AHC: Earliest possible successful Libertarian movement?

...and its effect on U.S. history.

Has to be:

1. Socially "enlightened" or even "liberal" (in the way Americans typically misdefine the word). If early enough, anti-slavery, pro-women/Catholic/Jew/Immigrant/Minority rights, etc.

2. Fiscally responsible and conservative (again in the American sense).

3. Pro free/fair trade, pro business (big AND small), anti-over regulation.

4. Pro gold, silver, or bimetallist standard.

5. Extremely small government and individual liberty oriented.

6. Pro-military but extremely non-interventionist.

7. Anti National Banks or Federal Reserve.

8. After 1800 and before 1970. Should be pretty interesting to see when you try to do this, so I'll give you a lot of leeway.

I don't think I need to go on...

If I might have a go, I think a TL in which it's Southern Democrats in control of the government in the mid-19th century using their power to extend slavery and a heavily Republican north seceding from the Union (so that State's Rights arguments were used as anti-slavery tools rather than OTL's opposite scenario) and then a reunification occurring later.

It needs fleshing out, but in that scenario the social warriors of the era are also the most vocal proponents of state's rights and small government/limited federal control.

Thoughts?

At any rate, it's your turn.

Bonus points for a POD that surprises me in its earliness!
 
That's going to be problematic, for most of its history libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous at best and close twins at the worst up until Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Much of libertarianism, especially in the US, was based on the ideas of people like Henry David Thoreau which were strongly anti-authoritiarian against all forms of authority, both state and private. Many libertarians up until the 1920s were actively involved in socialist organizations and considered socialism to be a viable route for realizing their goals. It wasn't until much later that libertarianism in the United States started actively courting capitalism as a source of inspiration.
 
4. Pro gold, silver, or bimetallist standard.

I'm not even going to go in to the rest of it because I don't want to start a flamewar, but you have to realize that historically speaking, these are incompatible and mutually contradictory positions in 19th century politics.

Pro-gold meant an adherence to deflation and a fear of inflation, favoring creditors over debtors, and favoring finance over agriculture.

Pro-silver AND bimetallism AND fiat currency advocates wanted inflation as a means of reversing the deflationary trend of the gold standard, to ease the burdens of debtors and farmers at the expense of the bankers, and to spread currency to the cash-poor West and prevent it getting sucked up by the East.

The two sides saw each other as the instruments of the downfall of civilization.
 
That's going to be problematic, for most of its history libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous at best and close twins at the worst up until Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Much of libertarianism, especially in the US, was based on the ideas of people like Henry David Thoreau which were strongly anti-authoritiarian against all forms of authority, both state and private. Many libertarians up until the 1920s were actively involved in socialist organizations and considered socialism to be a viable route for realizing their goals. It wasn't until much later that libertarianism in the United States started actively courting capitalism as a source of inspiration.

Just a note, he's talking about POD's before Anarchism and the word "Libertarianism" as a formal political idea existed. Which means all of this is not only historically simplistic but especially irrelevant. Even if he was talking about later POD's it'd still not matter because we know what he's talking about and he's not talking about Left-Libertarianism. I don't think he cares if the word "Libertarianism" means what Americans say it means currently in this alternate timeline.
 
I think what needs to be pointed out is that all those things listed are not core concepts of Libertarianism in the first place.

Firstly the only major group that advocates the Gold Standard are the Paulites, and whether or not they're actually libertarian is questionable, given Ron Paul himself is only anti-Federal government but does'nt have a problem with the State governments being authoritarian and anti-Freedom.

Secondly being Pro-Military is not a defining characteristic of Libertarianism, and indeed their are probably more that are anti-giant military than their are pro, and that's in the modern day, in the past people, regardless of ideology, were generally suspicious of a large military, hence why America did'nt really develop one until WWI.
 
Last edited:
That's going to be problematic, for most of its history libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous at best and close twins at the worst up until Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Much of libertarianism, especially in the US, was based on the ideas of people like Henry David Thoreau which were strongly anti-authoritiarian against all forms of authority, both state and private. Many libertarians up until the 1920s were actively involved in socialist organizations and considered socialism to be a viable route for realizing their goals. It wasn't until much later that libertarianism in the United States started actively courting capitalism as a source of inspiration.

