn't just a part of society, but every person's life that was not royalty, to a society that embraced those that were poor and different in a time period so short that it only spans a fraction of recorded human history. Say what you will, but capitalism has been a bastion for human progress. We're better today than we were 100 years ago because 100 years ago were better than the 100 before it, and so on. I'd venture to argue that it we had a rebirth of lassiez-faire capitalism, we wouldn't see the egregious violuations of rights you argue, because our society is better informed, and has the means to protect themselves through a good court system, as opposed to what we had 100 or 200 years ago.
