A friend who is normally favorable to Ron Paul but is nonetheless statist always brings up a number of canards whenever we get into an argument. He takes the usual narrative that in the Bad Old Days people left to their brutish, evil racist exploitative etc ways were scum until some people put on their badges and called forth the Messiah of the State which jackbooted everything into today's modern progressive Eden (and of course in wonderfully ironic fashion accuses libertarians of being 'utopian/naive/ignorant'). It is a very paternalistic frame of mind and one I find most people cling to with religious fervor.
One of the biggest canards of this faith is that of the 19th and early 20th century economic situation, in this case the coal mining industry. To him this is the perfect example: poor people starved in hellish conditions because people who do not work for the government but instead got favors from it ('robber barons') were inherently evil. The people could not help themselves, organize themselves or advocate for their own self-interest because they were essentially either too stupid or coerced into silence. So therefore the Government must coerce the employers into Modern Civilization because...
Because why? I always try to catch him on this but he instead reverts to a circular argument that because people are inherently bad, government must force others to be good because people are inherently bad without government. It seems nothing can get through to him on this.
But I know why nothing can. Because the history of this era is horribly, horribly misunderstood and poorly covered. Even among revisionist historians.
Does anybody here have any good material that really gets into the era of the Gilded Age and analyzes it in ways other than the orthodox school textbook or Marxian (orthodox school textbook x1000) angle?
Many of the stock explanations are terribly wanting, and the mainstream logic chain can sometimes be awfully suspect for example: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12280/272412.aspx#272412
First off, I would simply press him on the circular argument...
His conention is "people are inherently bad", so his solution is to give a small group of people (who are inherently bad) the legal authority to force others to do things, so that everyone might be good.
How is it that this is possibly a good idea?
And even if we give him some benefit of doubt, and assume that somehow there are some "good people", how in the world is it guaranteed these are the people who would rule us? Indeed, it is quite undeniable that the ones who succeed in politics are almost always the more dishonest, conniving, immoral, and overall sociopathic. Would he really deny this?
So in what way is it possibly the best idea to give these sociopaths special privilege and authority to dictate the lives of everyone else?
See Graham's "Government Explained":
I also am partial to Milton Friedman's "greed" clip.
As for revisionist history, Bob Higgs is a good go-to guy...
The Transformation of the American Economy
As for the coal mines, in a preliminary search a while back, I came across this paper in which economist Price Fishback summarizes evidence suggesting that that workers in West Virginia coal towns did in fact have exit options.
Here you go.
There are a lot of good articles here regarding the Gilded Age (as well as others regarding subjects not necessarily related to the Gilded Age) in general.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
This is awesome and will be used heavily for a future response on another forum where a poster has typed up the garden variety lolsocialist post ("Capitalists exploit, blah blah I'm relying on the Gilded Age Goldstein song and dance Labor Theory of Value blaahhhh etc") .
Well there were such things as "Robber Barons" if Robber Barons are meant as individual heavyweights who utilized government to cartelize their industries, receive tax-payer subsidies, and limit competition. Libertarians really do not need to have these knee-jerk reactions of defending the 19th century or the corporations that were created during that time. The 19th century was not a "boom-time" for classical liberalism. Classical liberalism has never been in a boom. It has always been on the sidelines since its inception. The 19th century was expansionist, mercantilist, racist, patriarchal, xenophobic, protectionist and monetarily unsound for periods of time. Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy were not grand. There were people writing about natural rights and liberty but so too are people today. We were bombarding foreign countries with gunboat diplomacy back then just like we are today. We still have our unequal treaties. We still have elite artisocrats thinking they know what is best. We still have political machines of nepotism. What we have today was born in the 19th century. Gender, race, politics and policy.
So when your friend or someone says to you that the 19th century was bad for the working man. He/she is right. It was terrible because the very institution which he/she thinks brought change was the very cause of that terrible ordeal. It was not the average American who bombarded the city of Greytown in 1854 because of perceived slights. What institution forced citizens to actively hunt fugitive slaves? Who created tariffs raising the price of imported goods like food and capital? Who created the financial panics? Prohibition?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Haha! Yes! My work is getting cited! I'm ReasonThusLiberty :D
I have an even better version of that list. I can't find it though. I'm sure JJ would have it.
Well there were such things as "Robber Barons" if Robber Barons are meant as individual heavyweights who utilized government to cartelize their industries, receive tax-payer subsidies, and limit competition. Libertarians really do not need to have these knee-jerk reactions of defending the 19th century or the corporations that were created during that time. The 19th century was not a "boom-time" for classical liberalism. In that case you still could assist with demonstrating this type of neo-mercantilist tactics.
Well there were such things as "Robber Barons" if Robber Barons are meant as individual heavyweights who utilized government to cartelize their industries, receive tax-payer subsidies, and limit competition. Libertarians really do not need to have these knee-jerk reactions of defending the 19th century or the corporations that were created during that time. The 19th century was not a "boom-time" for classical liberalism.
Anyway, be also prepared for the classical arguments by Marxists: http://ia600208.us.archive.org/22/items/theconditionofth17306gut/17306-h/17306-h.htm
The issue that really should be addressed is whether employers do have an advantageous bargaining position over workers and if yes, of what nature those advantages are. I am thinking of an oligopolistic situation (few employers) versus a poligopolistic one (a multitude of workers). There may be other factors of relevance as well.
The Spanish-American war with the acquisition of the Philippines for the express purpose of markets and resources. The open door policy with China and Japan also know as the "Unequal Treaties" The intervention of American policies in Latin and South American during the late 19th century especially the cases of Nicaragua and Venezuela. Would you like the specific dates? I have some Albert Beveridge quotes on how the Philippines are wonder cash cows of resources and how gold can be mined from the river simply by sticking your hand in it. There are also other libertarian scholars who have written on it such as Joseph Stromberg in numerous articles and Murray Rothbard in Wall Street, Banks, and Foreign Policy.
What Andrew said. I honestly don't see why we have to defend all capitalists in order to defend capitalism. I think there needs to be more analysis by (non left) libertarians of how government creates poverty.
I think libertarians need to be more open to "leftist" revisionism. You do not have to accept their views on economics to realize that some have valuable points concerning history. I recommend more people read William Appleman Williams or at least Joseph Stromberg, though he is not a leftist. A revisionist none the less.
What of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita)? It appears to be a veritable bugbear and most often used to show how 'unregulated capitalism' creates monsters out of thin air that innocent governments are helpless to resist, as if their military could not defend against Chiquita (I am certain many would claim that United Fruit had stronger military power than the Columbian government at the time. Not like it wasn't, you know, government troops that fired on the striking workers...).
I'd love to read more about this situation, but from what I've read it appears that their rise to power was spurred by the Columbian govt's doling out of massive land grabs and land-use dictates, essentially a handout...
Oh, and this little Wikipedia ditty from the Banana Massacre article:
The government of the United States of America had threatened to invade with the US Marine Corps if the Colombian government did not act to protect United Fruit’s interests.
No citation though, but I wouldn't be surprised...
I think libertarians need to be more open to "leftist" revisionism. You do not have to accept their views on economics to realize that some have valuable points concerning history.
You mean more ready to use their works I guess? So you suggest to double exploit them by first youse the fruits of their labor and turn it against them.
"You mean more ready to use their works I guess? So you suggest to double exploit them by first youse the fruits of their labor and turn it against them."
Not necessarily to use it against them but to show them perhaps flaws in their analysis and also points of strength.