Well, interpret it as modern American Libertarianism. Minarchism within the confines of a Democratic Republic, with an emphasis on individual liberty.

Sorry.

I'm not even going to go in to the rest of it because I don't want to start a flamewar, but you have to realize that historically speaking, these are incompatible and mutually contradictory positions in 19th century politics.

Pro-gold meant an adherence to deflation and a fear of inflation, favoring creditors over debtors, and favoring finance over agriculture.

Pro-silver AND bimetallism AND fiat currency advocates wanted inflation as a means of reversing the deflationary trend of the gold standard, to ease the burdens of debtors and farmers at the expense of the bankers, and to spread currency to the cash-poor West and prevent it getting sucked up by the East.

The two sides saw each other as the instruments of the downfall of civilization.

I'm talking about a movement that is fundamentally against printing TOO MUCH money to increase inflation regardless of level of debt. Any standard is better than paper to the type of person I'm trying to describe.

I do understand the differences in the three options I described, and was using additional options (other than gold) to allow you to describe any scenario you wish in which gold didn't necessarily have to be king to this movement, but a standard did need to exist.

Preferably Gold.

Successful libertarianism is an oxymoron.

In it's purest form, (the form most often compared with anarchism), I would have to agree. Is there absolutely no way you can inject a slightly more modern American approach to the movement into American history before the movement existed?

I realize it takes a little bit of imagination and originality. I apologize, but that's why it's a Challenge.

Just a note, he's talking about POD's before Anarchism and the word "Libertarianism" as a formal political idea existed. Which means all of this is not only historically simplistic but especially irrelevant. Even if he was talking about later POD's it'd still not matter because we know what he's talking about and he's not talking about Left-Libertarianism. I don't think he cares if the word "Libertarianism" means what Americans say it means currently in this alternate timeline.

I actually don't require the word "Libertarianism" to be used at all. But, since you know exactly what I mean, why not have a go yourself?

Promoting the smallest possible government intervention in the sovereignty of the individual, within the confines of a Democratic Republic.

Socially liberal, fiscally responsible.

Are you suggesting it's impossible? That direct type of answer would be helpful for the reasons why I posed the question in the first place...

(I assumed that was obvious, sorry.)

I think what needs to be pointed out is that all those things listed are not core concepts of Libertarianism in the first place.

Firstly the only major group that advocates the Gold Standard are the Paulites, and whether or not they're actually libertarian is questionable, given Ron Paul himself is only anti-Federal government but does'nt have a problem with the State governments being authoritarian and anti-Freedom.

Secondly being Pro-Military is not a defining characteristic of Libertarianism, and indeed their are probably more that are anti-giant military than their are pro, and that's in the modern day, in the past people in general, regardless of ideology were generally suspecious of a large military, hence why America did'nt really develop one until WWI.

Libertarians of the Gary Johnson variety (and I'm including the man himself) are also pro gold standard, while realizing the difficulty and improbability of that occurring in our current economic and political climate. Those in America who are Libertarians but not Paulites are similarly minded, but most prefer the concept of bitcoin. Would you care to try to fulfill the challenge between 1800 and 1970 using bitcoin? I'm intrigued! (But fear I shall be disappointed...)

Rep. Paul being anti-Federal government (which is untrue, if you did a little more research, the correct description would be anti-too-much-Fed.-government/intervention) means that it would be hypocritical for him to oppressively force a state or local government to change their laws concerning individual liberty. I think Paulites are trying to say: if your state suddenly makes laws against things that feel oppressive or authoritarian to you, move nextdoor to the state that isn't.

And while this is being subtly pushed further out of the forum I desired for it (seeking originality) and into... I don't know... Chat? Modern Libertarians (and Paulites especially) statistically were the most pro-military faction of American politics in the current election, (which is why Dr. Paul got more donor support from American military personnel than any other candidate - before the convention, of course) because not only do they believe the military is one of the few responsibilities of the Federal government, but they also support non-interventionist policies...

Perhaps I should ask for some help here...

