I'll start at the end. You said:
You are very articulate, obviously intelligent, probably well educated, either through schooling or private study, so you should be able to answer the question without the use of other's words.
I look forward to your reply.
Do you think my previous responses were written by someone else? I spent a great deal of time explaining the distinctions (so that we can be very clear thinkers) around the topic of rights and obligations. I did this because you asked, and because you said that you were "sincere". Quoting a source is not answering with the "use of other's words", especially if the very topic in question was the viewpoint of the individuals quoted. These responses are my own, and I will draw on facts. Facts matter. They will be cited.
You do realize, that in the United States, people have been lifted out of poverty in a large measure due to the activities of liberals?
I disagree. I think you have it exactly backwards. Brace for impact because here comes some charts. Here is a common povery rate chart, from census.gov:
This chart seems to bolster your view. Before the Great Society, there was the New Deal, and look at that drop! Now zoom out a bit (chart from the World Bank)
See the problem? The free market was bringing down poverty rapidly long before any of the interventions you reference. From this viewpoint, it seems to level off right around the mid 1930s, right around the time New Deal came into view. The historical decline in poverty didn't happen because of "liberal" policies. It happened in spite of "liberal" policies.
In the early 20th century, at a time when philanthropy by private individuals, family, churches and charities (the libertarian idea of the best way to help the poor) were the only options for aid, the rates of extreme poverty were magnitudes higher than today.
Yes, they were higher than today - because it has been coming down since then. But please reference the chart above. It takes time for capital accumulation and production to improve the standard of living. You can't compare the poverty level 100 years ago to today in absolute terms and conclude your statement above. Also, the poverty level of the 20th century wasn't due to a lack of charity. Charity was alive and well before the government took it over.
At the end of the 19th century, we were much closer to a libertarian society than we are today. At one time, before we had entitlements, there were large numbers of people living on the streets of New York's Bowery. Were they too lazy to better themselves, could they all, by dint of hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, become wealthy?
There are people living in the streets today. Have you seen San Francisco lately? There are actual phone apps for San Francisco that tell you where the drugs needles and human feces are located. Do you think San Francisco is a bastion of Libertarian policy?
In the end, the problem with your line of reasoning is you are giving the market's credit to government entitlements. This is a myth. The market works, always has, always will - as long as rights and freedom are preserved. It is not uncommon for the government to swoop in at the end, enact a government program (and usually not by public demand, usually by small statist activists that "sell" it), and then take credit for it. I mean, look at your statement above. You think the government is responsible for the market's success.
I never see libertarians like Ron Paul advocate everyone starting from scratch, each with the same resources, property, and education. It's more like, "let's live under Libertarian principles starting right now!" while retaining all the property and advantages they've accrued up till this moment.
Why do you think a Libertarian should advocate for 1) confiscating everyone's resources and then 2) reallocated them to then 3) start over? You don't think that if you confiscated the capital of even local businesses, you would .. you know... perhaps destroy the business entirely?
You point out the many failures of Socialism, while never giving any examples of the successes of pure Libertarian societies. And why is that?
"Pure" Libertarianism would require you to define what "Pure" Libertarianism means, and we already went over the fact that it is a spectrum. What I'm talking about here is having a functioning market. One of the things that underpins a market is private property rights. Private property rights are derived from natural rights.
If you remember, from the first post that started our exchange, the paper Mises wrote was to logically demonstrate why a total Socialist society (public ownership of the means of production) would fail, even granting the crazy assertion that human nature can change. He concluded there would be no way to objectively allocate resources. It would be arbitrary, and the economy would quickly fall apart. This has been demonstrably true. Some attempts last a while because, **and only because**, the socialist regime decides to keep aspects of the market economy, or they can reference prices from neighboring countries. In other words, they can "play market".
The closer you get to a market economy, the more prosperous. The farther away, the more extreme the resource mis-allocation will be. As you say, this country was much more "Libertarian" near its inception. Now, please reference the previous chart.
Whereas Socialism seems appealing in many ways, most would agree that it requires a mix of some socialist ideas with capitalism, to achieve a fair balance. Despite your declarations of doom, countries with such socialist ideas as free healthcare and education, haven't fallen into ruin. You proclaiming they're on the slippery slope to total collapse doesn't make it so.
I have outlined objective reasons why Socialism fails. Each and every country in history to try a largely socialistic economy has failed, and the failure was never pretty. It many cases it was slow decline into starvation and death, enforced by people not so different than our current "leftist" party. It doesn't matter what "most would agree" upon. This, too, is a logical fallacy. Mises also wrote about the nature of socialism to "creep" along. Once you introduce it into an industry, even in small amounts, it will inevitably cause resource mis-allocation problems (per his previous treatise). This will cause a measure of pain and suffering, suffering that the government will gladly attribute to the market and proudly answer with a new government program. But of course, this causes more problems. More unforeseen, unintended consequences. This has been the pattern throughout history. Admittedly those "balanced" societies will maintain their current standard of living as long as they don't let socialism creep any further. Of course, they would do much better if they rolled it back. The US is NOT going the right way. We have crazy socialists (actual declared socialists) pushing a "Green New Deal". All the while, the social Marxists are attempting to undermine/conflate fundamental rights with entitlements, topping it off with a creamy helping of attempted hate speech laws.
Without making me wade through hours of tedious, biased videos, and hundreds of pages of charts, diagrams and theoretical opinions. can you, in your own words, explain why no one has attempted setting up a pure Libertarian society, or, if they have, what was the result?
I am a "minarchist" Libertarian. The US was, at one time, pretty close to this. (See chart above)