Can you explain the voluntary and benevolent nature of private plantation owners in the South in the 18th and 19th century? Or perhaps worker protections in the industrial era?
Lol, are you kidding me?
Self-Ownership and individualism are the foundation of Anarcho-Capitalism(libertarian philosophy). Property rights are an extension of self-ownership; you own the fruits of your labor. So no, slavery isn't ok with me.
The historical fact that should be more recognized is that the state
sanctioned slavery.
The
state would catch and return "escaped" slaves back to their "owners". If you got rid of that state, then the catching of slaves would become a cost of
those private individuals owning slaves, rather than a socialized cost on all the people.
But why is being a slave to the state ok with you?
Having your money stolen from you
(thru taxation and inflation) is the same as working for free. Can the government draft you into a war you don't believe in?
Yes. Can they tax your home and other property you own?
Yes. Both of those violate the self-ownership principle. The government does, in fact, claims ownership of you.
We can't say slavery has ended when you are forced to pay taxes upon acquiring an income beyond a rather low threshold.
________________________________________
Also, what about historical government discrimination like jim crow laws and race-based immigrations laws:
GOVERNMENT, DISCRIMINATION, TRADE AND IMMIGRATION
Free markets help facilitate cultural exchange and learning. Trade is win-win and
mutually beneficial for both parties; It also deters conflict since both parties become interdependent and will more likely rely on
negotiation to solve conflict, instead of violence. Think about the silk road. Or look into the real history
real history of the wild west; many different people from various countries interacting without a state monopoly present and doing so in a peaceful manner.
SHORT VIDEO: Myth--The Wild West | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The state is usually the one that mandates segregation
(Jim Crow laws etc...) between people based on imaginary boarders, inflationary wars, or fictitious concepts like "patriotism". In a free society people would move freely and trade frequently.
In a free society you bear the cost of your behavior. If you discriminate you loose business and your reputation is lost with customers who don't agree.
The cost of your behavior is privatized directly to you, instead of socializing the cost by using the state to enforce discriminatory laws onto everyone.
Or the lassiez faire approach to addressing the Great Depression by Hoover?
Lassiez-faire is a meaningless term as long as government intervention in the market exists:
The most comprehensive discussion on the subject can be found
here by Murray Rothbard. To summarize quickly, Rothbard painfully details the acts taken by the Federal Reserve during the 1920s that pushed an expansionary monetary policy. Rothbard also documents politicians' continual push for price supports and interventions in the economy. Most importantly, Rothbard shows year by year how
incredibly interventionist the Hoover Administration was and how important they felt intervention was in saving the economy, all while restricting the market from liquidating the bad credit from the bubble, thus widening and deepening the depression.
And if you'd like to know more about the corporatist New Deal Policies, which were chillingly parallel to contemporaneous fascist policies, you can read about that
here and
here. Also,
these blog
posts add some more info.
Resources:
Austrian School:
Reasons for the Depression.
I wonder what
r/libertarian thinks.