Can someone who knows what I meant to say redefine the parameters so that I can avoid getting flamed (which hasn't happened... but neither has any original content attempting to fulfill the challenge...)?

For a TL I'm working on, I REALLY need to know what a movement analogous to today's mainstream American Libertarian (Or a social liberal progressive, fiscal conservative, small government, i.e. Republican Libertarian) movement could be possible and how early.

Nitpicking what I mean, isn't going to help me. You know what I mean. A Ron Paul or Gary Johnson type movement MUCH earlier, in fact as early as possible...

That is why I created a... challenge. I'm a writer, not a candidate. Stop hating and get creative.

Love you guys, thanks!
 

PhilippeO

Banned
what definition of successful ? did it have to survive until 1970 ? if not the only problem is no. 1; 2-7 is not an issue before Gilded Age/Depression.


successful rebellion of the south and new england after defeat in 1812 will make united states lost its pro-slavery and puritan supporter. the new U.S. with weak government and lot of frontier will be 'libertarian state'.
 
Nitpicking what I mean, isn't going to help me. You know what I mean. A Ron Paul or Gary Johnson type movement MUCH earlier, in fact as early as possible...

...

(Or a social liberal progressive, fiscal conservative, small government, i.e. Republican Libertarian)
See, stuff like this makes me doubt I actually know what you mean. Ron Paul is not at all what I would call a social liberal progressive. It's widely known that he has ties to white pride organizations, and he's very anti-abortion, neither of which are positions of someone socially liberal. Most Republican Libertarians also seem to skew in the same way. Not to the same degree necessarily, but they weigh the fiscal part to a much greater degree than the social part. Enough that they'll basically ignore attacks on social liberties if it will get them another tax cut.

Now, if you can accept such a "social liberal progressive (WHITE MEN ONLY), fiscal conservative, small government" Libertarian then it probably becomes easier to make happen before 1900.
 
I actually don't require the word "Libertarianism" to be used at all. But, since you know exactly what I mean, why not have a go yourself?

Promoting the smallest possible government intervention in the sovereignty of the individual, within the confines of a Democratic Republic.

Socially liberal, fiscally responsible.

Are you suggesting it's impossible? That direct type of answer would be helpful for the reasons why I posed the question in the first place...

(I assumed that was obvious, sorry.)

I have not much to say on your question really. We're talking a century a little out of my interests.

From my very non-expert perspective I might say the earliest things that could be done is to cripple Federalism and promote the Anti-Federalists, but not so thoroughly that the USA turns into some kind of Jeffersonian yeoman farmer paradise.

See, stuff like this makes me doubt I actually know what you mean. Ron Paul is not at all what I would call a social liberal progressive. It's widely known that he has ties to white pride organizations, and he's very anti-abortion, neither of which are positions of someone socially liberal. Most Republican Libertarians also seem to skew in the same way. Not to the same degree necessarily, but they weigh the fiscal part to a much greater degree than the social part. Enough that they'll basically ignore attacks on social liberties if it will get them another tax cut.

Now, if you can accept such a "social liberal progressive (WHITE MEN ONLY), fiscal conservative, small government" Libertarian then it probably becomes easier to make happen before 1900.

And this is where it's going to get political, but I just can't stand this stuff. Ron Paul is not "widely known" to have "ties to white pride organisations." Not anymore than say, Obama is "widely known" to have "ties to black nationalist organisations." It's just this repeated thing, usually repeated by liberals to discredit him in order to prevent other liberals from being lured in his by some of his positions.

The CLOSEST that that statement is true is that the White Nationalists like him and they donate to him. My reply to that is "who cares?" They like his non-interventionist policies and his desire to stop funding Israel, and things like him not liking the Civil Rights Act of 1864. All of those things are compatible with them, but his reasoning for advocating those things are completely different from theirs.

Abortion is also something irrelevant to liberalism. That's just some silly hot-button issue that really, isn't political in a significant sense. Besides, this is the part where his "states decide for themselves" thing comes in, since he doesn't actually care if the states legalise abortion.
 
what definition of successful ? did it have to survive until 1970 ? if not the only problem is no. 1; 2-7 is not an issue before Gilded Age/Depression.


successful rebellion of the south and new england after defeat in 1812 will make united states lost its pro-slavery and puritan supporter. the new U.S. with weak government and lot of frontier will be 'libertarian state'.

