• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre WW1 England Was Libertarian?

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,799
Reaction score
26,551
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's an interesting tidbit that I stumbled upon while doing research:

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income.

- A.J.P. Taylor in the Oxford History of England
Click to expand...
 
Most of pre WW1 world was "libertarian", which is just another word for conservative run. There was not the ability to control people back then as there is now. However it also had massive pitfalls .. like child labour, poor houses and mass abuse of people. It in fact lead to the rise of what libertarians hate most..... socialism.
 
PeteEU said:
Most of pre WW1 world was "libertarian", which is just another word for conservative run. There was not the ability to control people back then as there is now. However it also had massive pitfalls .. like child labour, poor houses and mass abuse of people. It in fact lead to the rise of what libertarians hate most..... socialism.
Click to expand...

Child labor, slums, and all that existed long before the industrial revolution.
 
PoS said:
Child labor, slums, and all that existed long before the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

And so did conservative "libertarian" rule. They go hand in hand.
 
PeteEU said:
And so did conservative "libertarian" rule. They go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Um, no- the concept of libertarianism is a more recent invention. Prior to that you had kings, despots and republics- but no actual individual rights to free speech and land ownership.
 
PoS said:
Um, no- the concept of libertarianism is a more recent invention. Prior to that you had kings, despots and republics- but no actual individual rights to free speech and land ownership.
Click to expand...

Come on.. you cant be that naive.. Yes you had kings and queens.. and nobility, who all lived by libertarian values. The rest of us were of course just less worth than dirt, but that does not mean that libertarianism is something new.... it has just become more "accessable" to more people. Ultimately it is about power and control.. and like in all political ideologies, libertarian values are no different. Freedom as long as libertarians agree on that freedom. Hypocrisy at its best.
 
PeteEU said:
Most of pre WW1 world was "libertarian", which is just another word for conservative run.
Click to expand...

Nothing in this sentence is true.
 
PeteEU said:
Come on.. you cant be that naive.. Yes you had kings and queens.. and nobility, who all lived by libertarian values. The rest of us were of course just less worth than dirt, but that does not mean that libertarianism is something new.... it has just become more "accessable" to more people. Ultimately it is about power and control.. and like in all political ideologies, libertarian values are no different. Freedom as long as libertarians agree on that freedom. Hypocrisy at its best.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea what liberterianism means. Kings and queens were not libertarian, they believed in ruling over their subjects.

Please educate yourself before spewing any more nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
 
PoS said:
Child labor, slums, and all that existed long before the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

Libertarians would make laws to protect children from abusive labor, since they arent anarchists. They just wouldnt force some people to take care of other people. There would still be slums as there currently are in nearly every modern country, because some people cant be helped, and wont help themselves.
 
PoS said:
Here's an interesting tidbit that I stumbled upon while doing research:
Click to expand...

I can confirm that from other reading in political and economic history. You could travel through most of Europe without a passport. Some other countries were similarly liberal in the other things as well.

I thought it was pretty cool, when a freind of my father's first brought it to my attention. I checked it out at the university library later.
 
PeteEU said:
However it also had massive pitfalls .. like child labour, poor houses and mass abuse of people.
Click to expand...

True

It in fact lead to the rise of what libertarians hate most..... socialism.
Click to expand...

Except for Libertarian Socialists.............. the ones everybody hates most
 
PoS said:
Child labor, slums, and all that existed long before the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

....and still do. But some people dislike libertarianism and must always say something against it, even when it has little to do with the concept.
 
Right-libertarianism is an originally American phenomenon and variant that didn't arise until the mid 20th century.

A Englishmen in 1914 or some time before that would likely associate such a term with the left.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Libertarians would make laws to protect children from abusive labor, since they arent anarchists.
Click to expand...
And yet it took trade unionists and left-wing governments to make those laws, because the right never did.

jonny5 said:
They just wouldnt force some people to take care of other people. There would still be slums as there currently are in nearly every modern country, because some people cant be helped, and wont help themselves.
Click to expand...

How are you defining slum? Because I don't think you'll find slums in most Northern European countries. Aren't governments meant to govern for the whole of the population, including the poor?
 
PoS said:
You clearly have no idea what liberterianism means. Kings and queens were not libertarian, they believed in ruling over their subjects.

Please educate yourself before spewing any more nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Click to expand...

Libertarians still believe in ruling over others. By denying people things like universal health care or state education, you're ruling over them by actively preventing them from having something they need.
 
Aristaeus said:
And yet it took trade unionists and left-wing governments to make those laws, because the right never did.



How are you defining slum? Because I don't think you'll find slums in most Northern European countries. Aren't governments meant to govern for the whole of the population, including the poor?
Click to expand...

Trade unions are a very libertarian idea. The essence of free market labor. All govt did was force them on everyone, and look how they control things now. No, government is not supposed to govern. Its supposed to serve the entire populace by protecting their life and freedom. If they want to live in slums, they have a right to. And there are plenty of them too. Look at Detroit.

