Why Libertarians Shouldn't Like the 19th century or the "Robber Barrons"

I must ad that the 19th century was not a time of Free markets or unregulated capitalism as some like to say. There was a great amount of corporate welfare such as subsidies to certain corporations. Franchises were granted to utilities and railroads. Pollution laws that defended property rights were often done away with in the name of the public interest. Land grants were given to certain railroads and other industries. Many of the Robber Barrons were funded by JP Morgan who was funded by the Rothschild family. The Rothschild Family benefited greatly from government enforced gold Standard and by government granted central banking monopoly. Many Robber Barons benefited from tariffs which prevented foreign competition. The 19th century and the Gilded Age were a time of massive corporate welfare and mercantilism. The 19th century should not be seen by either statists or Libertarians as a time of unregulated free markets.

Nope, just look what JP Morgan did to poor Tesla...

Who said that was a good century WRT liberty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

I must ad that the 19th century was not a time of Free markets or unregulated capitalism as some like to say. There was a great amount of corporate welfare such as subsidies to certain corporations. Franchises were granted to utilities and railroads. Pollution laws that defended property rights were often done away with in the name of the public interest. Land grants were given to certain railroads and other industries. Many of the Robber Barrons were funded by JP Morgan who was funded by the Rothschild family. The Rothschild Family benefited greatly from government enforced gold Standard and by government granted central banking monopoly. Many Robber Barons benefited from tariffs which prevented foreign competition. The 19th century and the Gilded Age were a time of massive corporate welfare and mercantilism. The 19th century should not be seen by either statists or Libertarians as a time of unregulated free markets.

---

I am not aware of anyone saying that the 19th century was a pure free market. Just a LOT more free than what we have today.

Credit Mobilier was everything the liberals say it was. It also did us the favor of putting off any more grand experiments in government building projects for decades to come, because it was so incredibly corrupt. Not surprisingly, they put it through as a Civil War Necessity, during the war hysteria.

The other land grants gave land to railroads in exchange for building through them. The government gave the roads a narrow strip to build track on and lots on either side in a 'checkerboard pattern'. Since there were no settlers on these lands, there was no market for a railroad. Since there was no railroad, there was no market for these lands. The government gave half the land to new railroad companies so they wouldn't go broke waiting for the new settlers to grow their first cash crop. And the value of those lands more or less quintupled when the railroads arrived, allowing the government to realize a lot more money selling them.

It was progressive, but it wasn't socialism. And it worked one hell of a lot better than Credit Mobilier.

Pollution didn't need to be regulated in places where you could sue the polluter. The issues back then were with the judiciary, not the legislative, but it was the same problem--crooked government. But at least it was local crooked government, and those people who were motivated to fix it could and did fix it.

And if J.P. Morgan had made as much manipulating gold as it stood to do printing funny money, the Federal Reserve would never have been created.

The Nineteenth Century was free enough to enable the United States of America to transform itself from just another New World Jerkwater Country to the most powerful nation on Earth. Today we're going the other way.

What was the overall tax burden in the 19th century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC

Nope, just look what JP Morgan did to poor Tesla...

---

You know, it's funny. Tesla was actually one of the only people to ever beat JP. JP took that very personally and destroyed him for it. Ruthless doesn't even begin to describe JP Morgan - that guy was literally INSANE with power. In his eyes, the world was his and everyone else just existed to provide him with his power.

It's not proven, but I have a suspicion that he was also responsible for the death of his father. His father started putting limits on JP's growth and he befell a fatal accident. I do not believe in coincidences with this guy. He was like Hillary Clinton - only perfected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptUSA

You know, it's funny. Tesla was actually one of the only people to ever beat JP. JP took that very personally and destroyed him for it. Ruthless doesn't even begin to describe JP Morgan - that guy was literally INSANE with power. In his eyes, the world was his and everyone else just existed to provide him with his power.

It's not proven, but I have a suspicion that he was also responsible for the death of his father. His father started putting limits on JP's growth and he befell a fatal accident. I do not believe in coincidences with this guy. He was like Hillary Clinton - only perfected.

---

Everyone fought against Tesla .His competition stole many of his patents ( although most are today reclaimed ),his investors never understood him,the competition out played him because he was not a skilled merchant and in the end when he died the government stole all of his work .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

I must ad that the 19th century was not a time of Free markets or unregulated capitalism as some like to say. There was a great amount of corporate welfare such as subsidies to certain corporations. Franchises were granted to utilities and railroads. Pollution laws that defended property rights were often done away with in the name of the public interest. Land grants were given to certain railroads and other industries. Many of the Robber Barrons were funded by JP Morgan who was funded by the Rothschild family. The Rothschild Family benefited greatly from government enforced gold Standard and by government granted central banking monopoly. Many Robber Barons benefited from tariffs which prevented foreign competition. The 19th century and the Gilded Age were a time of massive corporate welfare and mercantilism. The 19th century should not be seen by either statists or Libertarians as a time of unregulated free markets.

---

No, they didn't. Why do you think they did away with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gold Standard

No, they didn't. Why do you think they did away with it?

---

This is simply not True the banking families were always fighting against alternative currencies. The silver currencies which would have made currency available to people were regularly lobbied against by banking families. As well as the greenback and Tally Sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

This is simply not True the banking families were always fighting against alternative currencies. The silver currencies which would have made currency available to people were regularly lobbied against by banking families. As well as the greenback and Tally Sticks.

---

The Banking Empires were always fighting against the currencies they couldn't profit from. They had a fun time manipulating currencies, but even though they could make gold go down and profit from it, I do believe that JPMorganChase is among the entities that make money every time the FRN goes down, and ensures that its value goes down all the time. They never figured out how to get gold to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

The Banking Empires were always fighting against the currencies they couldn't profit from. They had a fun time manipulating currencies, but even though they could make gold go down and profit from it, I do believe that JPMorganChase is among the entities that make money every time the FRN goes down, and ensures that its value goes down all the time. They never figured out how to get gold to do that.

---

With Gold you would simply loan out more money than you have in reserves. OR you manipulate by making it highly available or contracting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

The Banking Empires were always fighting against the currencies they couldn't profit from. They had a fun time manipulating currencies, but even though they could make gold go down and profit from it, I do believe that JPMorganChase is among the entities that make money every time the FRN goes down, and ensures that its value goes down all the time. They never figured out how to get gold to do that.

---

With Gold you would simply loan out more money than you have in reserves. OR you manipulate by making it highly available or contracting it. the gold standard created the great depression by a contraction of currency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

With Gold you would simply loan out more money than you have in reserves. OR you manipulate by making it highly available or contracting it. the gold standard created the great depression by a contraction of currency.

---

http://images4.alphacoders.com/146/146716.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

With Gold you would simply loan out more money than you have in reserves. OR you manipulate by making it highly available or contracting it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

'All I know is [money's] easier to print than to make by work.'--Will Rogers

---

________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

the gold standard created the great depression by a contraction of currency.

---

Currencies don't create recessions, people do. And I haven't noticed the depressions under the FRN to be any easier to take than the ones on gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

I must ad [sic] that the 19th century was not a time of Free markets or unregulated capitalism as some like to say.

---

You must add this to what? You hadn't said anything before this. Is this copied and pasted from something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

This is simply not True the banking families were always fighting against alternative currencies. The silver currencies which would have made currency available to people were regularly lobbied against by banking families. As well as the greenback and Tally Sticks.

---

They lobbied for the gold standard and against silver dimes and quarters? Got a source for that?

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure

There was a huge rift between the gold standard and the silver standard people. I don't see why they wouldn't. But yeah, sources are required for such random posts like these.

I was a commercial fisherman in the 20th and 21st centuries and I would probably have been one in the 19th century,not a robber baron.
I saw what liberty I had steadily reduced,on the job and off,throughout my 40+ year working life and there is no doubt that I would have had more liberty in the 19th century than I even had 40+ years ago.

Same thing goes for butchers,bakers,candlestick makers.

This is nothing new. Gabriel Kolko's work goes further in depth on these issues, particularly his book The Triumph of Conservatism. Although it specifically focuses on the early 20th century, a lot of the arguments apply to the Gilded Age as well. It's pretty great and a must-read for any libertarian interested in challenging status-quo interpretations of history.

I am reading a bio on Carnegie now, and except for selling anything to JP Morgan he seems like quite the paragon
Besides, 1900 Robber Barons used violence to force workers to work, which no self respecting libertarian would even try to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

This is simply not True the banking families were always fighting against alternative currencies. The silver currencies which would have made currency available to people were regularly lobbied against by banking families. As well as the greenback and Tally Sticks.

---

+1

Sadly the free silver movement was swept away by the statist Democrat William Jennings Bryan