That's originality.

Can you elaborate?

See, stuff like this makes me doubt I actually know what you mean. Ron Paul is not at all what I would call a social liberal progressive. It's widely known that he has ties to white pride organizations, and he's very anti-abortion, neither of which are positions of someone socially liberal. Most Republican Libertarians also seem to skew in the same way. Not to the same degree necessarily, but they weigh the fiscal part to a much greater degree than the social part. Enough that they'll basically ignore attacks on social liberties if it will get them another tax cut.

Now, if you can accept such a "social liberal progressive (WHITE MEN ONLY), fiscal conservative, small government" Libertarian then it probably becomes easier to make happen before 1900.

With extensive objective research your Chat Section comment boils down to flamebait where a simple mini-TL would suffice. But I'll take the bait.

Dr. Paul has no real or imagined ties to any white pride organizations. The closest thing to that would seem to be a newsletter not written by him but bearing his name which on occasion over twenty-five years ago said less than enlightened things common amongst southern Americans at the time and were disavowed by the man himself once informed about them.

Being personally anti-abortion, or anti-abortion for your constituents as a Congressman is different than believing the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Dr. Paul's books specifically state that, while he is against abortion personally due to experiences sustained by himself and the women and babies he treated and delivered as an OB/gyn for over 4,000 births, he is opposed to the United States government enforcing any policy that bans abortions at a Federal level.

Now, it seemed like you had an idea or two about how to make this happen. If you'd care to make it happen (sans the racism you're inventing and focusing far too heavily upon) I'd be interested in reading it.

Again, I'm not asking for a political discussion or a flame war, I'm asking for a TL. I recall there being writers on this site at one time, but since I graduated (and am no longer a slightly post-adolescent communist like everyone else seems to be here) I must have missed that moment when all the writers here turned into pundits, ripping aside the merits of creation in favor of witty-but-asinine vitriol of which their neocon aunts, Rachell Maddow uncles, or underpaid professors would be exceedingly proud.

If there's nothing else, would anyone like to attempt to answer the challenge of making an Individual liberties/sovereignty movement in this country work without advocating either too much government spending or ANY social prejudice between the years of 1800 and 1970?

For Christ's sake...
 
I have not much to say on your question really. We're talking a century a little out of my interests.

From my very non-expert perspective I might say the earliest things that could be done is to cripple Federalism and promote the Anti-Federalists, but not so thoroughly that the USA turns into some kind of Jeffersonian yeoman farmer paradise.



And this is where it's going to get political, but I just can't stand this stuff. Ron Paul is not "widely known" to have "ties to white pride organisations." Not anymore than say, Obama is "widely known" to have "ties to black nationalist organisations." It's just this repeated thing, usually repeated by liberals to discredit him in order to prevent other liberals from being lured in his by some of his positions.

The CLOSEST that that statement is true is that the White Nationalists like him and they donate to him. My reply to that is "who cares?" They like his non-interventionist policies and his desire to stop funding Israel, and things like him not liking the Civil Rights Act of 1864. All of those things are compatible with them, but his reasoning for advocating those things are completely different from theirs.

Abortion is also something irrelevant to liberalism. That's just some silly hot-button issue that really, isn't political in a significant sense. Besides, this is the part where his "states decide for themselves" thing comes in, since he doesn't actually care if the states legalise abortion.

You are the most intelligent and polite person I have ever run across in the years I have been a member here, comment-wise. You are not irritatingly vocal in your public loyalty to any one group but you are well-informed about them all. Thank you.

On to the challenge:

My first thought was semi-Jeffersonian in nature but, as you said, with the realism of knowing that this nation MUST have a federal government and, while it can intervene ONLY minimally in the state and local government and the individual's life for this challenge, it also must be strong enough to defend us, to allow and promote fiscally liberal platforms to improve our nation when there is a surplus and to limit them when there is a deficit. etc.

Yeoman's paradise we could never be, but what if Washington had a slightly different personality and sided strongly with the anti-Federalists and Republicans? Say in a TL where Alexander Hamilton died heroically in the Revolution, Thomas Jefferson was the first Vice President, and John Adams' wildly successful European trips tragically ended in illness and death?

