Sunday, April 17, 2005
I'm on a roll today
Libertarianism -- I don't get it.
People are social animals. We live in socities. As societies get big and complicated, we need rules to govern them. Every body would basically agree with that. Too disagree would mean to be an anarchist, as if such a world were even possible.
So basically the debate is over how many rules are too many. Socialists want a lot of rules. Liberals (big L) want the rules to serve as the floor for what we consider acceptable, and then above that to have mininal rules. That is, unless there is a policy reason for not trusting the free market. Libertarians say no rules -- but what they really mean, from the above (because we need SOME rules) are minimal rules.
Libertarians believe that economic and civil freedom are inextricably tied -- as they most certainly are. BUT, in my opinion, they commit a fatal fallacy of logic. The libertarians have an idea -- and a valid one. But it is simply not in congruence with reality. That, however, doesn't prevent them from holding onto the idea.
YES, at the extreme, the restriction of economic freedom would effectively (and unacceptably) limit personal political freedom, but guess what, that's simply not the case in America. People may be poor in America, but if anything, the rules protect their political freedoms, rather than hindering them. I hardly think that a return to the golden age of robber barons will emancipate the politically downtrodden.
Also, many libertarians argue that the market can largely control itself -- to which I say bullshit. Exhibit A -- the industrial period before maximum hour and minimum wage laws. People were unacceptably abused by market forces.
AND EVEN IF the market could control such things, the shock of removing the rules that people had relied on would create an unacceptably severe transition period. For example (and I grant that this is an extreme example), imagine if Social Security ended tomorrow. Sure, my generation would get around it, but imagine the millions who had relied on that money being there for them.
Basically, I think Libertarians are hard-hearted. And coming from me that says something. I also lack their faith in the free market. The free market is a great thing, and the relative lack of regulation in America is certainly one of our greatest strengths, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially just because Ayn Rand told you so.
I do think that Libertarianism appeals to people because you get to be a moral liberal and a fiscal conservative all at the same time. The fact that your mind can maintain this dichotomy of opinions, AND that you have theoretical foundation for your split point of view, must make you feel like a highly enlightened soul.
|
People are social animals. We live in socities. As societies get big and complicated, we need rules to govern them. Every body would basically agree with that. Too disagree would mean to be an anarchist, as if such a world were even possible.
So basically the debate is over how many rules are too many. Socialists want a lot of rules. Liberals (big L) want the rules to serve as the floor for what we consider acceptable, and then above that to have mininal rules. That is, unless there is a policy reason for not trusting the free market. Libertarians say no rules -- but what they really mean, from the above (because we need SOME rules) are minimal rules.
Libertarians believe that economic and civil freedom are inextricably tied -- as they most certainly are. BUT, in my opinion, they commit a fatal fallacy of logic. The libertarians have an idea -- and a valid one. But it is simply not in congruence with reality. That, however, doesn't prevent them from holding onto the idea.
YES, at the extreme, the restriction of economic freedom would effectively (and unacceptably) limit personal political freedom, but guess what, that's simply not the case in America. People may be poor in America, but if anything, the rules protect their political freedoms, rather than hindering them. I hardly think that a return to the golden age of robber barons will emancipate the politically downtrodden.
Also, many libertarians argue that the market can largely control itself -- to which I say bullshit. Exhibit A -- the industrial period before maximum hour and minimum wage laws. People were unacceptably abused by market forces.
AND EVEN IF the market could control such things, the shock of removing the rules that people had relied on would create an unacceptably severe transition period. For example (and I grant that this is an extreme example), imagine if Social Security ended tomorrow. Sure, my generation would get around it, but imagine the millions who had relied on that money being there for them.
Basically, I think Libertarians are hard-hearted. And coming from me that says something. I also lack their faith in the free market. The free market is a great thing, and the relative lack of regulation in America is certainly one of our greatest strengths, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially just because Ayn Rand told you so.
I do think that Libertarianism appeals to people because you get to be a moral liberal and a fiscal conservative all at the same time. The fact that your mind can maintain this dichotomy of opinions, AND that you have theoretical foundation for your split point of view, must make you feel like a highly enlightened soul.
|
