hold up. in no way is/was Saipan a paradise of libertarian economic governance. From your article: "If we complain, then our bosses would send us back to China and take away all of our money. Our families need the money."

No libertarian I know, me included, would object to (rather, we would support) massive penalties for any entity that engaged in such behavior.

Additionally, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay are the exact opposite of anything/anyone a libertarian would endorse.

I really encourage you to learn about Libertarianism because if you really believe Saipan 20 years ago was a "paradise of libertarian economic governance" you are farrrr off the mark.

And how do you imagine these "massive penalties" would be enforced? Perhaps by government regulation? Can't recall the last time I heard a Libertarian talk about a lack of that, or say anything favorable about labor unions. I think a lot of Libertarians think of Libertarianism as economic Conservatism, except it all works out magically because Free Markets and legal marijuana! Both sides tend to have an misplaced trust in the free markets to solve problems, and have a knee-jerk reaction against any increase in the size of Big Government, new regulations or labor union-strengthening measures.

I've been both a conservative and libertarian myself in the past, and I would agree that these outcomes are not considered desirable by adherents of those viewpoints, but unfortunately this sort of thing is very often the result of the policies and philosophy they thought would make everyone's lives better.

My two cents. Or if I'm more honest, Thomas Frank's two cents. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wrecking-Crew-Conservatives-Govern... Good read, that.

"Free Markets and legal marijuana!" You're clearly not interested in having a civil discussion. If I were as childish as you, I would respond that you believe in "Socialism and the Drug war!" (both proven failures)

I am only replying for the sake of people who may not have been introduced to Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is absolutely reliant on property rights and contract rights. Both of which must be enforced by a government and were violated in the example above. The huge penalties would be levied by a court.

The regulation that most Libertarians oppose is more akin to the current situation. There are vast regulations on Wall Street (and resources expended putting them in place) but when rampant fraud becomes evident not a single prosecution is made. In the meantime, the barrier to entry is raised and competition is stifled with further meaningless regulation as the Government sells it self to special interests (while claiming "reform"). Other examples: illegal wars, illegal torture, illegal surveillance. No one held accountable.

Your post amounts to "you're against meaningless/hurtful regulation? anarchy doesnt work!!!"

I think the "paradise of libertarian economic governance" was sarcasm

seemed to me like he was suggesting the form of governance in place in Saipan 20 years ago was in some way consistent with Libertarian ideals - it was not.