That's an easier TL to construct than the reverse Civil War concept I had. Do you have any further thoughts?
 
Apparently my views are not much appreciated here, but I'll at least attempt to counter the claim that what I posted was flame bait. Just because I strongly disagree does not make what I post flame bait.

And this is where it's going to get political, but I just can't stand this stuff.
Without properly defining the goal, how do you expect people to meet the challenge?

Ron Paul is not "widely known" to have "ties to white pride organisations." Not anymore than say, Obama is "widely known" to have "ties to black nationalist organisations." It's just this repeated thing, usually repeated by liberals to discredit him in order to prevent other liberals from being lured in his by some of his positions.
Maybe I should have worded it differently? At best his newsletter "Used racist language, in a very cynical manner, in an attempt to spread Libertarian thought among the most racist segments of the population." Being the head of an organization (RP&A) that publishes as much racist thought as it did certainly counts as a tie to white pride organizations to me. I don't care what they themselves describe it as, I care about the content.

The CLOSEST that that statement is true is that the White Nationalists like him and they donate to him. My reply to that is "who cares?" They like his non-interventionist policies and his desire to stop funding Israel, and things like him not liking the Civil Rights Act of 1864. All of those things are compatible with them, but his reasoning for advocating those things are completely different from theirs.

Abortion is also something irrelevant to liberalism. That's just some silly hot-button issue that really, isn't political in a significant sense. Besides, this is the part where his "states decide for themselves" thing comes in, since he doesn't actually care if the states legalise abortion.
"States rights" is just a way for socially regressive states to fight against social liberties. You only really need to hear his speech about how the South was justified in secession to see that he does not count black people as part of the people who's consent is required in a republic.

Dr. Paul has no real or imagined ties to any white pride organizations. The closest thing to that would seem to be a newsletter not written by him but bearing his name which on occasion over twenty-five years ago said less than enlightened things common amongst southern Americans at the time and were disavowed by the man himself once informed about them.
On occasion = a whole hunch of times, less than enlightened = disturbingly racist. And as for him disavowing them, that seems to have happened in chunks, depending on how much he felt he had to lose by not doing so.

Being personally anti-abortion, or anti-abortion for your constituents as a Congressman is different than believing the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Dr. Paul's books specifically state that, while he is against abortion personally due to experiences sustained by himself and the women and babies he treated and delivered as an OB/gyn for over 4,000 births, he is opposed to the United States government enforcing any policy that bans abortions at a Federal level.
So, he is only opposed to the federal government enforcing a ban, but not state governments? I can't really see the difference here, all you're doing is changing who are reducing liberties.

Now, it seemed like you had an idea or two about how to make this happen. If you'd care to make it happen (sans the racism you're inventing and focusing far too heavily upon) I'd be interested in reading it.
I'm neither inventing the racism, nor focusing too heavily on it. Not dealing with racism as a libertarian is basically the same as fighting for white rights only, as white people hold much more power than racial minorities. If you don't deal with that, the racist populace in a libertarian state will cause the racial minorities to suffer much more discrimination than in a state where the central government actually attempts to counter this.

(and am no longer a slightly post-adolescent communist like everyone else seems to be here) I must have missed that moment when all the writers here turned into pundits, ripping aside the merits of creation in favor of witty-but-asinine vitriol of which their neocon aunts, Rachell Maddow uncles, or underpaid professors would be exceedingly proud.
And you're talking about flame bait. I attack Ron Paul's views, you attack me and the other posters of AH.com.

I doubt we have much we agree on, but if you wish to continue this then let's take it somewhere else.
 
I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is.

Some discussion threads actually seem to invite discussion. They throw out an idea.

The intent of InfiniteApe seems to be much more specific, his 'idea' is followed by a set of very specific criteria. It appears to be to encourage a lot of other people to roll up their sleeves and write a timeline for him to tailored to his own interests and inclinations.

I don't think that's really going to happen in any meaningful way. Rather I'd expect things to derail rapidly, as is happening.

My instinctive reaction is: Do the work and write your own darned timeline.
 
Top