I will acknowledge that the United States used to be more of a free country however the US has always been a statist country the anti-statism is simply an outgrowth of that. I will also acknowledge that the US often had more freedom then other countries
Economic policies
Economic policies have always been hugely interventionist whether it be through tariffs or subsidies the government has always played a large role in the economy of course the US has had many central banks and periods of government enforced gold standards. Central banking and protectionism are as American as Apple pie. OF course there is that whole slavery thing which the United States was the last country to abolish. Many founding fathers wanted to limit the powers of corporations. Central banking was ruled constitutional with Muccolloh v. Maryland. Even before the railroad land grants the federal government built the Cumberland road as well as other early roads. Though there was much dispute of the constitutionality of these improvements.
Welfare
The constitution includes some non libertarian things such as the ability to establish post offices and post roads. Of course the whole general welfare thing has been abused to no end.
Religion
While the federal government never had any religious policies however localities did the intention of having congress not recognizing religion was so that states could have their own religions.
Warfare
The US since the middle of 19th century was participating in expansion and empire building completely contradictory to libertarianism.
I say because one can't point to a real historical example of libertarianism one can't really criticize it. IF somebody tries to say the US is failed libertarianism they are wrong. The us is a long history of a failed leviathan government. People are wrong to think we had to much freedom so the magical government saved us from ourselves. I also think it is pointless to try to work with the existing system because it can only grow. Constitutions are also a pointless way ensure freedom because constitutions are enforced by the government they are supposed to limit. A truly libertarian system is what is needed to demonstrate the usefulness of it. my .02 fiat currency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

I will acknowledge that the United States used to be more of a free country however the US has always been a statist country the anti-statism is simply an outgrowth of that. I will also acknowledge that the US often had more freedom...

---

You're almost as cute when chasing your tail as a kitten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

...then other countries

---

Then other countries did what? Oh, you mean than other countries. Or do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

Economic policies have always been hugely interventionist whether it be through tariffs or subsidies the government has always played a large role in the economy of course the US has had many central banks and periods of government enforced gold standards. Central banking and protectionism are as American as Apple pie.

---

Andrew Jackson would disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

OF course there is that whole slavery thing which the United States was the last country to abolish.

---

That's hard to swallow, given that some countries still haven't abolished slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

Many founding fathers wanted to limit the powers of corporations. Central banking was ruled constitutional with Muccolloh v. Maryland. Even before the railroad land grants the federal government built the Cumberland road as well as other early roads. Though there was much dispute of the constitutionality of these improvements.

---

As I have pointed out to you, the railroad land grants weren't the government building anything, but rather giving some land to railroads to build so the value of the lands the government retained would gain in value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

IF somebody tries to say the US is failed libertarianism they are wrong. The us is a long history of a failed leviathan government. People are wrong to think we had to much freedom so the magical government saved us from ourselves. I also think it is pointless to try to work with the existing system because it can only grow. Constitutions are also a pointless way ensure freedom because constitutions are enforced by the government they are supposed to limit. A truly libertarian system is what is needed to demonstrate the usefulness of it. my .02 fiat currency

---

The Roaring Twenties was a direct result of scaling back an overreaching federal government and its micromismanagement. This is a demonstrable example of why our philosophies and principles are proven to be beneficial. And I am old enough to have seen a time when more of the population understood the Constitution and was more vociferous about defending it. It's also demonstrable that our economy worked better then than it does now. No one can take the validity of those arguments away from us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

You're almost as cute when chasing your tail as a kitten.

Why do you feel the need to respond everything I post?

Then other countries did what? Oh, you mean than other countries. Or do you?

I meant that the US has more freedom than many other countries, though there are definitely countries with more economic freedom than us. Yes I meant "than".




Andrew Jackson would disagree.

Andrew Jackson replaced the central bank with a decentralized state banking it is still government banking. Lincoln himself created a central bank as well as other presidents. Jackson was still a proponent of protectionism. In fact South Carolina threatened to secede until tariffs were adjusted.

That's hard to swallow, given that some countries still haven't abolished slavery.

Well most developed countries did end it before us and didn't have to fight a war for it.

As I have pointed out to you, the railroad land grants weren't the government building anything, but rather giving some land to railroads to build so the value of the lands the government retained would gain in value.

I don't care much for railroads as you have pointed out they have long paid for themselves. You gloss over the government created Cumberland road as well as other government roads.

The Roaring Twenties was a direct result of scaling back an overreaching federal government and its micromismanagement. This is a demonstrable example of why our philosophies and principles are proven to be beneficial. And I am old enough to have seen a time when more of the population understood the Constitution and was more vociferous about defending it. It's also demonstrable that our economy worked better then than it does now. No one can take the validity of those arguments away from us.

---

The roaring twenties was the result of many factors. Some people would argue that it was an asset bubble similar to the one that lead up our current recession. The Federal Reserve was feeding huge amounts of cheap credit during the time. Economists such as FA. Hayek and Mises predicted that prosperity that such prosperity couldn't go on for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

Andrew Jackson would disagree.

---

And THAT is why he is on the 20 dollar FRN. That is one big giant philosophical, tyrannical "fuck you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliusaugustus

With Gold you would simply loan out more money than you have in reserves. OR you manipulate by making it highly available or contracting it.

---

Well then that's not really a "Gold Standard" now is it?