America's Slums Are Getting Worse As More People Live in Concentrated Poverty - The Atlantic
 
Aristaeus said:
Libertarians still believe in ruling over others. By denying people things like universal health care or state education, you're ruling over them by actively preventing them from having something they need.
Click to expand...

How are they being denied? What libertarian is saying you cant go commune with anyone who wants to and provide each other healthcare? The only thing libertarians deny is the power to force it on others.
 
jonny5 said:
How are they being denied? What libertarian is saying you cant go commune with anyone who wants to and provide each other healthcare? The only thing libertarians deny is the power to force it on others.
Click to expand...

That's (one of the many) reasons why libertarian philosophy soon gets exposed for what it is: the notions a 13 year old boy might have wandering a shopping mall, looking at all the bright primary colors, and the efficient workings of the closed system, and thinking this is great, it's private enterprise, and everything should work like this! Except of course, until the lad starts reading history and sociology and other subjects that give him a more accurate picture of the world.

Health care, or similar large scale insurance schemes, will not work unless there is an overall mandatory system. If left to their own devices, private insurance would only take on good bets, those that are health more or less. The poor or marginalized would be squeezed out due to costs or exclusion. This sound familiar?

If there were no laws on unions and labour relations, private companies would do all they could to limit or exclude unions, because it would definitely be in there interest to do so. They would hire the poor and desperate, find ways to fire organizers, or seek out jurisdictions free of unions. This ring any bells?

In a modern complex society, there is a vast power differential between citizens. Some have a great deal, some have little or none. The average worker would have none in a libertarian theme park, and would soon become prey to the lions and tigers of industry. It is government, and specifically the social programs, civil rights, and labour legislation hard won over the years that equals out power in society.

Libertarianism is for coffee house dreamers and pot smoking nutters like Gary Johnson.
 
Ganesh said:
That's (one of the many) reasons why libertarian philosophy soon gets exposed for what it is: the notions a 13 year old boy might have wandering a shopping mall, looking at all the bright primary colors, and the efficient workings of the closed system, and thinking this is great, it's private enterprise, and everything should work like this! Except of course, until the lad starts reading history and sociology and other subjects that give him a more accurate picture of the world.

Health care, or similar large scale insurance schemes, will not work unless there is an overall mandatory system. If left to their own devices, private insurance would only take on good bets, those that are health more or less. The poor or marginalized would be squeezed out due to costs or exclusion. This sound familiar?

If there were no laws on unions and labour relations, private companies would do all they could to limit or exclude unions, because it would definitely be in there interest to do so. They would hire the poor and desperate, find ways to fire organizers, or seek out jurisdictions free of unions. This ring any bells?

In a modern complex society, there is a vast power differential between citizens. Some have a great deal, some have little or none. The average worker would have none in a libertarian theme park, and would soon become prey to the lions and tigers of industry. It is government, and specifically the social programs, civil rights, and labour legislation hard won over the years that equals out power in society.

Libertarianism is for coffee house dreamers and pot smoking nutters like Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

And people who value freedom over social security. Like the people who created this country.
 
PeteEU said:
Most of pre WW1 world was "libertarian", which is just another word for conservative run. There was not the ability to control people back then as there is now. However it also had massive pitfalls .. like child labour, poor houses and mass abuse of people. It in fact lead to the rise of what libertarians hate most..... socialism.
Click to expand...

Yeah about the backlash leading to socialism, but i don't know about inability to control people. They certainly tried at least - feudalism, laws against negotiating for higher pay and relocating to find other work were attempted in the aftermath of the black death. Then there's the religious wars and persecutions going back millenia. I would also argue that technology in the past 15 years has opened avenues to underground largely automated work that circumvents traditional employment and even taxes

True, back then they didn't have the NSA trying to spy on them every time they take a shower or step outside, like america does now. That's certainly a form of control that very rarely improves security
 
Aristaeus said:
Libertarians still believe in ruling over others. By denying people things like universal health care or state education, you're ruling over them by actively preventing them from having something they need.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest twisted logic I have read so far in these forums, and thats saying something.
 
PoS said:
Here's an interesting tidbit that I stumbled upon while doing research:
Click to expand...

Yikes, this article is misleading.

British citizens attempting not to be conscripted during WWI were subject to detentions camps whose conditions, including beatings led to several deaths. Politically, the pre reform House of Lords served as a balance to his vote and though Northern Ireland could be seen from Scotland, a variety of property requirements, jerry mandered districts, and house hold voting laws kept many of Catholics from voting.
 
Cryptic said:
Yikes, this article is misleading.

British citizens attempting not to be conscripted during WWI were subject to detentions camps whose conditions, including beatings led to several deaths. Politically, the pre reform House of Lords served as a balance to his vote and though Northern Ireland could be seen from Scotland, a variety of property requirements, jerry mandered districts, and house hold voting laws kept many of Catholics from voting.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the words PRE-WW1 means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom