Gilded age based issues for Ron Paul Libertarians?

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I am a avid Ron Paul supporter. I have held signs in public and openly supported him and his ideas in school. I have to write a paper for my college class on a issue during the gilded age of america. Many democrats and modern historians look at this period as a time of growth as well as a time where the poor were hurt. I want to write a paper on a topic that will discuss a libertarian perspective on a issue during the time period. I'm not that familiar with the gilded age and what types of literature libertarian historians have written on it. If anyone has any suggestions let me know. I have to use primary sources and stuff. Any help would be awesome. I'm trying to help the libertarian cause by showing the school there are non-statist people in college :)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Great question for the Mises.com crowd. Some real heavy duty readers over there.

[Vessol]

Easiest way to counter any criticism of what 'Gilded Age'

"Well what was it like before the Gilded Age?"

Things certainly weren't any better.

[djdellisanti4]

Easiest way to counter any criticism of what 'Gilded Age'

"Well what was it like before the Gilded Age?"

Things certainly weren't any better.

Truth!

Remind the audience of how much worse the standard of living for everyone was before the Gilded Age.

Also, reading the wikipedia page on the Gilded Age I discovered in the references section: Rothbard, Murray A History of Money and banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to world War II(2002). The Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

I'm sure a PDF of this can be found on the Mises Institute website.

[1836er]

Important perspective to remember about the Gilded Age.

Contrary to "popular" wisdom... it was a time period of INCREASING, rather than decreasing, intervention by government (federal and state) in the economy... beginning in earnest during the Civil War years with the new banking acts pushed through by the Lincoln Administration that began the process of reestablishing a "national bank" which subsequently set us back on the path to boom and bust cycles (called "Panics" in those days).

Furthermore, as far as monopolies (the "boogeymen" of the era upon whom so much blame is cast by modern historians) go - again contrary to "popular" wisdom and "mainstream" history - rather than taking on the monopolies (called "trusts" in those days) to reign in their abuses... government (at all levels including the federal) actually encouraged their creation and development through anti-free-market policies that enabled large firms to avoid having to engage in real competition with small-medium sized firms through all kinds of subsidies, regulations, exclusionary contracts, and other benefits. In fact, if you look at most of the giant firms in the major industries of the era (railroads, steel, oil, telephones/telegraphs, etc.) that were considered to be the worst of the "predatory" monopolies you'll find that many actually partnered with government to undermine their competition... what many of us refer to as "crony capitalism" or perhaps "corporatism."

As it turns out, even in the late 19th century, the business elites in America, rather than standing against the trending statism in the name of freedom and capitalism, instead preferred to use the coercive power of government to undermine their competition, redistribute to themselves other people's money, and protect themselves from the consequences of their own bad decisions.

In a nutshell, the problem wasn't too much freedom or (as they like to say derisively) "unbridled laissez-faire capitalism..."

... many of the economic problems specifically associated with the era were the logical byproducts of INCREASING government intervention (or too little "unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.")

[1836er]

... just following up on my earlier post.

If you're looking for a good overview of the above perspectives I would encourage you to take a look at Thomas J. DiLorenzo's 2009 work entitled Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today... especially chapter 6: "Hamiltonian Hegemony."

Of course, dependent upon how much your instructor worships at the altar of Abraham Lincoln, be aware that citing Professor DiLorenzo is definitely something that you do "at your own risk."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

... just following up on my earlier post.

If you're looking for a good overview of the above perspectives I would encourage you to take a look at Thomas J. DiLorenzo's 2009 work entitled Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today... especially chapter 6: "Hamiltonian Hegemony."

Of course, dependent upon how much your instructor worships at the altar of Abraham Lincoln, be aware that citing Professor DiLorenzo is definitely something that you do "at your own risk."

You could also cite Sheldon Richman or Murray Rothbard. Both describe the same scenario above.